Half Moon Bay Review
 
 
 
 
 
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

The Dem Candidates: Foreign Policy Views Guide

Handy summary put together by the Foreign Policy Research Institute

Web Link


Comments

Good resource. Jim Webb is the best of the bunch on foreign policy. He wasn't for the 2003 Iraq war like Hillary was, is against the bad Iran deal, is against the trade deal, is for a strong military, and is for stopping the invasion via our southern border.


Webb is thrice married. Does that play into your opinion of him at all?

Just curious.


It's not a plus, that's for sure. And he's also said to be pretty arrogant although not to the same level as Mrs Clinton. I don't know enough about him to comment more.


What do you think?


Here is a quick quiz to help you figure out which candidate (D or R) most closely matches your views. The cool thing is that it lets you write in an answer if you don't like the options.

Web Link


I really like Jim, but, unfortunately, he hasn't a snowball's chance in hell getting the Democratic Party's nod.

The impression is that he's too Conservative. He also lacks the kind of charisma, good or bad, that Bernie or Hillary have. Dems love how angry Hillary makes Republicans. It's the "enemy of my enemy" effect. And a lot of Dems are feeling like they finally have a true progressive in Bernie.

Webb would have run as a Republican in 1998. That's how crazy this has all gotten. When he ran for Senate as a Democrat, he included a clip of an endorsement by the former POTUS Ronald Reagan in a campaign ad. Nancy asked that he not include it and he said, "Sorry, it's the truth.". Good for him. Shows backbone.


Being born and raised in DC, then moving to N VA at 14, I still have a lot of very good friends there.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I have bias regarding Webb from seeing his work and listening to my friends. They are not particularly thrilled with him and think his chances are zero.

Now that may be wishful thinking on their part, or it may be very real. I just don't know as whatever he's done has not impacted me in any way and aside from my friends opinions, I've had no real reason to pay attention.

If, however, I were pushed now, I'd say he has an uphill battle with me - but let's see how it plays out. Oh, and the married 3 times thing is very troubling to me. If he has that much turnover in his most intimate decisions, how would that be played out as President? That's why I asked you what you thought.


Oh, and the married 3 times thing is very troubling to me.

The correlation between success in marriage and success in career is weak at best. One of the things NO ONE gets training in when they're growing-up is how to pick and keep a partner. You're on your own on that subject. So, when it comes to that part of life, I remain agnostic.


I can understand that argument, but when it comes to deciding who will be our next President, it is a very telling indicator for me.

It's one thing to meet someone at some event, for example, and make your judgment then on any exchanges you may have with another. Married 3 times or 10 times really doesn't make to much difference to me there, although still an indicator; but someone wanting to be our President? It makes a huge difference then, imho.

Again, if someone is that confused(?), that flexible (?), that unknowing (?), it can't help but make one question why.

I don't need that added "benefit" in our next President.

I realize that a lifelong partner is something that many change over the years - once; learning from their mistakes and the mistakes of their first partner - but 3 times? Maybe it's the charm; who knows?

But, I will watch and listen. I'm not closed on Webb; he just has a rougher road than the others, as I stated above.


We've recently had worse for president in the marriage department.


The mideast is on fire, unemployment remains unexceptionally high (particularly for minority youth), and folks are worried about how many times a candidate has been married?

^^^ Here is a quick quiz to help you figure out which candidate (D or R) most closely matches your views. ^^^

BS at 13%!

I must be slipping a bit.


The mideast is on fire, unemployment remains unexceptionally high (particularly for minority youth), and folks are worried about how many times a candidate has been married?

I agree.

Time to stop focusing on people's private lives and time for the Republicans to take the bull by the horns and get this economy heated up. Let's go folks!


Yeah, I must be out of my mind taking character into consideration when thinking about who to vote for. To some, character has no definition or place. Just take a look at all 17 of the republican candidates for an example; but silly me, I care about things like that.

As to all that is happening, whatever it is will still be there for whoever wins - even though what you mention is entirely off-base factually (again).

unemployment rate going back to 2000; Web Link As anyone with even fair vision can see, the current unemployment number is very near historical lows at 5.3%. For comparison purposes, just look for the very tip top of the unemployment line in the graph and you will see it correlates with the most recent Bush admin. It looks that way because it was that way. So when one mentions the current unemployment rate, it would be advised that the one mentioning it have some sort of factual basis - which francis dos not...and therefor demonstrates both his ignorance in current economic affairs and his ignorance in when to keep his fingers off the keyboard.

