|
NewForumSoftware posted:Considering American drone strikes are a big reason that the Assad regime was forced to use chemical weapons in civilian areas... I'm going to say yes. Only in this case because it directly led to the other. what the actual gently caress
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:43 |
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Considering American drone strikes are a big reason that the Assad regime was forced to use chemical weapons in civilian areas... I'm going to say yes. Only in this case because it directly led to the other. I wasn't going to wade into this shitstorm, but you've got to be kidding. Asad wasn't forced to use chemical weapons in civilian areas. You make it sound like Obama called him up and said "gas the civilians now or I blow you away!" American foreign policy has major issues, but you've let your distaste for it blind you and lost any shred of credibility you had.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
This is on the level of Corbyn suggesting that American foreign policy is more responsible than Russian bombers murdering civilians in Aleppo than Putin is. To be specific, completely idiotic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
How the gently caress is NewForumsSoftware STILL posting? He's seemingly been at it for an entire day.SSNeoman posted:And thus we come full circle: Just because you repost that doesn't make it any less nonsensical. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Considering American drone strikes are a big reason that the Assad regime was forced to use chemical weapons in civilian areas... I'm going to say yes. Only in this case because it directly led to the other. "Forced" to use chemical weapons? You incredible piece of poo poo. Why is it so hard for people to have reasonable objections to American foreign policy without going too far and turning into an apologist for extreme shitheads?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:How the gently caress is NewForumsSoftware STILL posting? He's seemingly been at it for an entire day. If anything the truth is even dumber than that. Main Paineframe posted:"Forced" to use chemical weapons? You incredible piece of poo poo. Why is it so hard for people to have reasonable objections to American foreign policy without going too far and turning into an apologist for extreme shitheads? It's all there in the deleted emails along with rigging the primary. (wait, different emails. who can even tell at this point.) Polygynous fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:If anything the truth is even dumber than that. Not really. Voting third party sends the message that "I am willing to vote, just as long as you will please my position." It's up to the two major parties whether or not they want to chase after them. That said, third party voters should focus on pushing state referendums that are against FPTP rather than national elections. Main Paineframe posted:Have you paid any attention at all to the last eight years? Obama has had a tough time because in a lot of situations, the president needs the support of a majority of Congress to enact their policies - and that means having the support of conservatives. It's absolutely indisputable that Hillary is going to be better at building consensus and gathering support for leftist policies than Bernie would. There's a reason I compared her to LBJ. If you think Hillary is going to be able to get anything passed with a majority of Republicans in congress then you are in for a very unpleasant surprise. Part of what made LBJ so effective was that his party had a super majority in both the house and senate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Just because you repost that doesn't make it any less nonsensical. I don't understand what you don't understand. 1.  "I don't like either party so I'm voting third party"2. goons: "this is a really bad idea, you don't have enough votes to influence outcomes [you're not even a spoiler effect], your vote is all but ignored, our system shits on third party candidates and they have no chance of winning. If you don't like it, petition for changes during the non-election years. Nobody cares right now and third party votes are basically ignored." 3. "but I'm doing this to stay within my moral framework! you can't ask me to throw away my morals!"4. Goons: "this is a democracy dawg. If your vote isn't noticed, your vote is lost. Yo're not even doing it to show the next candidate that there is interest in your district for their policies. Is that really moral?" 5. "It is to me!"punk rebel ecks posted:Not really. Voting third party sends the message that "I am willing to vote, just as long as you will please my position." It's up to the two major parties whether or not they want to chase after them. Why the gently caress would they do this? Third party voters are totally inconsequential. They'd much rather change policies to attract voters from another major party than appease a small percentage of third party voters. punk rebel ecks posted:If you think Hillary is going to be able to get anything passed with a majority of Republicans in congress then you are in for a very unpleasant surprise. Part of what made LBJ so effective was that his party had a super majority in both the house and senate. The Republicans who worked with Hillary actually like Hillary. http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/senator-hillary-clinton-got-along-gop-president http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/republicans-we-can-work-with-president-hillary-clinton (this is from a right wing site. Even they concede that Republicans can work with her) And the democrats are prob gonna grab the senate so... Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Civilian death is cool and good so long as I don't have to personally feel bad about it. Somebody's gotta kill those civilians, better make sure it's us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
