|
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 | ||
|
Kilroy posted:You just called someone "Mr. Trump" because they suggested that American ME foreign policy isn't all that great. So... quote:Like I said, you don't comprehend the broken clock principle. I share a fair few of opinions with Hitler. Smoking is bad for you. Dogs are good. Animal cruelty is bad. gently caress those Russians. The big difference is that all those opinions I share with Hitler are ones I share with people who know what the gently caress they are talking about on these things. If I realised that I shared an opinion with Trump that was not shared by Obama, Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, I'd realise that's a real bad sign you loving self important poo poo! Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 10:25 on Mar 6, 2017 |
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:
I think it was good and a high watermark for international diplomacy prevailing over militarism, however temporarily, though it may still live on through other signatories and if Trump gets distracted. For some reason everyone here seems loving convinced that it failed and Iran really is developing nukes for deployment, and that the Dems hypothetical is something they were totally gonna do any day now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 10:25
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted: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). That would not warrant an invasion, no. Iran does not want to commit suicide and a nuclear first strike guarantees that they would die immediately after. No reasonably conceivable consequence of a successful Iranian nuclear program would come anywhere close to the horror that an invasion of Iran would be. I already said I supported the sanctions that led to the Iran deal, like two pages ago, is that not enough for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 10:29
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted: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). Hey Fulchrum, are you aware that aggressive invasions of other countries is a severe violation of international law? Just curious as before you seemed to be very concerned about international law as it applies to other countries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 11:12
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Hey Fulchrum, are you aware that aggressive invasions of other countries is a severe violation of international law? Just curious as before you seemed to be very concerned about international law as it applies to other countries. Yes, just as I am aware that breaking international nuclear treaties is against international law, as is refusing to cease nuclear development even after being caught flouting restrictions. Funny how everyone ignores that part and think that the Dem platform secretly meant that war with Iran would be declared for literally no reason at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 11:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That would not warrant an invasion, no. Iran does not want to commit suicide and a nuclear first strike guarantees that they would die immediately after. No reasonably conceivable consequence of a successful Iranian nuclear program would come anywhere close to the horror that an invasion of Iran would be. To be fair, the only military scenarios I have heard pushed as a support of the nuke deal were bunker busts on enrichment facilities, not a full blown invasion. The overall establishment US Middle East approach is still pretty dire but at least some of the evolutions of the policy by dems has been 'for the better.' Note that I am not saying it is for the best. But this Team Progressive vs. Team Liberal faction split is becoming ridiculous. I have been dreaming of a progressive push for far longer than the primary candidacy of Bernie, but I am not going to let some small recent concessions fool me into believing that these gains represent the philosophical rejection of liberal tradition required to unseat the Dem Establishment. The aimless and often formless populist sentiment against government (and increasing apathy) and in favor of symbolic gestures against 'Establishment' should not be misconstrued, and solidifying a grassroots effort to create lasting philosophical shifts in the voting base will require much more than leveraging currents of dissatisfaction. Republicans have leveraged this through scapegoating and contrarianism, and while it wins elections, it has left them fractured and adrift... I fear what will come of these wins, as the destructive potential is huge, but I don't wish for another party to follow this path.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Yes, just as I am aware that breaking international nuclear treaties is against international law, as is refusing to cease nuclear development even after being caught flouting restrictions. Funny how everyone ignores that part and think that the Dem platform secretly meant that war with Iran would be declared for literally no reason at all. Actually, even if Iran broke international treaties and started developing their own nuclear weapons, it would still be illegal to invade them without a security council resolution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 11:28
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Actually, even if Iran broke international treaties and started developing their own nuclear weapons, it would still be illegal to invade them without a security council resolution. Because the UN security Council would totally back Iran if they just went crazy and started developing nukes in complete violation of the treaty they signed with the rest of the world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Because the UN security Council would totally back Iran if they just went crazy and started developing nukes in complete violation of the treaty they signed with the rest of the world. Considering France, China, and Russia hold veto power, I doubt it would allow a US invasion
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 11:36
|
|
|
What right does the US even have to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? We are literally the only country in the world that has used them, against a civilian populace no less, so I don't really see where we would have the moral authority to tell someone else no.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 11:40
|
|
|
I think if you look at the policy in Syria, it's kinda ridiculous that "allowing countries to support Syrian opposition groups" is considered "literally arming jihadists" and I say this as someone who is opposed to Syrian intervention to support anything other than the YPG. Pretty much the whole arms' traffic comes from Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and the TOWs were the Saudis' to give. To be fair, Hillary was a voice for a strong intervention in that country and that's one of the reasons I didn't support her. That being said, Donald Trump is far more likely to take ill-advised interventions than Obama ever was(Obama himself was actually a pretty firm anti-intervention guy in Syria).
