|
Will Perez force the dems left? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
33 | 6.38% |
| No |
|
343 | 66.34% |
| Keith Ellison |
|
54 | 10.44% |
| Pete Buttigieg |
|
71 | 13.73% |
| Jehmu Green |
|
16 | 3.09% |
| Total: | 416 votes | ||
|
Fulchrum posted:Well then, lets just tell the people who felt their skin melting and their nerves on fire before they died that it's their own fault, they should have just chosen not to be born under a madman, cause literally any action is just too much. So when do you want to fight North Korea?
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Oh my god. Do you think Saddam actually had WMDs and used them regularly? Like, we saw him do it? Also, at what point did OIF involve bombing airports and that's it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:So when do you want to fight North Korea? As soon as Hillary is for it
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Do you think Saddam actually had WMDs and used them regularly? Like, we saw him do it?  I...huh?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Do you think Saddam actually had WMDs and used them regularly? Like, we saw him do it? Bombing airports is where it started. Also why do you like Saudi Arabia so much?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:How much of those people was actual economic concerns and how many were "let's give the other side a try" voters who switch every 8 years? Probably not too many, seeing as the states Democrats lost include a bunch they hadn't in quite a while.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:
Okay, let me try to make this simple. Saddam didn't have chemical goddamn weapons and didn't use them. Assad does and did. Also blowing up a runway is not the same as trying to occupy a country. Are you caught up to speed on the subtle nuanced differences yet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Bombing airports is where it started. No it didn't you idiot, it started with doctoring reports to claim they had chemical weapons. So unless you're saying all those dead Syrian kids are just faking (which is pretty in line for one of you cretins), is not going to happen here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
How about we actually wait for some independent verification Assad was behind these attacks?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Okay, let me try to make this simple. So in order to save the people of Syria, you're gonna blow up their country. Makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:No it didn't you idiot, it started with doctoring reports to claim they had chemical weapons. So unless you're saying all those dead Syrian kids are just faking (which is pretty in line for one of you cretins), is not going to happen here. We've had two years of media onslaught banging the drums already at this point. I meant actual military operations started more or less that way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Well then, lets just tell the people who felt their skin melting and their nerves on fire before they died that it's their own fault, they should have just chosen not to be born under a madman, cause literally any action is just too much. I dunno, how about we call Obama and ask?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I dunno, how about we call Obama and ask? Holy poo poo 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I dunno, how about we call Obama and ask? Obama did pretty much everything in his power to stop the use of chemical weapons in this conflict, short of risking large-scale commitment of ground troops to Syria. This is a really dumb false equivalency. Fulchrum posted:Well then, lets just tell the people who felt their skin melting and their nerves on fire before they died that it's their own fault, they should have just chosen not to be born under a madman, cause literally any action is just too much. This is also a really dumb argument, though. The question isn't whether or not the chemical weapons attacks were obscenely evil - they were. Everyone here knows that. The question is whether or not the U.S. can cause any positive change to happen in Syria through military intervention going forward. All available evidence suggests no, we will not make things better by intervening. The U.S. helped cause this conflict by (further) destabilizing the region in '03 through a terribly ill-considered military campaign. Another terribly ill-considered military campaign is not going to cause fewer Syrian civilians to die. Fulchrum posted:How much of those people was actual economic concerns and how many were "let's give the other side a try" voters who switch every 8 years? Given that a great many of these voters and communities had not voted for a Republican since Reagan in 1984, not as many as you think. Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Apr 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This is also a really dumb argument, though. The question isn't whether or not the chemical weapons attacks were obscenely evil - they were. Everyone here knows that. The question is whether or not the U.S. can cause any positive change to happen in Syria through military intervention going forward. All available evidence suggests no, we will not make things better by intervening. How does forcing the grounding of Syrian planes, i.e. the only relevant part to their goddamn hateboner for Hillary, lead to destabilizing the region if there isn't a commitment of ground troops to force Assad out? Minimizing the atrocities he can do to his own people doesn't tip the power balance in any significant way. You seem to be assuming that any action that America takes whatsoever will always lead to the complete collapse of political order.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Using the pretense of concern over casualties to unleash one's nationalist boner, with no plan of using it towards some goal, with no intention of attempting to end violence, merely to create another in a string of killings, is much more contemptible than even not caring at all. Hth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:How does forcing the grounding of Syrian planes, i.e. the only relevant part to their goddamn hateboner for Hillary, lead to destabilizing the region if there isn't a commitment of ground troops to force Assad out? Minimizing the atrocities he can do to his own people doesn't tip the power balance in any significant way. A no-fly zone in the region would inevitably lead to a standoff between Russian and American planes, and airmen would die. Russia would up its involvement in the region, turning it into more of a proxy war than it already is. If you don't realize this, you're being willfully ignorant. quote:You seem to be assuming that any action that America takes whatsoever will always lead to the complete collapse of political order. It doesn't need to lead to the complete collapse of political order to damage it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