J Corp posted:Somebody's gotta kill those civilians, better make sure it's us. We can take efforts to improve our military actions and minimize civilian death. Not so with foreign armies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:"Forced" to use chemical weapons? You incredible piece of poo poo. Why is it so hard for people to have reasonable objections to American foreign policy without going too far and turning into an apologist for extreme shitheads? You're right, forced is the wrong word. But if you back a dog into a corner, don't be surprised when he bites your hand. I think there's a pretty clear link between the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, our continued drone strikes, etc. and ISIS and other islamic extremist groups that Assad is fighting against. My point is that Assad would have never been dropping chemical weapons on his people if we hadn't hosed up Iraq as badly as we did. Main Paineframe posted:Are American drone strikes worse than, say, the Assad regime using chemical weapons in civilian areas? You're the one dropping absurd false dichotomies, would it be preferable if I just called you out directly as opposed to demonstrating how silly your points are by answering them honestly? We don't get to choose one or the other, we already have both, and one is driving the other indirectly. As far as the rest of the autists in this thread that are unable to comprehend why compromising on the global political scale is an entirely different question than compromising on a domestic issue like the Presidency... America doesn't get to choose what happens in Syria, and the idea that we do is part of the problem we're in this mess in the first place. If you want to help the situation overseas, the answer is not more drone strikes, even if the leader of team blue insists. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:You're right, forced is the wrong word. But if you back a dog into a corner, don't be surprised when he bites your hand. I think there's a pretty clear link between the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, our continued drone strikes, etc. and ISIS and other islamic extremist groups that Assad is fighting against. My point is that Assad would have never been dropping chemical weapons on his people if we hadn't hosed up Iraq as badly as we did. Look, the most damaging thing to Assad was the Arab Spring, which probably happened in spite of American interests in the region. His regime is not worth making excuses for, it is the single worst source of bloodshed in the Middle East, perhaps the world, at the moment, this conflict might even have existed if it wasn't for Assad and his cronies being totally unwilling to meet the demands of the people. That Russia is giving him so much unqualified support is monstrous, though I admit I'm not sure that America could do anything to stop that at this point that would save more lives than it costs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I'm not sure that America could do anything to stop that at this point that would save more lives than it costs. This is basically my point. I'm not trying to make excuses for Assad, I'm just saying that unless you have a good idea on how to fill the void of power left by him, removing him will do more harm than good, no matter how many civilians he gasses. You're right that the Arab Spring set things off but the US was instrumental in arming rebel groups in Syria later, not to mention already leaving the arms used by other groups to destabilize Syria. Even though Assad was a horrible dictator it's hard to argue that we shouldn't have just backed him when actual war broke out. If we're going to back states like Saudi Arabia and Turkey there's really no reason to hold your nose over Assad. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:This is basically my point. Well probably not, if removing him earlier meant that Syria ended up like Libya right now (which in itself is kind of a worst case scenario) it may well have been better than letting him stay on in power, gassing children and barrel bombing hospitals. The United States may have been in the right if they destroyed Assad and his forces very early, but everything's clearer with hindsight and I think right now the Iranians and Russians have become so entrenched in Syria that a major action by the United States (especially early next year when the rebels will probably be in a very bad situation) will be way too dangerous. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:This is basically my point. Why does the US or anyone else need to fill a "power vacuum"? Suppose Assad was deposed tomorrow, wouldn't those who toppled him naturally fill that vacuum? Meaning that there never is a moment where "power vacuum" exists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Why does the US or anyone else need to fill a "power vacuum"? Suppose Assad was deposed tomorrow, wouldn't those who toppled him naturally fill that vacuum? Meaning that there never is a moment where "power vacuum" exists. If Libya is anything to go off of, probably not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:If Libya is anything to go off of, probably not. Right, Libya is still embroiled in an ongoing civil war. I don't see how this justifies backing any side over any other with the fear of some "power vacuum" if a side falls. If anything, there should be UN mediated peace process.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Not really. Voting third party sends the message that "I am willing to vote, just as long as you will please my position." It's up to the two major parties whether or not they want to chase after them. The Kerry campaign explicitly did that with Nader in 04, and it amounted to exactly nothing. The only person running this year who we can equate to Nader is Gary Johnson, and that man is the literal definition of a protest vote. No sane person is voting for Johnson because they genuinely think he should be president of the united states. The Ficus campaign was more serious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Right, Libya is still embroiled in an ongoing civil war. I don't see how this justifies backing any side over any other with the fear of some "power vacuum" if a side falls. If anything, there should be UN mediated peace process.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:A UN mediated peace process implies that all sides are ready to talk. Send in UN peace keepers?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
