|
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 | ||
|
Frijolero posted:A lot of people voted for Trump because they saw Hillary as a warhawk. Looking at the party platform, and the rhetoric of you partisans, you really can't blame those voters. It's like some people are too stupid to learn from their mistakes in the election and don't see any need to change or admit fault. Really, we're quite lucky to have avoided that warmonger hillary. uhuh.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 16:54 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh gently caress here we go. Finish the platform in a way that isn't just ignoring it and hoping it goes away. "If Iran races to obtain a nuclear weapon, we will ________" Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:A lot of people voted for Trump because they saw Hillary as a warhawk. Looking at the party platform, and the rhetoric of you partisans, you really can't blame those voters. Don't give me that, this isn't about whether or not Hillary was good or she should have invaded Iran (she wasn't and she shouldn't). Its about the sickening mis-characterization of what exactly is happening in places like Syria from people like you who have no idea why the place is in the state that its in. The apologetics for regimes like Assad, or for how Iran has been interacting with the region that's what pisses me off. Buttering up to the likes of Assad won't bring stability to the Middle East, it won't control terrorism and won't help the spread of human rights in the region, it will make all of them worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:44
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:"Well, guess we've got to give up now and just accept that we can't stop it". You sure love your terrible reductive hypotheticals. Here's some nuance for you: "If Iran races to obtain a nuclear weapon, we will avoid setting off a global nuclear war by working with Iran and Israel to sign the NPT and promote a non-aggression pact with all Gulf nations." Nukes are a defensive tool. You ever wondered why India/China/Pakistan haven't gone to war with each other? Can you keep this about the Democratic Party? I said at the beginning I didn't want to derail about ME politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:You sure love your terrible reductive hypotheticals. Here's some nuance for you: A fundamental stability and rational government that Iran has not demonstrated. If you couldn't get Iran and Israel to the table before Iran gets a nuke, why in the gently caress would you think you could get them to the table after? The only reason why this would occur and Iran would knowingly work to obtain nuclear weapons after the sanctions were lifted was if they were running full tilt at a loving end game situation. Why in the gently caress would that be your cue that they want to talk peace?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
Squalid posted:The voice of the People isn't exactly how I'd describe the modern Democratic Party. . . Well its certainly not that when it argues for more hand jobs for the ultra rich. Also lol now Fulchrum is making the same argument the Neocons use to start wars in the Middle East. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
And once again, even considering military action as a last resort makes you the same as Hitler. Oh, but Hitler was stopped by military action instead of Diplomacy, so even Hitler wasn't the real Hitler there, FDR was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
Ah now Iran is like the Nazis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
Ah, now you are admitting that military action to stop the Nazis is justified. Though I mustn't be too hasty, after all, given your relationship with Nazis and spewing their propaganda, Crowsbeak, you might not agree with using the military to stop Nazis. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Ah, so you are admitting that military action to stop the Nazis is justified.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
Gonna break down your really misinformed opinions:Fulchrum posted:A fundamental stability and rational government that Iran has not demonstrated. Iran is a stable and peaceful nation state (believe it or not). The Islamic Republic of Iran hasn't conducted an offensive war in its history. They may be authoritarian, Islamist jerks, but they've never demonstrated "irrationality." Fulchrum posted:If you couldn't get Iran and Israel to the table before Iran gets a nuke, why in the gently caress would you think you could get them to the table after? Nobody's tried. Our supposedly diplomatic party hasn't tried good relations with Iran because they rather kowtow to the Israel lobby. Not to mention the Clinton-wing of the party advocated for hardline with Iran for 8+ years. Fulchrum posted:The only reason why this would occur and Iran would knowingly work to obtain nuclear weapons after the sanctions were lifted was if they were running full tilt at a loving end game situation. Why in the gently caress would that be your cue that they want to talk peace? Please stop watching Michael Bay movies. There isn't a single nuclear armed state that wants to "end game" the loving world. Countries have historically attained nukes because they want peace. You think the Soviets wanted to blow up the world? No, they