Why is it said that Hillary Clinton outmatches Sanders in foreign policy?
If you look at their congressional records, Sanders was involved in 379 international affairs resolutions/bills https://www.congress.gov/member/..."subject"%3A"International+Affairs"%7Dvs. 163 for Clinton https://www.congress.gov/member/..."search"%3A%5B"Hillary+Clinton"%5D%7D&resultIndex=1Neither of these folks are foreign policy wonks. Both were very focused on domestic policy before entering congress(Clinton spent a bunch of time as a corporate attorney, at a point in life where Sanders was working his way up the political ladder)-and Sanders served in Congress a lot longer than Clinton.I do not see Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State as inspiring.http://www.alternet.org/news-amp...Seven reasons you should care about LibyaThe Libya debacle undermines Clinton’s foreign policy credentials John Kerry earned that position after a lot of focus on foreign policy issues(along with many other Secretaries of State). For Clinton, it was more a political move to shore up a deficiency and she couldn't manage to even maintain proper security for her emails(which suggests she wasn't particularly respectful of experts with specific areas of expertise).When I look over the backgrounds of other Secretaries of State: Clinton has the most minimal academic and work background in foreign policy of anyone who has held that job recently. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/...The one big point I would give her: as First Lady, she had the opportunity to develop face to face relationships with world leaders. Other than that, I just don't see it.
What are the differences, between Hillary Clinton and Gina Haspel, who both destroyed information for different reasons and should anyone be held accountable?
Gina Haspel destroyed video tapes of torture sessions. She likely did this to stop any such videotapes from ever being leaked as it was believed that public viewings would severely damage the reputation of the CIA and other American spy agencies. It seems very clear to me that her motivation was to protect the agency at the expense of the laws around record-keeping. This was not an accident, nor a misjudgment, it was willful destruction of material that the agency should have held on to.In the case of Hillary Clinton, her people destroyed her personal e-mails from an account that she used for both work and personal matters. While the case can be made that Clinton wanted to use the same server to possibly skirt freedom of information act requests (a spectacular failure, given what happened), there’s no evidence that Clinton willfully destroyed anything. It wasn’t Clinton who went through her e-mails and deleted the personal ones, it was her lawyers. The GOP has made hay out of the fact that some e-mails discussing DoS matters were deleted alongside the personal ones, but there’s no evidence whatsoever that this was anything but an honest mistake by Clinton’s lawyers. The FBI investigated, and agreed with this sentiment.Clinton’s case is more or less in line with problems of records storage in the past. It’s simply very hard to make sure that no mistakes are ever made in the storage of government records. The younger Bush’s administration lost over a million e-mails from its records and actively used private e-mails to circumvent record-keeping laws. Clinton’s actions in setting up her server were hardly unique. What is unique was the sheer amount of scrutiny she faced, as well as the level of aggression her investigators used. If she wasn’t running for president, there would have been nary a peep about this.The way Clinton set up her e-mail was perhaps a legal grey area, but there’s really no way to credibly claim that she destroyed evidence willfully (that hasn’t stopped the claim from being made ad nauseum by people who wished to destroy her career). In the case of Gina Haspel, I can’t really see any way to credibly claim that it wasn’t willful destruction of records. I just can’t see the CIA saying “well, nobody’s ever going to want to see these in a legal context in the future!” and erroneously throwing them out.In the end, neither faced legal charges for their action.
What were the major foreign policy issues that the United States of America was working on in 2016?
I’m writing this answer in 2018, just after the meeting in Singapore involving the Korean nuclear arsenal.The Secretary of State said yesterday that NK has two years to de-nuke. This delay might tempt the Japanese to convert their stockpile of 47 tons of plutonium into bombs. Japan and North Korea have issues related to the Japanese occupation of Korea from 1910 to 1945.It takes ten pounds to make one bomb. The Japanese can make as many as they want in as little as 24 hours.A Japan armed with 10,000 nuclear bombs (they already have the missiles to launch them) is a clear and present danger to China, Russia, and Korea — not to mention the United States with whom it has a beef that goes all the way back to World War Two when the USA destroyed 67 of their cities with napalm; 2 cities with atomic bombs.The USA has occupied Japan ever since. Some of the Japanese probably hate us — who knows for sure?47 TONS#MKWA
What is Hillary Clinton's foreign policy track record?