What if someone is genuinely undecided between the two big parties? They both have positives and negatives and it's really difficult to decide, is it OK to vote for a third party then?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:What if someone is genuinely undecided between the two big parties? They both have positives and negatives and it's really difficult to decide, is it OK to vote for a third party then? Maybe if this were the gilded age that would be a position to take. But you cannot convince me that the democrats and the republicans are equally bad, and that's been a dumb stance to take since about, oh, the enaction of the Southern Strategy. Sorry that being a white cisgendered heterosexual man of means blinds you to reality. Sorry that you're a coward and you rely on other people to make sure we don't have a president trump so you can vote third party and maintain your precious purity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:We can take efforts to improve our military actions and minimize civilian death. Not so with foreign armies. Lol at you pretending this is what actually happens when we get involved in foreign wars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Sorry that being a white cisgendered heterosexual man of means blinds you to reality. Sorry that you're a coward and you rely on other people to make sure we don't have a president trump so you can vote third party and maintain your precious purity. You do realize that under the current voting system a lot of people's votes don't matter, right? Unless you're saying third party votes are going to cause Hillary to lose... which means I guess she should have moved left! Save your moral aggrandizing for the Trump threads, you don't know poo poo about me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
yeah, yeah. wake up sheeple. we get it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Send in UN peace keepers? I'm sure Russia would agree to that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 12:15
|
|
|
stone cold posted:
If your dismissal of an argument is based on racism and sexism, it's a pretty weak dismissal. Sulphuric Asshole fucked around with this message at 12:34 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Maybe if this were the gilded age that would be a position to take. But you cannot convince me that the democrats and the republicans are equally bad, and that's been a dumb stance to take since about, oh, the enaction of the Southern Strategy. It's your duty to ensure the sucess of the Party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:I'm sure Russia would agree to that. But by and large, it's the US who obstructs the UN from action. Russia and China being painted as the main obstructionists is mostly propaganda. Edit: http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-who-uses-veto-in-the-un-security-council-most-often-and-for-what-29907 Rated PG-34 fucked around with this message at 13:20 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:If your dismissal of an argument is based on racism and sexism, it's a pretty weak dismissal. Won't somebody please think of the poor, oppressed white man?! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Won't somebody please think of the poor, oppressed white man?! I don't believe in double standards. Do you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
stone cold posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Maybe if this were the gilded age that would be a position to take. But you cannot convince me that the democrats and the republicans are equally bad, and that's been a dumb stance to take since about, oh, the enaction of the Southern Strategy. Almost 50% of America is voting for the other side, it's not like there is unanimity on who the most bad candidate is. Is it so hard to believe that someone might find themselves unable to decide?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:I don't believe in double standards. Do you? I don't believe you actually know what a double standard is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Almost 50% of America is voting for the other side, it's not like there is unanimity on who the most bad candidate is. Is it so hard to believe that someone might find themselves unable to decide? In this election? Yes. And no, "almost 50% of America" is not voting for Trump, more like 40% of the people who vote are voting for him, which is more like 20% of America.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:If your dismissal of an argument is based on racism and sexism, it's a pretty weak dismissal. Not when one of the two individuals with any chance of being President has founded his campaign on them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:And no, "almost 50% of America" is not voting for Trump, more like 40% of the people who vote are voting for him, which is more like 20% of America. Still a very significant chunk of the population. Seems weird to act like the idea that someone might not automatically favor Hillary over him is ridiculous and absurd. What's going on here?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Still a very significant chunk of the population. Seems weird to act like the idea that someone might not automatically favor Hillary over him is ridiculous and absurd. What's going on here? I mean, if you want to call yourself a deplorable and fully admit that you want the racist, sexist, xenophobic candidate in power, who am I to stop you? But if you claim to be a serious person who isn't any of those things, than the choice seems pretty clear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Still a very significant chunk of the population. Seems weird to act like the idea that someone might not automatically favor Hillary over him is ridiculous and absurd. What's going on here? Since when is the absurdity of an idea proven/disproven by the amount of people it attracts?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:43 |
|
|
Barbe Rouge posted:Since when is the absurdity of an idea proven/disproven by the amount of people it attracts? I am not telling you to vote for Trump, I was asking if it makes strategic sense for someone who is truly undecided to vote third party. Then the very idea that someone like that might exist was dismissed, ignoring the giant chunk of the american population who favor Trump over Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 15:00
|
|