|
hangedman1984 posted:Because if there is one major problem with democrats, its that you can't tell where they stand on terrorism? Yeah I'm feeling kind of dumb founded here because it's just kind of underlining the point. Republican terrorism policy is create more terrorists in all but name while the opposition position is "its complicated so we shouldn't probably respond to every perceived threat with a call to obliterate something complete with song and dance about it." But maybe the latter is GF's point.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
Accretionist posted:They are here to help the forums, because inside every thread there is a derail trying to get out. It's a hard-ball world, goon. We've gotta try to keep our heads until this "on-topic" craze blows over! First they came for liquor chat, and I said nothing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Yeah I'm feeling kind of dumb founded here because it's just kind of underlining the point. Republican terrorism policy is create more terrorists in all but name while the opposition position is "its complicated so we shouldn't probably respond to every perceived threat with a call to obliterate something complete with song and dance about it." But maybe the latter is GF's point. That's exactly my point. As I said, you know there is no nuance in their party's position on terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
I think any and all plans that both parties have will do nothing but create more terrorists. Well, Obama's speech to the Middle East at the very beginning of his presidency was not part of that plan, but everything since then has been. The drone attacks were especially good at making more enemies for us, and his legalistic arguments for it made me curse being an American just the same as the second Iraq war did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:It creates political pressure to some degree and that's better than nothing. Just like 350.org did to keep us below the "tipping point" of 350 ppm of co2.  Current level: 391 ppm I'm just saying the political impact might be outweighed by the carbon impact of protesting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I wish a major polling organization would go around askimg people in a condescending tone "Why are you afraid?" I'm pretty sure that's what Gallup does. They're not exactly a bastion of great statistics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I think any and all plans that both parties have will do nothing but create more terrorists. Well, Obama's speech to the Middle East at the very beginning of his presidency was not part of that plan, but everything since then has been. The drone attacks were especially good at making more enemies for us, and his legalistic arguments for it made me curse being an American just the same as the second Iraq war did. Our analysts have discovered that our policies are created more terrorists at a rate faster than we are killing terrorists. The only clear answer is that we and our partners must increase the rate at which we kill terrorists. Any other answer is terrorist appeasement and cannot be tolerated in civil political discourse. The only question between the parties' policy is, 'How do we best increase the attrition rate for terrorists?' Sometime, Democrats address the root rate of terrorist creation while attempting to address this issue. Always, Republicans do not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Just like 350.org did to keep us below the "tipping point" of 350 ppm of co2. Are you serious? People driving and bussing to a protest has a completely negligible effect compared to stuff like power generation and transnational ocean shipping.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:<10 if "Terrorists> 0" Fixed that for you. Your way we'd only send them in for one. "Hah-hah! Foolish Americans! There are two of us, no invasion for you! "
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
MrUnderbridge posted:Fixed that for you. Ah. I wanted to set the value where if terrorist state = one then send in marines, for every terrorist state = one. Only two values for terrorist state, one and zero. Wherever the terrorists have one, the Republican policy is to send in the marines. E: If you allow "terrorist=2" then the terrorists have already one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Chard posted:Are you serious? People driving and bussing to a protest has a completely negligible effect compared to stuff like power generation and transnational ocean shipping. The protest has 0 effect -> the extra resources used to show up are a waste.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Halloween is here!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The protest has 0 effect -> the extra resources used to show up are a waste. Its true though. The most impact from public protests comes during the pre- and post-protest assembly/disassembly. Individuals in a city are fired up by the protest and will talk about it 2-3 days; if their normal commute is done through single-occupancy transit, they sre unlikely to have the rapport necessary to convince additional individuals of their ideals. Workplace is discounted due to repeat studies showing a hesitancy to discuss climate change at work when a significant portion of your fellow workforce do not believe with your preconceived notion. The resources are more efficiently allocated in person-to-person outreach efforts. Unless you pre-arrange for media coverage prominent and bias enough that coverage benefit>opportunity cost of rally, the only purpose behind a rally is to reward already-strongly partisans on the issue. Further, you impose an unnecessary and non-insignificant risk if you have not pre-arranged for prominent and bias coverage. Have one stoner in dreads show up? If there is coverage, that is how the rally will be portrayed. It is not that the protest has 0 effect; if it had 0 effect on the issue, I would be in favor of it being held. Rather, rallies such as the one described are detrimental to advancing an issue when that issue does not have positive momentum behind it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Halloween is here! Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
egon_beeblebrox posted:Jesus Christ. I don't see any hot pants in that photo, though? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Remember when Joementum was somewhat critical of the fact that Reid wasn't pushing nominees as fast as he could, but Republicans also weren't pulling out every procedural stop to slow them down either? That may soon change... For the worse. Drudge is already preparing to highlight an article reportedly headlining the New York Times tomorrow which claims that a majority of Appeals Court judges are now Democratic appointees. I'd be surprised if it didn't result in a call by concerned conservatives to increase stalling any appointees Reid hoped to push through before 2015. EDIT: Granted, there are only a handful of days left in the legislative session before recessing for the November elections, but it may very well prevent Reid from getting very many nominees pushed through in the lame-duck session and work as a useful call to arms to encourage the Republican base to get out there and vote to prevent any more nominees from getting approved starting in 2015. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Sep 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
None of the appeals court vacancies even have nominees yet so there's no stalling to do for the rest of this congress. There's plenty of district court nominees out of committee that can be voted on this year though. I wonder how conservative the judges will have to be to get a vote next year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Ganon posted:None of the appeals court vacancies even have nominees yet so there's no stalling to do for the rest of this congress. There's plenty of district court nominees out of committee that can be voted on this year though. So conservative that a Democrat isn't nominating them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Hi everyone. I have a question that I am cross-posting from another D&D thread. I hope you don't mind.quote:I vote by absentee ballot in NC each election. It's because I can just fax the election board and the ballot arrives in my mailbox. I fill out the ballot, get a coworker to witness it (fun fact: every single time my ballot envelope has been witness-signed it was by a staunch Republican - oops, I mean Independant who will vote straight GOP every election, who knew I was voting opposite them but signed anyway because we get along ok), and then just mail it back. It's incredibly convenient and doesn't interfere with my work schedule (as evidenced by the fact that I actually fill out and seal and get it witnessed on a break at work.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Outside of local low-turnout races, your vote is statistically insignificant and you shouldn't stress out about it. Mail-in ballots are counted, though whether they are counted before or after the election varies. That said, I like in-person voting. It only takes a couple of minutes if there's no line and the machine tells you if there's some problem reading your ballot. Plus, bake sales! 
