2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
InfiniteBoredom said:
Just a hunch, I think she will avoid the Middle East altogether while paying the usual lip service to the foreign policy establishment. The Clintons have had a long time ambition in curbing the growth of China, expect a lot of outreach to India and SEA nations, as well as their traditional allies (SK + Japan).

If she wins a second term, she'll pass TPP.
Click to expand...

Again, I very much doubt it.

US-Israeli relations have slightly degraded under Obama, so she'll seek to do the best she can to restore them to an all time high to please the Israeli Lobbyists since she's a darling to them. She's also close to the Saudis, so I can imagine the usual anti-Iran posturing, which will incidentally also make the Israelis happy.
 
Let's hope the people rise against crooked Hillary and her ilk.
May there be another Brexit-like result!
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Israel needs to stop building settlements, the Palestinians need to accept that certain demands just won't be met. It's possible and will happen when both people have had enough.
Click to expand...

To be fair, its hard to mediate a settlement when the US is so heavily backing one side at the expense of the other. Unfortunately, Hillary will probably push back the peace process many years.
 
Kaos said:
She tends to do a 180 when her views are no longer popular (Iraq war, gay marriage etc) which you've identified correctly. The trouble is the US public don't care about the Israel-Palestinian conflict for the most part, and those that do tend to support Israel out of some Judeo-Christian loyalty and the fact they're fighting the 'Muslim side'. So in such case she'll just seek to continue pleasing the pro-Israel lobbyists as she's always done. Obama was probably the most critical president of Israel in decades, and even he would have no qualms about vetoing any condemnation of the Israeli illegal settlement program in the UNSC. Hillary will much be worse.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying I'm overly optimistic, I'm just saying that it is possible. Being a staunch advocate of a certain cause at a lower level doesn't equate to advocacy of the same cause at a higher level (because more extraneous factors are influencing your decision making).

That's what I mean about popular opinion -- Clinton courts it, and in many respects, is quick to respond to it. It's her biggest strength as a politician in my opinion. And whilst the Israeli/Palestinian issue isn't mainstream at the moment, one can only be happy at the sight of Sanders espousing more reasonable views on these issues, and at the fact that his base of support is one which also needs to be courted in the long term. Sanders' ideology, for now at least, is the ideology of American millennials who are Democratically inclined.
 
Kaos said:
Again, I very much doubt it.

US-Israeli relations have slightly degraded under Obama, so she'll seek to do the best she can to restore them to an all time high to please the Israeli Lobbyists since she's a darling to them. She's also close to the Saudis, so I can imagine the usual anti-Iran posturing, which will incidentally also make the Israelis happy.
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton is many things, but she's not driven by ideology. Great love for Israelis isn't high on her list.

There's a resignation and apathy in the US regarding Middle East's affairs, from both sides (not counting the neocons). I still expect drone strikes, I still expect arms and money funnelling, but I don't expect her to get bogged down in there given her precarious domestic position. She'll find a consensus regarding foreign policy that she can pursue with minimal blowback, and its China currently (Mike Pence: I support the TPP. Trades mean economic benefits, but also security).

Much of it'll ride on the fortune of ISIS, of course. She's proven times and again she would avoid looking weak as much as possible.
 
Has anyone got a timetable of when things happen in UK time? E.g. polls open, voting closes, first results etc...
 
NinjaFletch said:
Has anyone got a timetable of when things happen in UK time? E.g. polls open, voting closes, first results etc...
Click to expand...
Here's a timeline of when polling closes, results tend to come out pretty quickly:

 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Hillary Clinton is many things, but she's not driven by ideology. Great love for Israelis isn't high on her list.

There's a resignation and apathy in the US regarding Middle East's affairs, from both sides (not counting the neocons). I still expect drone strikes, I still expect arms and money funnelling, but I don't expect her to get bogged down in there given her precarious domestic position. She'll find a consensus regarding foreign policy that she can pursue with minimal blowback, and its China currently (Mike Pence: I support the TPP. Trades mean economic benefits, but also security).

Much of it'll ride on the fortune of ISIS, of course. She's proven times and again she would avoid looking weak as much as possible.
Click to expand...

She's not driven by ideology (because she doesn't have one), but rather by polls, corporate interests and lobbyists, and its the latter group which has constantly been whispering in her ear when it comes to foreign endeavours. The Iraq war, Libya and also pushing for conflict Syria.

I wish I shared your optimism on her hands-off approach, but in the debates she's discussed enforcing a no-fly zone in Syria, something even Donald feckin Trump has considered a terrible idea. Its one thing to get involved in yet another middle eastern country, its another potentially provoking your nuclear-ridden superpower rival.

And you'll probably disagree, but I'd put her firmly in the neocon camp, at least with foreign affairs.
 
They usually hold off on calling eastern and central states until after the west coast polls close (so as not to unduly influence the voting there?) which is 7pm PST, iirc. That's 8 hours behind the UK, so 3am on Wed in the UK.

But some news will be coming out of Ohio, FL, NH, VA, NC, etc a bit sooner, especially if it's not close, as early as midnight Tues, UK time.
 
Kaos said:
She's not driven by ideology (because she doesn't have one), but rather by polls, corporate interests and lobbyists, and its the latter group which has constantly been whispering in her ear when it comes to foreign endeavours. The Iraq war, Libya and also pushing for conflict Syria.