As to "The mideast is on fire", would you be so kind as to actually pinpoint the fire? Best I can tell, I haven't seen anything on a mideast fire, but then again You are so much more in tune with world affairs, aren't you francis.

What a putz.


George, these are bad and dangerous times in the Middle East. How can you say it's not?


It's always "bad and dangerous times in the middle east", uff. What makes today, this year, last year any different than tomorrow, next year or the one after? Nothing. The only certainty we can have regarding the middle east is that it will remain a bad and dangerous place for the foreseeable future.

"How can you say it's not?" I didn't say it's not. Your 'assumption' of another's comments meaning is not what was stated, so what you assumed never came up.

What was said and responded to was; "The mideast is on fire".

The only way that we can communicate is through language. I don't want to nor do I try to assume what another meant. I take them at their word. That is why we have words.


The Middle East is more unstable than it's been in a long time. Haven't you and others been on Bush's case for charging pell mell into Iraq and destabilizing the entire region? And for the record I disagreed with it too back then.


I'm not at all sure what you are referring to uff. Are you still referring to francis' comment? I addressed that already.

What you are doing is broad stroking multiple issues that are complex, longstanding and not within our 'jurisdiction', frankly. I wouldn't have a clue as to how to address your particular point as you really haven't made one (that I didn't already address) so where to start?

I gotta get more done outside anyway, as much as I don't feel like it; too darn hot! Probably too much plant food in the air, huh?


I was responding to your comment on FD's statement: >>"The mideast is on fire", would you be so kind as to actually pinpoint the fire? Best I can tell, I haven't seen anything on a mideast fire<<

I took that to mean conflict.  

Yes, too much smoke/plant food in the air here... CA is on fire too!


The Middle East is more unstable than it's been in a long time.

What I find particularly interesting, lately, is the progress of Iranian society. Almost over-night we're seeing improvements in liberty and tolerance. That's the sort of change that will work better in terms of demilitarizing/defusing Iran than starving them out and calling them names.


Yes, the long term goal assumes that eventually the people in power in Iran are representative of the people they govern.

It's a nice thought but it's not the current reality and we don't have the luxury of time to wait. The Iranian extremists will have a nuclear bomb before they can be replaced with rational leaders, and unfortunately their actions will probably bring war raining down on their own people. This is a terrible, terrible tragedy in the making.


It's a nice thought but it's not the current reality and we don't have the luxury of time to wait.

I completely disagree. We are buying time with the deal, but I know you don't believe that.

The last time a bunch of politicians got their panties in a wad and HURRIED, we started this entire mess in Iraq. Don't be in a hurry to screw-up a deal that can work.

Pakistan has 120 nukes, India has 110 and Israel has at least 80, though analysts suspect there are many more than that - as many as 400. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the rest of them have air forces that can deliver whatever payload's required.

They'll be fine in the short term. Diplomacy beats the heck out of the military approach we saw Bush/Cheney employ in Iraq. Let the adults manage this one.


The deal can stave off a nuclear Iran for at the very most ten years. In the meantime the current extremists are made stronger with billions and billions in unfrozen assets.

When -not if- they are fully armed, what kind of effective diplomacy will we still have? Will we be weaker or stronger?


^^^ Almost over-night we're seeing improvements in liberty and tolerance. ^^^

Apparently, so overwhelming that you couldn't provide any examples of same. I can suggest some related observations AND back them up.

Only "Coasters" and other Obama worshippers would consider Iranians chanting "Death to America" and the mullahs insisting that the Great Obama Capitulation won't change their attitude towards America is an improvement to liberty and tolerance. Most others find it dubious that we'd enter into any agreement with such folk.

As detailed by Sen. Menendez, the pixie diust crowd has no reason to trust that the Iranians will do as they agree and every reason to believe that they won't. They can't point to a single Iranian action that would offer a glimmer of hope that they'll do what they agree to do and what needs to be done.