"Force the grounding of S planes" Syria is already flying sorties from the "destroyed" air base, and the attack gave Russia a pretense to deploy more AA batteries in the country. The arguments used against Hillary that her eminently retarded no fly zone fetish would just backfire and make situation in the country WORSE by not affecting the enemy capabilities, and in fact bolstering both their resolve, and their defenses, have been already proven right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Fulchrum just sees this topic for its troll potential only.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Bombing poo poo without committing to a ground offensive or to the interdiction of ground targets is also worse than doning nothing. It's just destroying things for its own sake, to satisfy the bombing country's ego. It does nothing to bring the region closer to peace, it is a violation of any concept of just war imaginable, a naive / narcissistic exercise in undirected use of lethal power for no gain at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:"Force the grounding of S planes" So what you are saying is that if someone does something badly, it proves that the core idea itself is wrong. So given your arguments that Hillary ran wrong on leftist economic policy, that's proven dead and wrong, and should be abandoned?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:So what you are saying is that if someone does something badly, it proves that the core idea itself is wrong. This idea is not just poorly implemented, it is most importantly morally corrupt, plus incapable of achieving its supposed goals, being obviously designed to help the architect's domestic standing at the expense of the target country, and remains so irrespective of who champions it. Also Hillary didn't run on leftist policies, but you know that very well already, and you are just trying to annoy people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:This idea is not just poorly implemented, it is most importantly morally corrupt, plus incapable of achieving its supposed goals, being obviously designed to help the architect's domestic standing at the expense of the target country, and remains so irrespective of who champions it. Also Hillary didn't run on leftist policies, but you know that very well already, and you are just trying to annoy people. Ah yes of course, it didn't count because of REASONS! And an attempt to frame intervening to stop genocidal tactics as morally corrupt, very nice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Ah yes of course, it didn't count because of REASONS! "Reasons" "Oh yes you think you're so clever arguing like this, using reasons as justification  "
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
An intervention blatantly incapable of stapping genocidal actions, and incapable of achieving that goal inherently, by design, not just due to temporary operational factors, is indeed morally dubious to say the least. Air power is not a peace making or peace keeping instrument, and has never been used in that capacity successfully on its own. It can only be a component of a wider strategy, or a display of arrogant showmanship. The US-SDF cooperation campaign is an example of a highly successful intervention. Ad hoc responses to individual actions by a combatant with no overarching principle are not. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Apr 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
edit: Regarding the Syria bombing, I feel like the problem is that, in all likelihood, a lot more bombing than this will be necessary to stop Assad's use of chemical weapons. We don't really know where the line is where our bombing becomes more than Assad is willing to deal with, and until the line is reached we'll have just caused a bunch of damage (and almost certainly casualties in the process) for literally no reason. And there's also the possibility that Assad doesn't stop until we've caused even more damage than the chemical weapons did in the first place. Or the possibility that they'll just replace the chemical weapons with something else that also kills the gently caress out of people, just in a "nicer" way, which also leads to the same "more casualties than if we did nothing" outcome. Generally speaking, usually violence in a situation with uncertain results should be treated with great doubt, because the action itself inherently causes harm and only becomes "worth it" if the ideal result is achieved. In a situation like this, where the "ideal result" is entirely dependent upon Assad's decisions, it's more likely to be a bad thing than a good one. I don't deny that there's a non-zero chance that our bombing somehow results in Syria stopping its chemical weapon use and saving lives, but I don't see any particularly convincing reason to think this will happen, and if it doesn't happen the intrinsically harmful nature of our actions is still, well, harmful. Fulchrum posted:How much of those people was actual economic concerns and how many were "let's give the other side a try" voters who switch every 8 years? The people who can't form any form of insight or reasoning so they just back swinging the white house the other way when given the option? Probably a fairly significant amount! Though it's important to keep in mind that "let's give the other side a try" is a result of general discontentment with the status quo, so the politician who seems to be saying "things are bad and we'll make big changes" will get a lot of their support. Of course, the Democrats are partly screwed in that regard since saying "we don't like how things have been and want to make big changes" is a very risky move that could lose a lot of Obama supporters (since it's effectively saying "Obama screwed up"). I would be curious to see how many people normally flip their votes, since it would be useful to see if it differed at all in this election. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Apr 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
magnavox space odyssey posted:"Prove to me why this is different than the other thing" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n-UGQcG3Jw
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