Secretary Clinton has restored American image around the world. I remember her coming to Kolkata. This really shows her compassion and commitment to improve America's image around the world. She talked to the ordinary people of the countries she visited, attended various townhall meetings.She helped diffuse the Israel Palestine conflict when it had broken into a war.She helped to create an environment where the Iranian government had come to the negotiating table.She helped promote democracy around the world by showing that in democracy winning and losing elections are not the important thing. She tirelessly waged her campaign for presidency against all odds. Still she served as the Secretary of State. These are the few accomplishments of an accomplished person.
What have been President Obama's biggest foreign policy mistakes?
I think Obamas’s biggest foreign policy mistake was the failure to intervene in Syria in 2011, by supporting the rebels when the uprising first began against dictator Bashar Assad.In the first year, the Syrian rebels were overwhelmingly moderates, inspired by the “Arab Spring” and driven by secular motives. A run of the mill popular uprising against a brutal dictator, along the same lines as what was seen in Tunisia, Tahrir Square in Cairo, or the Maidan in Kiev.And they were looking to the US and the West for support.The military was deserting Bashar Assad in droves and joining the rebels, and the dictator’s regime was in disarray and on the ropes. That was the window when US support for the rebels could have most readily tipped the balance, toppled Assad, and probably installed a democratically elected government in his place.However, the Obama administration dithered and did next to nothing. Within a year, the Assad regime had regained its footing, military aid from Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah came pouring in, and the situation was stabilized. Then the Syrian regime counterattacked. Brutally, with indiscriminate firepower, even poison gas.And the rebels, who had started off as moderates and secularists, calling for democracy and hoping for and expecting aid from the democratic US and the West, were left to hang.Thing is, people in a desperate fight for their lives will accept help from whoever offers it, and the vacuum left by US failure to aid the Syrian rebels was inevitably going to get filled by somebody.The US and the West didn’t help in the fight against Assad, but folk like these didAt the start of the Syrian uprising there was next to no radical Islamic presence within the anti Syrian regime rebel ranks. Today, radical Islamists are the largest grouping within the rebel ranks.The ISIS mess we’re faced with in Syria and Iraq today wouldn’t have happened, and could have been avoided if the Obama administration had acted early on. America’s failure to support the moderates and secularists in 2011 left a vacuum that was, predictably, filled by the worst possible actors. And so today America is faced with a far bigger mess and problem than would have been the case had we supported the Syrian rebels in 2011.
What are the pros and cons of Hillary Clinton being the next President?
Pro:She is very smart and informedShe is worldy, and comfortable navigating other culturesShe doesn't interject her religious beliefs into political conversationsShe has experience as a Senator, Secretary of StateShe is thick skinned and tough. Comparing her to the GOP slate, she is head and shoulders above all of them in dealing with criticism and challenges (most of those guys have remarkably fragile egos) I don't know if Cruz, Trump, or Rubio could have weathered the obsessive Benghazi hearingsShe has a strong legal background in representing and advocating for children and women She is willing to evolve on social justice issues If Democrats take back Congress, then we could actually have a functioning government Cons:She has a lot of baggage and scandalBecause she has is one of the more senior candidates, and has been in the public eye and under scrutiny, she has " more dirt". In fairness to her, Rubio and Cruz are in their 40s and haven't been in the public eye. Trump has been in the public eye , but in the private sector and as a quasi-entertainerMany Republicans hate her with the the heat of a thousand suns. That will be tiring to hear about for 4 years As the first female president, she will be subjected to comments about her apperance and sexist, gross commentary She has corporatist tendencies, though she can be positively influenced by the Sanders movementHer husband is a liability, as is her treatment of the women who accused her husband of harassmentOn a scale of 1-10, her ethics are a 6/7. Bernie Sanders is a 9 or 10. The rest of the candidates are between 5-7
What are the arguments in favor of outsourcing?
The arguments in favor are strictly from the top of our companies and corporations and, in my opinion, can be explained in one word - greed. Arguments against outsourcing is self evident - keep the jobs in America.