New Hampshire!

Do you think Trump is all bombs and rhetoric?

Do you suppose that beneath the bombastic exterior a shrewd businessman that has made a career of wheeling, dealing and negotiating might be hiding?

I think Trump will do about as well with foreign diplomacy as anyone running. I think he may go back to wielding a big stick as opposed to Obama's throwing the stick away and carrying around an apology mat.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It was unbelievable, but whether or not it completely derails his candidacy remains to be seen. Remember, the man who was "no Jack Kennedy" became VP, and not the prig who delivered that line.

I wasn't alive then and didn't know that. I have the vague memory that this destroyed his political campaign but can easily be wrong about that.

All the stuff Trump talks about in trade ("beating China" etc). We have negotiations with thousands of different entities all the time, we can't just bomb them all into doing what we want so we pursue our interests other ways, getting votes to support us in international bodies, negotiating treaties etc.

For example, the Iran nuke issue is just not something we can tenably deal with with hard power alone. Netanyahu is correct to say we are probably bluffing there because resorting to military means to degrade the Iranian nuclear program would probably be a stupid idea that doesn't do much good and has potential for a LOT of bad.

Man this deserves an essay of a response but I am gonna limit it to this, the apology sound byte works well as political mud to sling but realistically the foreign policy things Obama is criticized for are things about which there really are no good solutions. ISIS, Syria, Ukraine etc are really cases where America and the entire world are really powerless to act because there simply are no good options. They are all just as bad right now.

I'm no fan of much of Obama's foreign policy, there are parts of it that I would like to see him incarcerated for.

But the "apology mat" criticism is really baseless, America's influence is in decline and it is not because of who the president is. It is on a trajectory where this will continue regardless of what we do right now and that's why it resonates with many people who simply ascribe it to a timid Obama and not the inevitable economic rise of Asia and other factors completely out of American control that are contributing to a slight reduction in global power.

Obama has increased drone assassinations

and NSA spying on us.

I was largely absent for about 5 - 6 years if my memory serves. A lot happened in that time...

So, the answer: pretty much. Yep.

What do you think we should do about Russia verses the EU Baltic states?

If we wait until Putin actually invades them like he did with Georgia and Ukraine, we'll have direct warfare between Russia and the US, with the serious risk of that escalating into a nuclear war.

If we station troops in the Baltic states (i.e. near Russia's border), that will make Putin build up troops on his side of the border and we'll have a new Cold War. But a new Cold War would be preferable to a nuclear war.

If we buff up Ukraine (and perhaps Moldova) so that Russia is too busy fighting there to worry about invading yet another country, that should postpone Putin's invasion of the Baltics for a good while. But greater involvement in Ukraine might also suck the US into a direct conflict with Russia if we aren't very careful to control how we escalate.

Has Mr. Obama committed any crimes?

I don't believe that our power is waning.

If someplace like China becomes a world power, I do not believe that it will reduce America's power.

We shared the world with the Soviets during the Cold War. Were we less powerful then?

Hey Berners! Still think your guy can win the nomination?

Good thing that's just not ever going to happen. Putin is not an idiot, he is pushing as far as he can get away with. He is not ever going to "invade" the EU.

There's no need to station troops in the Baltic states. We are not willing to go to war with Russia over what they have done in Georgia and Ukraine and that is not going to change in your lifetime as long as they stick to that and do not escalate.

Which is why we will not do so, or get too involved other than to propose sanctions. We simply do not care enough about Ukraine as an ally to be wiling to defend them at war (it would take whole scale invasion of the entire countries for us to consider it and even then I don't think we go to war first, I think the world does sanctions).

My main objection is that he's killed at least 7 American citizens by drone strikes. Some were non-targeted (especially the hostages killed, obviously) but there have been admittedly targeted ones.

The justice department has declared it legal so far, but his targeted killing of American citizens by drones violates due process. Without much information I do not know if they are justified, for example if they were not responsible for anyone's deaths, and their crime is, say, doing PR campaigns for extremists I do not see their threat as worthy of such targeted killings.

And I think that drone signature strike strategy is reckless to the point that it ought to be considered criminal if it is not. It is the killing of people whose identities are unknown based on a observed pattern of activity. It is what has resulted in deaths of hostages, and of the bombings of funerals and of rescuers (the "double tap" bombing of rescuers is especially troubling).

I haven't cited any of this because I assume this is common knowledge to you but can cite each of the claims, if needed.

Yes. Power is relative. The USA was less powerful yes, in the era of dual super-powers vs in the era it is exiting where it was the sole superpower.

What due process? It's war. Our soldiers fire on the enemy.

Not every alleged American dronestrike is actually an American dronestrike by the way. People in the Pakistani tribal areas refer to Pakistani military helicopters as American drones.

I see power differently. I measure US power based on what we can achieve, regardless of whether someone else can also achieve the same thing.

Where do you draw the line at which someone becomes a combatant in a war? The first one they killed, as far as I am aware, was mostly involved in publishing magazines and articles recruiting extremists till then. They said he was plotting attacks and he certainly was someone who was up to no good but at which point are they legitimate targets in a war?

By definition, if someone else can achieve the same thing then something we can no longer achieve is hegemony.

I think you are basically just saying you are emotionally ok with our levels of power and I don't see any problem with that. We aren't going anywhere anytime soon, even if you don't want to acknowledge that our power is ebbing from its peak.