[Sixstrings]

Sen. Lindsey Graham, who just announced that he is going to announce for POTUS because he has been "right more often than not" on foreign policy said this in Iowa [@3:40]:

If he runs, he'll have to address the gay issue. If he's closeted, then it's just an issue that has to come out if he's actually running for president. That's different than senator. People need to know more about a presidential candidate, and especially if he were anti-gay in public yet actually gay himself.

He seems to be moving left on gay rights:

GRAHAM CRITICIZES BEN CARSON ON GAY REMARKS: CHRISTIANS HAVE TO SHOW A ‘LOVING HEART’
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/05/04/graham-criticizes-ben-carson-on-gay-remarks-christians-have-to-show-a-loving-heart/

Sen. Graham: US Must 'Move Forward' If Gay Marriage Legalized
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Lindsey-Graham-gay-marriage-Supreme-Court-society/2015/05/04/id/642548/

Who knows, maybe Republicans will get past all these things and realize they've got a gay person, a couple latinos, a woman, and a black man in their primary. And maybe that's ok.

(wait, is the black candidate prejudiced against gays yet he's for a minimum wage hike? Are the latino candidates against the mexican latinos, but white guy Jeb Bush likes them? Republican party is in flux, it's confusing!)

[Timo]

I'd like a defender of "traditional mariage" to legally define what "tradition" is. When do "traditions" change? What constitutes a change to "tradition?" When does a "tradition" become outdated, and is no longer considered a current tradition as remembered through history? Does the tradition of cross burning by the KKK make it legal because it's a religiously held tradition? How about the burning of witches? The definition of "tradition" is subject to so many variables that it cannot possibly be considered a viable basis for law. Traditions change. And since when is it "tradition" to legally allow the discrimination of others by denying rights guaranteed to ALL US citizens? Why is marraige the venue for allowance of discrimination against LGBT citizens? Are they constitutionally inferior to hetero citizens? Where is that written? LGBT people can legally buy guns, but not cake! LGBT people pay taxes, but our laws apply differently to them as they do for the rest of us. What is the legal, rational basis for clinging to the word "traditional" to justify legal descrimination?

Sorry. Off thread topic rant. Please return to your regularly scheduled programming.

[Pops]

What the hell does gay rights have to do with New American Doctrine six? or Surveillance or much of anything?

[Timo]

Nothing, really. I just saw the reference to Republican candidate's positions on the matter in the previous post, and it set me off. Even though I'm not gay, i still got pissed. Apologies. Back on topic.

The new American Doctrine should be Pre-Emptive Geo-Engineering to Save the Planet!

How's that?

[Pops]

Sorry, going off on six, the ignore button is there for a reason but I sometimes ignore it.

[onlooker]

I find this amusing that after 9-11 the new American doctrine is "preventive wars". As in preemptive assassinations via drone attacks. Again I have to cite Noam Chomsky who is my main source of discovering the full depth of the new Roman empire being the American empire. Oh and yes their are other bad folks around the world, America does not have a monopoly on being ruthless, power hungry or greedy. Again, I will not argue with anyone here about Americas culpability in creating the modern world after WWII. Their is ample material on the internet for those who wish to know. So this new "doctrine", is in fact inciting ever more terrorism. How would you like it if someone you knew just happened to be to near a "suspected" target of these drone attacks and was killed or injured as a consequence. here is link to Chomsky talking about the drone campaign of the US. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCsWAJF_1g4

[Sixstrings]

What the hell does gay rights have to do with New American Doctrine six? or Surveillance or much of anything?

Off topic, but just saying, if he actually runs for president I'm just surprised. Because he'll have to address that issue.

He seems to be trying to move left, on that issue, versus where he's been on it in the past.

We all already know his American Doctrine views, are just old school Republican. Interventionist. Red lines. HW Bush, Reagan, and W. Bush.

Which I actually agree with oftentimes! Strategically, a Lyndsay Graham is right, it's just good generalship. But at what cost, how many trillions of dollars. And then, to what benefit, to the actual nation here at home.

So much lately, I take a step back and think "well wait a second though, why are we so involved overseas but ignoring everything at home."

I'm being told lately that domestic policy issues aren't connected to foreign policy, but really, they are. If Lindsay Graham or Obama is beating a drum to do something abroad then it's fair to say "well okay yes you sound right, but you're not doing anything here at home around the house so you need to do something on that before we can all go to Syria to do something."

I just think it's relevant (domestic policy in general, not whether he is closeted and used to vote against gay rights).

There's a demarcation line somewhere there, when a Lyndsay Graham foreign policy does not seem like it benefits someone that's in the 99%. Is global policing just to enrich the 1%, or is there something in this for the 99%, it's actually a very relevant question in a democracy.

This is what is causing America to be more isolationist, abroad. If global cop stuff is just for the 1% and corporations, then the 99% won't be for it. The 1% have to make that american doctrine work for the 99%, too.

So -- more on topic -- I do lsiten to a John McCain and a Lyndsay Graham and they want to help people in Ukraine and Syria so much and they're almost in tears about it sometimes (and I agree on Ukraine), but then lately I am just thinking.. WHERE ARE HIS TEARS for working and middle class, here at home? Why care so much just about Syrians, where is the caring for Americans?

(am I sounding like a radical noam chomsky lately? I swear to goodness I'm not for that, they need to just raise the darn minimum wage for christ sake and then expand the ACA and then do some debt free college, then okay let's go to war and defeat ISIS -- you guys know I'm a neocon warhawk at heart, I'm for a strong america too, but it has to be strong at home too that's all I'm saying, and a Lyndsay Graham is just all foreign policy but he ignores domestic and doesn't seem to care about the homefront, ya know?)

edit: Just to clarify, I believe in Reaganist foreign policy too, short of major wars but just how Reagan used to do things, but it's just that we cannot do that if we are ignoring domestic policy. Strong at home, strong abroad, you can't have one without the other.

[Keith_McClary]

JUNE 11, 2015
The Internal Contradictions of US Foreign Policy
Russia, China and the Battle Against Dollar Hegemony
by MICHAEL HUDSON and THE SAKER

Long, wide-ranging interview. Talks about BRICs, Mideast, Ukraine, ... .

U.S. foreign policy is simply “Do what we say, privatize and sell to U.S. buyers, and permit them to avoid paying taxes by transfer pricing and financialization gimmicks, or we will destroy you like we did Libya, Iraq, Syria et al.”

The result is to unify foreign countries into a resistance, obliging them to create an alternative path to U.S. financial hegemony. If America had pursued a policy of mutual benefit, other countries probably would have let America make money from them, as part of a mutual gain. But the U.S. stance is to grab everything, not share. This selfishness is what is most self-defeating ultimately.