I wish I shared your optimism on her hands-off approach, but in the debates she's discussed enforcing a no-fly zone in Syria, something even Donald feckin Trump has considered a terrible idea. Its one thing to get involved in yet another middle eastern country, its another potentially provoking your nuclear-ridden superpower rival.

And you'll probably disagree, but I'd put her firmly in the neocon camp, at least with foreign affairs.
Click to expand...


You don't half post a lot of bollocks for an intelligent person. You'll be proven wrong as time goes by but probably won't have the guts to admit it.
 
utdalltheway said:
They usually hold off on calling eastern and central states until after the west coast polls close (so as not to unduly influence the voting there?) which is 7pm PST, iirc. That's 8 hours behind the UK, so 3am on Wed in the UK.

But some news will be coming out of Ohio, FL, NH, VA, NC, etc a bit sooner, especially if it's not close, as early as midnight Tues, UK time.
Click to expand...
Not from my memory, they'd hold off calling a Dem victory till then because they wouldn't have 270 votes, but I'm quite sure they call individual states when they're able.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
It would be pretty great if she just carried on Obama's policies with regard to foreign policy. They're definitely not perfect (you can criticise a lot of them), but in a pragmatic world I think it's going to be difficult to get any better.
Click to expand...

I sincerely hope she doesn't. One of the main reasons I support her is because I want the US to play a more proactive leadership role in the world - starting with dealing with Russia.
 
Grinner said:
You don't half post a lot of bollocks for an intelligent person. You'll be proven wrong as time goes by but probably won't have the guts to admit it.
Click to expand...

I'd be delighted to be proven wrong, honestly. Feel free to quote me in a few years time and I'll swallow my pride if need be.
 
Kaos said:
I wish I shared your optimism on her hands-off approach, but in the debates she's discussed enforcing a no-fly zone in Syria, something even Donald feckin Trump has considered a terrible idea. Its one thing to get involved in yet another middle eastern country, its another potentially provoking your nuclear-ridden superpower rival.
Click to expand...

Not so much optimism really, I'm a Clinton enthusiast (my introduction into US politics was because of my mom's admiration for Slick Willie), so that's my expectation on the way she'll operate, based on all that I've read, watched and listened to over the years. Regarding my belief in the goodness of humanity, probably as big a cynic as you can find.

And you'll probably disagree, but I'd put her firmly in the neocon camp, at least with foreign affairs.
Click to expand...

I do understand where you are coming from, but the problem is systematic, not just limited to any particular individual. The fact is both major party by and large only differed on whether to engage in a conflict; once they have entered the fray, the way they approach the situation is mostly formulated from the same school of expansionist imperialism that typified US foreign policy from Eisenhower onwards.
 
Raoul said:
I sincerely hope she doesn't. One of the main reasons I support her is because I want the US to play a more proactive leadership role in the world - starting with dealing with Russia.
Click to expand...
How are you supposed to deal with Russia, though. Sanctions? And for which transgressions? If she goes after Russia I think it will end in tears (and possibly a lot worse).
 
A female Trump supporter getting an utter grilling on Sky News right now.:lol:
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
How are you supposed to deal with Russia, though. Sanctions? And for which transgressions? If she goes after Russia I think it will end in tears (and possibly a lot worse).
Click to expand...

More sanctions of course, they are an effective tool to contain economically weak states like Russia who are destabilizing Europe. She also needs to have a more forward leaning policy on a variety of other areas. The trouble with Obama's policies is they have been far too hands off which has helped embolden the likes of Russia and ISIS.
 
Kaos said:
You're preaching to the choir regarding Trump. No idea what the feck you're on about regarding Macedonia.
Click to expand...
Apparently that's where the majority of online support for Trump originates. Check it out, it's pretty crazy.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
How are you supposed to deal with Russia, though. Sanctions? And for which transgressions? If she goes after Russia I think it will end in tears (and possibly a lot worse).
Click to expand...

I think annexing a chunk of your neighbor is quite frankly big enough transgression entailing much more than just sanctions coming your way.
 
Raoul said:
More sanctions of course, they are an effective tool to contain economically weak states like Russia who are destabilizing Europe. She also needs to have a more forward leaning policy on a variety of other areas. The trouble with Obama's policies is they have been far too hands off which has helped embolden the likes of Russia and ISIS.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I honestly don't mind how she plays the foreign policy game with Russia so long as she plays it well -- not overly hawkish. Diplomacy, is what the world needs.
 
The Firestarter said:
I think annexing a chunk of your neighbor is quite frankly big enough transgression entailing much more than just sanctions coming your way.
Click to expand...
Had more to do with Russia's security than anything else -- it's a pivotal naval base which Russia relies on to project military power. It was against international law, but I can see their reasoning. The US would have done the same in a similar situation (historically, it has).

I would add, that of course internal politics had a lot to do with it as well. Putin appearing as a "strongman" in the face of perceived Western aggression is pivotal to him retaining control of the country.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Had more to do with Russia's security than anything else -- it's a pivotal naval base which Russia relies on to project military power. It was against international law, but I can see their reasoning. The US would have done the same in a similar situation (historically, it has).
Click to expand...
Tell me the last time the United States has occupied AND annexed within a month a territory belonging to a sovereign country?
 
The Firestarter said:
Tell me the last time the United States has occupied AND annexed within a month a territory belonging to a sovereign country?
Click to expand...
Chunks of Iraq -- the world's largest military styled embassy which acts as a strategic base in the Middle East.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.