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 11:43
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Considering France, China, and Russia hold veto power, I doubt it would allow a US invasion The P5 were signatories to the agreement you loving idiot. Oh wait, I forgot that France was opposed to all war ever forever. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 11:49 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 11:44
|
|
|
Arri posted:What right does the US even have to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? We are literally the only country in the world that has used them, against a civilian populace no less, so I don't really see where we would have the moral authority to tell someone else no. Nuke make big boom! There, I put it in terms that you may be able to understand, judging from your question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 11:47
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Nuke make big boom! There, I put it in terms that you may be able to understand, judging from your question. Yeah, very simple and easy to understand. So you think the US should give up its nuclear weapons then?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 11:48
|
|
|
Arri posted:What right does the US even have to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? We are literally the only country in the world that has used them, against a civilian populace no less, so I don't really see where we would have the moral authority to tell someone else no. If the mainstream beliefs about Iran were true, it would make sense. A destabilized state run by terrorists that have a stated intent of glassing Israel should not have nukes, as unaccountable non-state actors do not fit into a MAD scenario. Unfortunately these beliefs are not true and the state has strong control over the nuclear program. With that said, I still believe in non-proliferation as a noble goal and everyone should have been tripping over themselves long ago to help Iran develop its domestic energy program if their belief in non-proliferation were sincere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 11:51
|
|
|
Iran and Saudi Arabia are fighting a proxy war throughout the middle east in any country with significant Shia and Sunni populations. The only reason Saudi Arabia is not on the state sponsor of terror list is because the US(probably incorrectly) is in the Sunni camp in this proxy war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 11:55
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Nuke make big boom! There, I put it in terms that you may be able to understand, judging from your question. So what you're saying is that I can safely disregard any of your future posts. Got it. Archangel, thanks for the actual response, and I mostly agree with you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You think it's a good thing for sweatshop laborers to lose their jobs and have repeatedly stated you don't give a poo poo what happens to them as long as US manufacturing benefits. call to action posted:Has anyone else noticed this strategy for neolib/capitalism apologists? The pivot from "a rising tide lifts all boats" to "just be happy you're not in CHINA" was effortless for these morons. It takes some deft hands to say "gently caress the struggle of literally every poor and minority in America" and still portray yourself as something other than an inhuman monster.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
hey, is this the foreign policy thread now? because I guarantee that very few people within the democratic party consider foreign policy to be their main priority. it's 2017 not 2006.Arri posted:What right does the US even have to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? We are literally the only country in the world that has used them, against a civilian populace no less, so I don't really see where we would have the moral authority to tell someone else no. iran, along with almost every country on earth, is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty. they have promised not to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for access to nuclear energy technology and a promise that the p5 will eventually disarm. you can argue that the p5 has not held up its end of the bargain until recently, but, having ratified the npt, Iran has signaled that it will not develop nuclear weapons. also, it is loving crazy to let every country on earth pursue nuclear weapons. you do not want to open that pandora's box Chomskyan posted:Yeah, very simple and easy to understand. So you think the US should give up its nuclear weapons then? yes??? until recently, u.s. policy has been to promote disarmament where it can without compromising its own security. it is why we have those cool and good disarmament agreements with Russia every few years QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 12:41 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
Arri posted:What right does the US even have to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? We are literally the only country in the world that has used them, against a civilian populace no less, so I don't really see where we would have the moral authority to tell someone else no. US isn’t especially worried about Iran getting nukes. Their reactors are sealed by the IAEA and their capability to enrich fissile material is especially limited. They don’t have anything resembling Oak Ridge there. Uranium is especially difficult to enrich to weapons grade (see why the Manhattan project switched to Plutonium early on), and none of the material they produced so far is close to weapons grade. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand... Dead Cosmonaut fucked around with this message at 12:44 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