magnavox space odyssey posted:"Prove to me why this is different than the other thing" No, that was in regards to Hillary not having an economically leftist policy, a claim all of you are utterly wed to because it's your only defense in a clash of ideology and reality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Hillary was a leftist candidate in the same way Hitler was a socialist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:So what you are saying is that if someone does something badly, it proves that the core idea itself is wrong. Paint us a plausible scenario of the core idea being executed effectively, if you would. quote:So given your arguments that Hillary ran wrong on leftist economic policy, that's proven dead and wrong, and should be abandoned? I don't think the problem is that Clinton ran wrong on leftist economics, so much as that she didn't run on them at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Guys, it is *super* important to me that I die from physical shrapnel wounds to my major organs, and not chemical burns. I mean, I'm going to die in screaming agony either way, right, but chemical weapons would be a war crime and war crimes are bad. Getting torn apart by drone fire or murdered as collateral damage from a rocket attack? All cool, just business as normal, better luck next life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
I hope Hillary runs again in 2020, third times the charm!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Guys, it is *super* important to me that I die from physical shrapnel wounds to my major organs, and not chemical burns. I mean, I'm going to die in screaming agony either way, right, but chemical weapons would be a war crime and war crimes are bad. Getting torn apart by drone fire or murdered as collateral damage from a rocket attack? All cool, just business as normal, better luck next life. Uhhhhhhhh I'm against this dumb bombing Syrian airfields poo poo but this is a stupid argument. Chemical weapons are heinous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
and to think, they're putting chemicals in our water and food
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Paint us a plausible scenario of the core idea being executed effectively, if you would. You keep saying this and I have yet to see you prove it. Hillary actually won voters who said that the economy was their priority. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.807eca0f0cca blackguy32 fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Apr 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
I'm really not convinced this slapfight about whether Clinton focused enough on economics matters, because what are the alternatives, exactly? What is there to lose? Running another campaign like Clinton's will obviously not work. If we were to concede that her leftist economic message was actually heard loud and clear, and no adjustments are necessary there, then what's the solution? Be more racist?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:I'm really not convinced this slapfight about whether Clinton focused enough on economics matters, because what are the alternatives, exactly? What is there to lose? Running another campaign like Clinton's will obviously not work. If we were to concede that her leftist economic message was actually heard loud and clear, and no adjustments are necessary there, then what's the solution? Be more racist? Stop talking about identity politics. Anything that doesn't put whiteness as front and center is seen as an affront. The election was lost through a handful of places and not as some overarching mandate against her. Perhaps focus even more on minority areas. blackguy32 fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Apr 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:You keep saying this and I have yet to see you prove it. Hillary actually won voters who said that the economy was their priority. But again, it doesn't really matter how voters in California or Mississippi (or indeed, the aggregate of American voters on a national level) rated the economy in terms of importance to their vote. What matters is what motivated those small but strategically vital communities, who had voted for Obama in '08 and '12, but defected to Trump and swung the election for him. Plus, what you and this analysis don't take into account, is something that I've said before: that issues like "immigration" were still heavily couched as economic issues by the Republicans. Obviously racism drives a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment, but so does the misconception that "they're takin' ARR JURBS!" Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Apr 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Stop talking about identity politics. Anything that doesn't put whiteness as front and center is seen as an affront. I am very confused. Are you being serious? Is the sarcasm just not coming through? This is literally what Bernie tried to do and he got eviscerated for it, and I thought rightly so. If you're willing to back off on it now, only to save more centrist economic policies, then I really gave you too much credit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
Majorian posted:But again, it doesn't really matter how voters in California or Mississippi (or indeed, the aggregate of American voters on a national level) rated the economy in terms of importance to their voted. What matters is what motivated those small but strategically vital communities, who had voted for Obama in '08 and '12, but defected to Trump and swung the election for him. Read the article and the chart again, this is in those swing states. More and more data is coming out that this election really wasn't about the economy and as I have said numerous times before, trying to go after the "Obama voters" that were supposedly lost is a lost cause if you want your campaign to focus on equality and civil rights, because to focus on that is to decenter whiteness, and anytime you do that, those White voters begin to get nervous. BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:I am very confused. Are you being serious? Is the sarcasm just not coming through? This is literally what Bernie tried to do and he got eviscerated for it, and I thought rightly so. If you're willing to back off on it now, only to save more centrist economic policies, then I really gave you too much credit. I am being facetious. But that is what you have to do if your goal is to win back some of those White working class voters that many on the left seem to want to win back. blackguy32 fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Apr 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 19:37
|
|