Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

If that were to happen I can imagine at least some people who were for his pardon in ‘14 would denounce the pardon if it came to be.

View on HN

We definitely saw that with TPP. It was something the EFF, Bernie, and Clinton (tepidly) were against. The withdraw is used to bludgeon the administration for not creating a counter trade force to China.

Did the EFF, Bernie, or Clinton criticize Trump for withdrawing, and was the criticism only for the withdrawal, or for how it was handled? (Honest questions - I'm not familiar).

EFF, who I do follow, has not criticized the withdraw.

I don't know enough about Bernie or Clinton to know where they stand on the issue. Clinton's de-endorsement was probably not genuine so I'd bet she has criticisms of the withdraw.

My main point is that an issue that was popular on the left (enough for Clinton to flip-flop on) seems to now be mostly the voices of the left criticizing the withdraw.

There might be some bias there because people who did support withdraw might be less incentivized to vocalize support for policy that landed in their favor.

Changing your mind or evolving your opinion is just "flip-flopping"?

In the immortal words of John F Kerry, “I did actually vote for it before I voted against it”

There was enough written about this specific issue to suggest it might be political opportunism. Of course it's also not fair to not let people actually change their mind.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/hillary-clinton-trade...

Maybe flip-flopping is too loaded of a word and I shouldn't have used it.

Respectfully, there are a couple examples of loaded-ness in your original comment.

>> Clinton's de-endorsement was probably not genuine

From the article you linked, this is what she said "Although Clinton had traveled the world in support of TPP as President Barack Obama’s secretary of state, she told the “PBS Newshour” that the final agreement didn’t meet the “high bar” she set for the pact."

Sounds like she still liked the idea, but the agreement wasnt to her liking.

>>My main point is that an issue that was popular on the left (enough for Clinton to flip-flop on) seems to now be mostly the voices of the left criticizing the withdraw.

Again, if more info came out and people changed their mind, you seem to be villifying it and declaring it a "left" problem. (which it may be, but you're asserting with an anecdote on what you've noticed)

Of course, given any absurd position, you can find somebody who holds it, so the implication of targeting one such position would be that, unlike the others, its representation is non-negligible. I disagree in this example - this seems like the invention of specifically irrational people for the purpose of mocking whatever broader group you perceive them to be a part of. However, what you would certainly find are people not just discussing Trump's hypocrisy/inconsistency, which is a valid opinion, but also people overly focusing on it to the overshadowing of Snowden's freedom.

If he does do it I think it potentially puts Biden in a tough spot. Biden would have to denounce it (since he was part of the team that wanted him), but that’s contra what lots of libertarians and some leftists would favor vis a vis exposure of government overreach into citizens’s private data.

It would be deft but also political, but then again what politician doesn’t make political moves, including interventionist wars?

I'd welcome it, even at the hands of Trump. It's as valid. And I'd give Trump credit for it, whether he did it of sound mind or not. Facts are facts.

Trump should pardon Snowden because it's the right thing to do.

He should also not be undercutting the post office, assassinating Iranian generals, enforcing tariffs on allies like Canada and Europe.

Pardoning Snowden is a meaningless gesture, it does nothing to stop the military industrial complex and the intelligence apparatus that he supports

The only one I disagree with is cutting funding to USPS. Europe and Canada (nor anyone not specially exempted) should not enjoy advantage in trade. People were beside themselves over rumors of Russian snipers, this guy was directly responsible for troop deaths and much more instability in the ME. We’ve just seen peace agreements begin to bear fruit in the ME —would that have been possible with that guy stirring up hornets’s nests?

The US has countless examples of covert operations that de-stabilised nations and killed other soldiers. Perhaps a cruise missile should be aimed at one of our generals, I'm sure you'd support that.

> We’ve just seen peace agreements begin to bear fruit in the ME —would that have been possible with that guy stirring hornets’s nests?

Syria is still a cluster, Palestine is more oppressed than ever, endless war in Yemen, slave labor in Qatar for the world cup. Kurds abandoned and slaughtered by Turkey. Iran has major instability issues, Pakistan and India have had a major skirmish (granted, not the ME, but it's close enough.)

> this guy was directly responsible for troop deaths and much more instability in the ME.

Should Trump then assassinate Bush and Obama?

No, only external adversaries would entertain such pointless notion. Just like Duterte might in his dreams think of sinking Chinese ships, in reality he’d dig his own grave if he did.

If a European country lets a hostile country like Russia earn trillions by running pipelines through their country, are they really that much of an ally? Tarrifs make perfect sense in response to actions like that

Trump has continually let Russia do as it pleases, he kowtowed in Syria to Putin, he kowtowed by threatening to constantly defund NATO, he kowtowed in Crimea.

The facts are just too obvious. Trump is pro-Russia, he's done nothing but allow it to expand and influence US elections, too.

How is asking for fair proportional funding of european defense something we should be responsible for?

I understand we benefit from that too, but why should we carry the burden more than the direct beneficiaries?

The US benefits more from its forward bases in Europe than the European countries do. This isn't 1976. Russia isn't a direct military threat at this point in time.

In south east asia the argument can be seen differently - but even so, the US protects SK, Japan, Taiwan, and Australia to keep open the South China Sea. If that benefit disappeared the US wouldn't be as vigorous in its defense.

The reason presidents prior kept NATO together was because it is an extremely strong alliance that can protect each other's economic interests. If the US loses NATO now, they are simply no longer hegemon.

That’s all good but what’s wrong with fair proportionate funding? It’s not like the EU doesn’t benefit the same we do.

You got it backwards. The second Air Force in the world is the US Navy. The US Navy has 8 nuclear lead aircraft carrier groups. AFAIK, neither Russia nor China have nuclear aircraft carriers.

I think the US would be fine without NATO. The US projection would be mostly undamaged. Not so much the rest of the allies. It's the rest of the NATO that benefits from that projection (e.g. Somali pirates missions).

BTW I very much do NOT want NATO to disband. I think it's a great alliance. But let's be realistic. The US pays for alsmost 1/4 of the NATO direct spending, and 2/3 of the indirect spending:

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/trump-still-distorting-nat...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com