You're missing the final piece of the puzzle:JeffersonClay posted:What do you mean by reasonable labor standards? Are you talking about 1st world occupational health and safety or wages? If it's just the former, there's still going to be a huge (if shrinking) wage differential. If it's both, then there's no functional difference between that and a tariff, except tariffs can at least theoretically get spent by the government on needed things. In any case, both of these policies would hurt the majority of the US poor because they will be forced to pay higher prices for goods and they won't see wage increases because they don't work in manufacturing. Should we burden the poor here with higher prices so that The poor elsewhere have better working conditions? I don't think there's an easy answer there. Actually we can't help out the sweatshop workers abroad at all because America's jobless poor need those low low slave-labor prices! It's a beautifully perfect circle of rent-seeking, oligarchy, and misery! Breathtaking in its crystalline radial symmetry. Free trade will help everyone -> okay not everyone, but you're a racist if you care about laid-off Americans because we're helping Bangladeshis get jobs here -> okay they're slaves but you're a classist if you care about Bangladeshis because we're helping the American poor get low prices here! Turns out we can't help anyone at all! How convenient. I— *gets hoovered up into the top 0.1%'s Scrooge McDuck vaults along with half the world's wealth* VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 13:04 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 12:46
|
|
|
that's a if you want, i can draw out a bunch of econ 101 style charts and explain the classical argument
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
*draws two intersecting lines* Therefore you're not unemployed! QED. *Draws a line, labels it 'G'* And that's why it's good your wife died in that factory collapse! *Goes on to prove that parachutes can't work because air resistance isn't mentioned in Physics 101*
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
I'm getting the feeling from some Democrats that they think the Russian stuff is what they need to focus on and it will sink Trump. It's frustrating since absolutely no one is going to vote based on that. Independents don't really care and Republicans already consider Russia our greatest ally. It's more of the same "well the rules say that if you collude with a foreign government it will cost you exactly 6% elect-ability points and thus we deserve the next election" when the wonky political rules don't matter anymore if they ever did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'm getting the feeling from some Democrats that they think the Russian stuff is what they need to focus on and it will sink Trump. It's frustrating since absolutely no one is going to vote based on that. Independents don't really care and Republicans already consider Russia our greatest ally. It's more of the same "well the rules say that if you collude with a foreign government it will cost you exactly 6% elect-ability points and thus we deserve the next election" when the wonky political rules don't matter anymore if they ever did. Russian allegations allow the Democratic leadership to forget about the Nov. 8 disaster all together. If you care about the party, you better hope that everything is untrue. If the allegations turn out to be true, Democrats are going to double down on doing nothing to correct the party. They are going to blame Russia for the loss and continue their centrist hawkishness. Frijolero fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
No crowsbeak has literally said he doesn't give a poo poo about non-american workers and shouldn't have to, so kvetching about the Haitian minimum wage from him is pretty drat rich.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:If the allegations turn out to be true, Democrats are going to double down on doing nothing to correct the party. Here's a helpful tip, they're going to double down on doing nothing regardless because the leadership is full of idiots like JeffersonClay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No crowsbeak has literally said he doesn't give a poo poo about non-american workers and shouldn't have to, so kvetching about the Haitian minimum wage from him is pretty drat rich. I don't give a drat about people who you're suggesting we give jobs by destroying American jobs. On the other hand if people in a foreign country are organizing for better conditions and the USA prevents that I am not about to suggest we destroy their livelihoods.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No crowsbeak has literally said he doesn't give a poo poo about non-american workers and shouldn't have to, so kvetching about the Haitian minimum wage from him is pretty drat rich. ok i'll kvetch about it then. the front runner candidate for the dems specifically stopped haiti from raising its poverty level minimum wage and you defended her policies and pretended she would be "economically progressive" anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
"Front runner candidate from the dems" did this post fall through a 9 month time warp? The election is over dude. Your constant need to relitigate it is tiresome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:The P5 were signatories to the agreement you loving idiot. pretty sure i'd rather be ruled by the first 100 people in a french telephone book than you and other alt-centrist hillary freaks, tyvm
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:"Front runner candidate from the dems" did this post fall through a 9 month time warp? The election is over dude. Your constant need to relitigate it is tiresome. it was the person the party all lined up behind not six months ago, and those people are still in power at the dnc. the fact that they could be so tone deaf speaks volumes about the current state of the party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No crowsbeak has literally said he doesn't give a poo poo about non-american workers and shouldn't have to, so kvetching about the Haitian minimum wage from him is pretty drat rich. low wages aren't actually what makes poor countries industrialize, it's government investment in infrastructure and public goods and an active industrial policy. there's a reason china industrialized when it did and bangladesh didn't. the neoliberal washington think tank consensus does not allow either of those things to happen, joe studwell's book on asian economic developmentis basically 100% the story of Malaysia and Thailand listening to World Bank and IMF economists and getting mediocre at best results and Japan and SK and Taiwan completely ignoring them and