Joementum fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Sep 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:The other day it came up how the public just trusts Republicans more on matters of defense regardless of what the actual reality is. Well, now we have that in chart form! It would be funny (and horrible) if Jeb Bush won 2016 and a 3rd bush invaded Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
So does this also mean that most Americans have changed their minds again and think invading Iraq was a good idea after all?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Halloween is here! It should come with a second mask inside of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The protest has 0 effect -> the extra resources used to show up are a waste. And drop meets bucket?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:Are the hotdogs Hebrew National brand hot dogs because I'm pretty sure anything else is physical abuse. Vienna Beef!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:And drop meets bucket? Like, people are protesting the fact that people are meeting about climate issues. It doesn't seem like it's something a protest can acheive any good out of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
Lycus posted:So does this also mean that most Americans have changed their minds again and think invading Iraq was a good idea after all? No, but in a bizarre, 1984-style twist, they think reinvading is a good idea. I'm too lazy to find the source again, but the approval polls for (another) war went up to ~65% once ISIS beheaded Steven Sotloff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Halloween is here! Is that a  mask re-labeled as a  mask?Or is that  ?edit How long before someone knocks over a bank in a Romney mask?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Lycus posted:So does this also mean that most Americans have changed their minds again and think invading Iraq was a good idea after all? The messaging I've seen has usually been "So, okay, the invasion of Iraq was a mess and all", while dancing around the idea of it being a bad idea in the first place, or who did it. Bush mostly comes up in the context of being the wise man who said we shouldn't leave.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Lycus posted:So does this also mean that most Americans have changed their minds again and think invading Iraq was a good idea after all? No thank god http://www.gallup.com/poll/1633/iraq.aspx http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/not-worth-it-huge-majority-regret-iraq-war-exclusive-poll-n139686 (one poll asks if it was a mistake, the other asks if it was worth it) However last I checked Bush's approval rating as a president had gone up quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:
This part's not too surprising either, with or without Iraq. Leaving out fading public memories and Republicans insisting that any of their own are better than any Democrat, a lot of Bush's strongest opponents themselves have the rhetorical need to rehabilitate him enough to insist that even he was better than McCain/Romney/*2016candidate*. We'll see the same from Republicans when Obama is gone and someone else becomes the arch-communist in Washington.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Bush mostly comes up in the context of being the wise man who said we shouldn't leave. I've seen this too and if the overall Republican plan to beat Democrats is to make them have anger induced aneurysms they're on the right track, because seriously, what the gently caress? "So, we went ahead and hosed up this country virtually beyond repair for utterly fraudulent and selfish reasons on my orders, guess it's gonna be a big danger zone for a good while now, even after I'm out of office." Sage, Mr. Bush. Sage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:This part's not too surprising either, with or without Iraq. Leaving out fading public memories and Republicans insisting that any of their own are better than any Democrat, a lot of Bush's strongest opponents themselves have the rhetorical need to rehabilitate him enough to insist that even he was better than McCain/Romney/*2016candidate*. We'll see the same from Republicans when Obama is gone and someone else becomes the arch-communist in Washington. I don't know I think he's likely to be used as a totem for an ursurper demon in the vein of Jimmy Carter rather than a Clinton. They've created such an imaginary Obama at this point I cannot imagine them going light on him until its time for them to claim him like MLK.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Obama is going to get appointed to the Supreme Court so that the fire may never die 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
The lowest an approval rating has gone during a Presidency was 22%. Do you know who that was? Harry Truman, February 1952
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Maybe with Obama on the Supreme Court it can finally have its reputation as a body that commands any degree of bipartisan respect destroyed. Which would probably have terrible consequences but America's pretty hosed anyway, might as well throw some fuel on the fire and enjoy the show.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Just found out, the official name is apparently going to be the "Global Coalition to Counter ISIL".
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Outside of local low-turnout races, your vote is statistically insignificant and you shouldn't stress out about it. Mail-in ballots are counted, though whether they are counted before or after the election varies. If my state still had the option I'd try to vote in person. But we don't, so I just write in my name and mail it without a stamp.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
A lot of the popular belief is that, after his presidency, Obama will become a Supreme Court justice once a vacancy occurs... But is that realistic whatsoever? I mean, he would still have to be confirmed by Congress, and can you imagine a single Republican voting for him?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
I think the bigger issue for Obama there is that Michelle famously hates living in Washington.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 02:57
|
|