Monday, April 10, 2017

So You’re Sayin’ There’s a Chance

Laurence Vance writes “A Lesson for Libertarians”:

Never, ever believe anything a Republican presidential candidate says about foreign policy that sounds slightly libertarian or non-interventionist. Trump proves it. They can never be trusted.

My point isn’t about Vance – I know he is one of many who have offered such a sentiment in recent days; it is just that now that I have a few minutes to write this post, his comment is easily accessible.

I cannot say anything about “believe” or “trusted.”  This isn’t the point of my post.  Someone who believed or trusted can write that post.

I only have a simple question: when the one topic in question is the continuation of antagonism against a major nuclear power – even beyond the point of an existential crisis for the other power – how small a percentage chance is too small?

1.0%?  0.1%? 0.01?

If the only choice offered is between one candidate who says she will continue to antagonize the major nuclear power and a second candidate who says he will not, how small a chance is too small to bother?

Maybe I am being irrational or overly fearful, but I do not enjoy considering the future given the events of the last week.  It isn’t just two large nuclear powers soon to come to blows; virtually every entity in the region faces an existential crisis: Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Iran, ISIS.

So, I will ask again: how small a chance is too small a chance?


  1. I have never been one for believing the system can be taken on through the ballot box.

    My question is: how does Vance know this? I knew this because I believe our government is run by zionist jews who will get their way in the end. I had some hope that Trump could challenge them but was skeptical.

    Does Vance think that its just because Trump is a "Republican?" Could a "Democrat" not do the same? I mean Trump wasn't even really a Republican, he just ran as one.

    This is a teaching moment but the lesson is not "(republican) politicians are bad mmmkay," but "jews are too powerful."

  2. What is too small a chance? I believe the establishment pondered that question long before voters did. More and more I think Trump is just another ringer. What was the chance someone slightly less extreme would win and refuse to follow the script to the end?

    The establishment looked at the Republican candidates and decided the chance wasn't too small that one of them would beat Hillary and then turn out to have a conscience. With Trump that's not a concern.

    1. Yet Obama endured the same pressure regarding Syria for four years and never took this step.

    2. Not exactly, Obama ordered drone strikes and the like in Syria, one killing several Syrian military personnel during the past several years of his presidency. I would agree that Obama never advertised such attacks nor did he use naval launched cruise missiles upping the ante.

    3. Nothing is ever "exactly" when it comes to such topics.

    4. At one point Obama announced plans to (formally) enter the Syrian conflict, then recanted apparently due to public outrage at the idea. Did Obama blink, or was it his handlers? We will probably never know.

      Either way, Obama did approve (if not actively support) all sorts of operations in Syria intended to weaken Assad. At the risk of sounding racist (against American politicians), it's hard to fault Obama for being outmaneuvered by Putin. I believe there was intent to escalate that Putin snuffed out when he began his own operations in support of Assad.

    5. Jeff, I guess I just consider this compared to what a McCain, Clinton, or Romney (all three, real possibilities) would have done had they been in office instead of Obama.

    6. Very true. I'm sure there wouldn't have been deals with Iran and Cuba either. If Obama had not also droned everything that moved all over the ME, those two acts alone would have earned him my respect.

  3. The answer is: Your both correct. Clearly if Trump was lying and admitted as much, he would be preferred over Killary as she had the opportunity to choose peace, nonintervention and better relations with Russia more than a few times and specifically has made the choice in each case not to do so.

  4. I have many friends, coworkers, and other contacts who are not politically interested, yet are voters. I have had many conversations in person or on social media with both this type, and the more politically interested, but followers of only the MSM. I would raise the peace/russia/foreign policy issue as mildly as I could in any conversation that seemed relevant. Approximately zero people favored Trump because of his foreign policy stance/commentary. I think it's just a libertarian dream that the layman gives a hoot about peace per se. My own personal hopes included. They throw the whole concept out the window at the drop of a hat, or the death of a chosen few.