succeeding. given that fact you actually are advocating snatching bread from the mouths of poor black people in a third world country, both by directly reducing their welfare at home and removing their ability as a sovereign nation to regulate their economic intercourse with the world at large, and justifying it with nonsense. im pretty sure if this were 200 years ago you'd be saying Haitians were better off as plantation slaves working for the french than an independent nation icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Arri posted:What right does the US even have to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? We are literally the only country in the world that has used them, against a civilian populace no less, so I don't really see where we would have the moral authority to tell someone else no. For the same reason we get to be a permanent Security Council member with a veto and Iran doesn't: because we're big and rich and important and have nukes, so naturally we have the God-given right to bully any country that doesn't have sufficient support from the other 21st-century Great Powers. The countries that had nukes decided that they don't want any countries that don't have nukes to get nukes, and that's that. Radish posted:I'm getting the feeling from some Democrats that they think the Russian stuff is what they need to focus on and it will sink Trump. It's frustrating since absolutely no one is going to vote based on that. Independents don't really care and Republicans already consider Russia our greatest ally. It's more of the same "well the rules say that if you collude with a foreign government it will cost you exactly 6% elect-ability points and thus we deserve the next election" when the wonky political rules don't matter anymore if they ever did. The Russia stuff isn't a campaign tactic, it's a "trip up the Trump administration" tactic centered around wearing down the legitimacy of his administration and damaging the ties between Trump and Congress. The Dems definitely need to come together around a solid economic message as the elections draw closer, but we're only a couple months into the Trump presidency right now. The Russia stuff won't swing an election, but it will put a drag on Trump's efforts for the next year and a half, and it's already accomplished more than the Dems were expected to be able to accomplish in Trump's entire first term.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
the countries that have nukes have proven themselves to be really loving bad at preventing other countries from getting them though. turns out moral authority doesn't mean as much as you want it to in the world of great power politics
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Keep hearing that Russiagate is good because "it slows down" Trump. Seems like it's slowing down the opposition. ICE is raiding homes with little Democrat backlash. Agencies are being defunded without a peep. 30 civilians killed in Yemen is perfectly acceptable to the Liberal elite. Not a word on Trump cracking down on state marijuana laws. Who is actually benefitting from the Russia distraction?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:low wages aren't actually what makes poor countries industrialize, it's government investment in infrastructure and public goods and an active industrial policy. there's a reason china industrialized when it did and bangladesh didn't. the neoliberal washington think tank consensus does not allow either of those things to happen, joe studwell's book on asian economic developmentis basically 100% the story of Malaysia and Thailand listening to World Bank and IMF economists and getting mediocre at best results and Japan and SK and Taiwan completely ignoring them and succeeding. given that fact you actually are advocating snatching bread from the mouths of poor black people in a third world country, both by directly reducing their welfare at home and removing their ability as a sovereign nation to regulate their economic intercourse with the world at large, and justifying it with nonsense. im pretty sure if this were 200 years ago you'd be saying Haitians were better off as plantation slaves working for the french than an independent nation Clinton successfully lobbied the Haitians to pass a smaller minimum wage increase in 2011, and they passed the full increase in 2014. Have we seen any substantial improvement in the Haitian economy since 2014? We don't have any robust economic statistics past 2014. But the incomplete statistics from 2015 show slowing GDP growth, slowing investment, and significantly increased inflation. https://www.focus-economics.com/countries/haiti So the assertion that delaying the full minimum wage increase for 3 years caused Haitians to starve cannot be based on anything but your gut feels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
So I hear this is the new tankie thread c/d? I don't want to get caught with my pants down not praising such glorious champions of anti-imperialism as putinist Russia and Iran.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Clinton successfully lobbied the Haitians to pass a smaller minimum wage increase in 2011, and they passed the full increase in 2014. Have we seen any substantial improvement in the Haitian economy since 2014? We don't have any robust economic statistics past 2014. But the incomplete statistics from 2015 show slowing GDP growth, slowing investment, and significantly increased inflation. https://www.focus-economics.com/countries/haiti So the assertion that delaying the full minimum wage increase for 3 years caused Haitians to starve cannot be based on anything but your gut feels. those stats you cited have nothing at all to do with hunger or food scarcity, or domestic welfare? sorry you hate third world black people, but your case that starvation is actually good doesn't hold up to facts or logic
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:So I hear this is the new tankie thread c/d? I don't want to get caught with my pants down not praising such glorious champions of anti-imperialism as putinist Russia and Iran. Wait, who was praising Kruschev's crushing a worker revolt here? Also,  Jefferson Clay its saying its fine to let Haitians live in misery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:15
|
|