wanted some protection from the US and NATO. Iran wants nukes to protect against Israel and Saudi Arabia. Seriously, please stop embarrassing yourself using FOX news propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:Gonna break down your really misinformed opinions: quote:Nobody's tried. Our supposedly diplomatic party hasn't tried good relations with Iran because they rather kowtow to the Israel lobby. Not to mention the Clinton-wing of the party advocated for hardline with Iran for 8+ years. quote:Please stop watching Michael Bay movies. There isn't a single nuclear armed state that wants to "end game" the loving world. Countries have historically attained nukes because they want peace. North loving Korea. Or wait, lemme guess, they only wish to save True Korea from South Korean oppression. And every other country that obtained nuclear weapons didn't sign a goddamn nuclear treaty acknowledging that there would have to be military action if they obtained a nuclear weapon after signing it. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 08:26 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
Forces in Iran unlike our best budds outside of Israel in the middle east didn't sponsor 9/11. Remind me why are we not invading them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:27
|
|
|
"Iran can't be reasoned with, so we must invade/bomb if they try to get nukes." No different than the Republicans you hate so much. How does it feel to continue W. Bush's legacy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:"Iran can't be reasoned with, so we must invade/bomb if they try to get nukes." We loving HAVE reasoned with them. Reasoned, negotiated, and the international community as a whole and them have come to an agreement. That's the loving point. If they then ignore that agreement and keep trying to get a nuke, then that is definitive proof that reasoning with them is a waste of time. You are saying that, in a specific circumstances where they are acting irrationally and unreasonable, that we still need to treat them as rational and reasonable. You are the one who seems completely convinced Iran is insane enough to keep trying to get nukes with the agreement in place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
ahahahahaha holy gently caress the hill people are literally saying we should invade Iran you know, i did not actually believe that Hillary was secretly a committed third-way/anti-left/center-right diehard, but seeing her supporters right now i think she actually would have been forced by them into taking such positions if she'd won
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
Are you seriously contriving a scenario where invading Iran would be justified and then trying to pretend that this is the view for all situations you stupid stupid gently caress? "Hey, what if France started nuking all its Nato allies, we'd need to stop them doing that wouldn't we?" "I guess" "Whoa, check out this loving psycho who wants to invade France. I guess you just hate them. You loving Hitler".
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Considering that anything less than pulling some hitherto undiscovered lever that makes all Republicans heads literally implode and then achieving each of these with no consequences ever overnight is shouted down as identity politics, a distraction or lies, yes, you literally are asking for way too much. this is funny to me since every left wing "bernie bro" I know has just wanted the national party not to be poo poo. when we say that we are told that MY SExUALITY was TUrNNED INTO a MemE by MoRoNs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Are you seriously contriving a scenario where invading Iran would be justified and then trying to pretend that this is the view for all situations you stupid stupid gently caress? Frijolero posted:You sure love your terrible reductive hypotheticals. V Delusional V Frijolero fucked around with this message at 09:14 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
I'm not the dumbass who insisted we talk about the hypothetical where Iran is batshit enough to break the treaty and put all its resources into getting a nuke asap, then demanded we still treat this hypothetical crazy Iran as totally sane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:state sponsors of terrorism. It may be "insulting" to them to acknowledge it, but the fact absolutely remains that they do sponsor terrorist acts across the middle east.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 09:14
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Yeah, the US has never done anything like this Ah Mr. Trump, was wondering when you'd join us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 09:18
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Ah Mr. Trump, was wondering when you'd join us. It's actually quite amazing what an excellent job Trump has done of loving over people like you. You don't recognize the broken clock principle and are so zealous in your hatred of Donald Trump that you automatically parse anything he says as 100% the opposite of reality. And the thing is you're right 95% of the time of course, it's just that the other 5% of the time he's got you believing wrong things, like America has sensible foreign policy in the Middle East. It's not even that clever or diabolical a tactic on his part - it's just that you're such a mindless partisan even an idiot man-child with a double-digit IQ can play you like a fiddle. Food for thought.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 09:37
|
|
|
Did I fall into a timewarp. Is this 2003. "Whoa u dont think we should maim and kill thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians in an open-ended occupation until we finally slink home after wasting lives and treasure for a decade and watch another region collapse into civil war. I bet u would have been all nice 2 Hitler too u hippie appeaser." Someone post groverlist.txt I'm on my phone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I guess the only way to address the faults of American foreign policy is to join the Republican party, then? That's the only way to engage in that level of false equivalence horseshit on that level and disengage from all nuance and reality, yeah. [Quote ]It's actually quite amazing what an excellent job Trump has done of loving over people like you. You don't recognize the broken clock principle[/quote] Is rhat the thing Bernie Bros used to jusyofy spreading Breitbart propaganda horseshit all over the forums because thwy werent afraid to TELL THE TRUTH!, unlike the Clinton News Network? quote:and are so zealous in your hatred of Donald Trump that you automatically parse anything he says as 100% the opposite of reality. And the thing is you're right 95% of the time of course, it's just that the other 5% of the time he's got you believing wrong things, like America has sensible foreign policy in the Middle East. It's not even that clever or diabolical a tactic on his part - it's just that you're such a mindless partisan even an idiot man-child with a double-digit IQ can play you like a fiddle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 09:52
|
|
|
"Let's do Iraq but 100 times worse, and this time we'll start with a military exhausted from 15 years of warfare and a domestic population with sky-high war weariness on day 1." Gee how did abuela lose with a whole cohort of centrists with this caliber of strategic planning behind her?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 09:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Did I fall into a timewarp. Is this 2003. "Whoa u dont think we should maim and kill thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians in an open-ended occupation until we finally slink home after wasting lives and treasure for a decade and watch another region collapse into civil war. I bet u would have been all nice 2 Hitler too u hippie appeaser." Someone post groverlist.txt I'm on my phone. Well, how old were you in 2003? Cause if it was under 4 or so, that would explain why you're too dumb to understand what a hypothetical situation is. Also, you do realize you are saying that Iraq did have WMDs if you're saying that talking about attacking Iran solely if we have proof they are devoting all resources to flaunting the treaty is in any way comparable?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Ah Mr. Trump, was wondering when you'd join us. You are actually mostly the voice of reason on this page, but don't be a dickbag here. The only reason Iran is ahead of us on the "terrorist actions" score is that they're the aspiring-major-regional-power and we're backing the existing regimes. When Saudi Arabia murders some folks, that's not a terrorist activity, that's one of the world's nastier state actors doing a thing state actors can do. The current (lovely and awful) overlord of Iran was literally permanently crippled by an American-backed terrorist attack. And frankly he's been pretty reasonable on policy matters given that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"Let's do Iraq but 100 times worse, and this time we'll start with a military exhausted from 15 years of warfare and a domestic population with sky-high war weariness on day 1." What if you were dead? I assume that worked, that just considering that you might be dead has tricked you into dying. Also, look at how the GOP platform talks about only wanting peace and cooperation with Iran.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:That's the only way to engage in that level of false equivalence horseshit on that level and disengage from all nuance and reality, yeah. Fulchrum posted:Is rhat the thing Bernie Bros used to jusyofy spreading Breitbart propaganda horseshit all over the forums because thwy werent afraid to TELL THE TRUTH!, unlike the Clinton News Network? It's inevitable that I will share some opinions with Donald Trump. I probably also have some opinions that Adolf Hitler also held. If you consider this a mark against my character I think you should meditate on the meaning of truth and the nature of reality for a while. Then, light yourself on fire. Kilroy fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 09:59
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Well, how old were you in 2003? Cause if it was under 4 or so, that would explain why you're too dumb to understand what a hypothetical situation is. I served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, thanks, what were you doing in 2004. I don't feel like sending another cohort of kids to die for some more fantastical scenarios about the swarthy furriner's suicide wish to nuke the world. Once was enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 09:59
|
|
|
Hey does the Shah have any kids. Maybe BP can finally get those oil contracts honored after the war 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 10:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, thanks, what were you doing in 2004. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNC-T99IxWo
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 10:03
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:You are actually mostly the voice of reason on this page, but don't be a dickbag here. The only reason Iran is ahead of us on the "terrorist actions" score is that they're the aspiring-major-regional-power and we're backing the existing regimes. When Saudi Arabia murders some folks, that's not a terrorist activity, that's one of the world's nastier state actors doing a thing state actors can do. Okay, fair enough, claims of false equivalency withdrawn. However, America has demonstrated that it has not even considered at any point up to now distributing either nuclear material or weapons to actors. With Iran, there is no such history or show of restraint. Thus, just blind trust in the nation if it immediately went crazy and started putting everything it had into developing nuclear weapons, would be a poor choice to anyone with half a brain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 10:04
|
|
|
Les Grossman is like 100x more likeable than Fulchrum/deak though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 10:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hey does the Shah have any kids. Maybe BP can finally get those oil contracts honored after the war Several. There is not a lot interesting about the current nominal heir. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Pahlavi,_Crown_Prince_of_Iran
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 10:05
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Okay, fair enough, claims of false equivalency withdrawn. However, America has demonstrated that it has not even considered at any point up to now distributing either nuclear material or weapons to actors. With Iran, there is no such history or show of restraint. Thus, just blind trust in the nation if it immediately went crazy and started putting everything it had into developing nuclear weapons, would be a poor choice to anyone with half a brain. You do realize there is a country that has done this right? It's Pakistan and just a quick bit of a refresher course Pakistan is not Iran and Pakistan has a history of spreading it's nuclear material and knowledge around. It's surmised they were a huge boost to North Korea's program. Pakistan was (still is) a big supporter of the Taliban and vicariously Al Qaeda.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 10:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, thanks, what were you doing in 2004. I don't feel like sending another cohort of kids to die for some more fantastical scenarios about the swarthy furriner's suicide wish to nuke the world. Once was enough. You're the one bringing up loving fantastical scenarios! The platform is talking about poo poo like Grand Ayatollah Khomenei getting on TV and saying "we're getting nukes now. Nyah nyah nyah." Not a contrived suspicion or a lie, real tangible proof accepted by the International community. That is the situation they are describing would warrant action, and you seem utterly loving convinced that Iran would do that just for fun and we should ignore it if they do, or that Hillary would invade anyway because of some bullshit reason you pulled outta your rear end (she's totally a hawk, she hates Muslims, she hates America, it's her time of the month, pick one cause they all equally apply).
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 10:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 16:54 |
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Okay, fair enough, claims of false equivalency withdrawn. However, America has demonstrated that it has not even considered at any point up to now distributing either nuclear material or weapons to actors. With Iran, there is no such history or show of restraint. Thus, just blind trust in the nation if it immediately went crazy and started putting everything it had into developing nuclear weapons, would be a poor choice to anyone with half a brain.  I haven't really followed this thread enough to know where you stand on the Iran Deal. (Personally I think it was Good-Ish, and the most immediate dangers are, in order, 1) Donald Trump abrogating the entire thing, and 2) screaming lunatics in Iran degrading the entire thing) Khameini's official position is very strongly no-first-use, and opposed to export (if only because it weakens Iran's position), buuuuuuuut... the third most immediate danger, which is really basically contiguous with the second, is him kicking the bucket in the near future and being replaced by someone worse. The fourth most immediate danger is that he's being disingenuous, but I tend to accept the Total Iran Nerd consensus that if Khameini bothers to publicly say a thing, he (probably, mostly) believes a thing. Edit: sorry if I'm helping turn this thread into Iranchat, but I think it's interesting. 
Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 10:16 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 10:13
|
|