And he's the former ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (He had to step down in April after Obama's DOJ leveling trumped up charges as a result of his criticism of an earlier version of the Great Obama Capitulation.)

You simply can't trust folks that see such obvious danger through rose colored glasses, especially when they insist that the only alternative is war.

Just once I'd like to see a final score that reads AMERICA-1, OBAMA-0.


Where does the path of rejecting the Iran Agreement lead?

The Republican controlled House and Senate with a few Democrat votes will refuse the agreement and send Kerry back to the negotiating table,

Obama will veto the Bill and send it back to Congress where 2/3 majority is required to override the Veto. It is extremely unlikely that number can be reached in either chamber, but if it does and the Veto is overridden, what happens next?

Kerry will be sent back to the negotiating table to start over. Of course the Chinese and Russians will not be there. They will have already approved the Agreement, lifted their sanctions and are busy trading with Iran. The same holds true for France and Germany.. Since the UN Security Council approved the agreement 15-0, any member of the UN can begin open relationships with Iran.

Enjoy reading "Why the Iran Deal’s Critics Will Probably Lose"

Web Link


"The philosopher Nietzsche said "the most common form of human stupidity is forgetting what one is trying to do.” In this case, the overriding objective of the United States has been to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb. This agreement achieves that objective by stopping Iran verifiably and interruptibly short of a bomb. In fact, by eliminating two-thirds of Iran’s current centrifuges and 98 percent of its enriched-uranium stockpile, the agreement pushes Iran back at least a year from a bomb. If from that point Iran should seek to develop a nuclear weapon, the United States and its international partners will have ample time to discover the violation, consider their options, and act to stop it."

This quote is from The Atlantic's article "9 Reasons to Support the Iran Deal"

The reasons are here to read if you choose.

Web Link


Only "Coasters" and other Obama worshippers would consider Iranians chanting "Death to America" and the mullahs insisting that the Great Obama Capitulation won't change their attitude towards America is an improvement to liberty and tolerance. Most others find it dubious that we'd enter into any agreement with such folk.

No need to get all stompy-foot, Honeyboogers.

I posted an article about what's happening in Tehran about 2 weeks ago. Excerpted from the New Yorker. You should have read it. It's somewhat nuanced and does not have a lot of ideological drum beating or name-calling in it. You may have trouble understanding it, in other words.


When caught making statements that can't be backed up, "Coasters" resorts to reading assignments. Without links.

So, in addition to being a cowardly cheap shot artist, "Coasters" is nothing but a miserable clown!

^^^ Where does the path of rejecting the Iran Agreement lead? ^^^

Senator Bob Menendez has a way to obtain a better deal: Web Link

And here are the only 9 reasons to support the Iran deal:

Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama and Obama.

Unfortunately for America, that's enough for the sellouts in the Democratic Party.


Senator Menendez has some wonderful ideas.

What would he do if Iran says no?

The rest of the world is now satisfied that the agreement is good. The rest of the world is removing all sanctions, buying Iranian oil, and preparing to start trading. There are 193 countries in the world. One hundred ninety one of them are buying in to the Agreement. Israel, the Republican Party and a few Democrats.are not.


Sorry, but the UN is no more representative of "the world" than Obama is representative of the majority view of Americans.

This should help all but the most naive ideologues: Web Link

Leaders of the Gulf Arab states have opted for a less confrontational approach with Washington than the strong public opposition exhibited by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government.

Instead of voicing their displeasure publicly and directly to the US over its rapprochement with Iran, they have instead chosen to get their message across unofficially through articles in Arab owned-media and by leaking their strong discontent to the Western press.


What will Iran do with the $100 billion + that Obama will give them? This should be a clue: Web Link

Not that the anti-Semites in the progressive wing care about a few Israelis ...


Not that the anti-Semites in the progressive wing care about a few Israelis ...

Such uninformed petulance.

What does support for one culture (Persian) have to do with NOT supporting another (Jewish)?

That's antiquated, narrow-minded thinking.

I support both.


^^^ I support both. ^^^

Yes, you do. "Death to America!" AND "Death to Israel!"


If you support the current Iranian state you support murdering Jews and wiping Israel off the face of the planet. It's that simple.


Not to mention bombing us along with Israel (minor oversight there...)


Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium