quote:

Syria

The Syrian crisis is heartbreaking and dangerous, and its impact is threatening the region, Europe, and beyond. Donald Trump would inflame the conflict by alienating our allies, inexplicably allowing ISIS to expand in Syria, and potentially starting a wider war. This is a reckless approach. Democrats will instead root out ISIS and other terrorist groups and bring together the moderate Syrian opposition, international community, and our regional allies to reach a negotiated political transition that ends Assad’s rule. Given the immense scale of human suffering in Syria, it is also imperative that we lead the international community in providing greater humanitarian assistance to the civilian victims of war in Syria and Iraq, especially displaced refugees.

quote:

Iran

...
Democrats will also address the detrimental role Iran plays in the region and will robustly enforce and, if necessary, strengthen non-nuclear sanctions. Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism. It violates the human rights of its population, denies the Holocaust, vows to eliminate Israel, and has its fingerprints on almost every conflict in the Middle East. Democrats will push back against Iran’s destabilizing activities including its support for terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, counter Iran’s ballistic missile program, bolster the capabilities of our Gulf partners, and ensure that Israel always has the ability to defend itself. Finally, Democrats recognize that the Iranian people seek a brighter future for their country and greater engagement with the international community. We will embrace opportunities for cultural, academic and other exchanges with the Iranian people.

Fulchrum posted:

See? Leftists will actively go looking for literally anything, including the platform not broadcasting their own presidents failures, as a reason to not support the Dems. And you still have the gall to still claim they don't do enough to try and appease you.

Democratic Party platform posted:

and has its fingerprints on almost every conflict in the Middle East.

Calibanibal posted:

i would loving love to live in the universe where "The Dems have been defined as the party who think you don't legislate according to your personal feelings on an issue but what the facts state" lmao. what a loving paradise that world must be

Fulchrum posted:

(R) wants a ground war in loving both and to tear up any progress made diplomatically with Iran and pretend they have nuclear weapons. And you are trying to pretend they are even close to equivalent? You realize how stupid, short-sighted, inflammatory, and insulting that is?

Fulchrum posted:

One party engages them in a nuclear treaty. One tore it up and is going to illegally reinstate the sanctions. Gee, wonder if there might be a difference.

But they're both "hawkish" and acknowledge the official position of the government of Iran (true or loving false, the government of Iran officially denies the holocaust?), and the dems were lied to about Iraq. Oh no, clearly they're the exact same.

They are only similar if you lose all perspective whatsoever and go with a binary pick of either er super isolationist or literally Hitler. Which is all kinds of insane.

khwarezm posted:

despots like him will ensure the Middle East remains unstable for decades to come.

khwarezm posted:

The fact that its gone of for years and years, especially with the amount of assistance the Assad regime is receiving from the outside from Lebanon, Russia and Iran, even with the rebels so divided amongst themselves and with such a large advantage in terms of technology and resources shows that this whole thing is way, way deeper rooted than just some yankee meddling, and would probably look exactly the same today if the United States took absolutely no action at all.

khwarezm posted:

I guess we can just say the W word and everybody loses their minds. In reality the US heavily vouched who they gave the arms to so that a PR disaster like that hopefully wouldn't happen

Fulchrum posted:

Iran IS A sponsor of terrorists you loving idiot.

You mean that I'd Iran breaks the treaty in a way that requires direct and immediate action, they'd take direct and immediate action? Butchers!!!

Fulchrum posted:

And of course, right on time, a mix of "Qaddafi did nothing wrong" and completely ignoring that Libya was a loving Nato action and pretending it was only America acting on its own again.

Fulchrum posted:

"Well, guess we've got to give up now and just accept that we can't stop it".

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 ________"

khwarezm posted:

Fulchrum posted:

A fundamental stability and rational government that Iran has not demonstrated.

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?

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?

Fulchrum posted:

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?

"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".

Frijolero posted:

You sure love your terrible reductive hypotheticals.

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.

JeffersonClay posted:

you just want to whine about the primary, which is really stale at this point.

JeffersonClay posted:

Please point to the part of the 2016 plaform that the party gave to Bernie to write that you think is relevant to haiti's minimum wage.

Kilroy posted:

Fulchrum posted:

So just the appearance of doing something illegal absolutely did hurt Hillary

Fulchrum posted:

Well for the record you're the second worst of Breitbart's useful idiots these boards have vomited up.

khwarezm posted:

Dropping gun control would show, again, that the Democrats are willing to abandon and drop issues that primarily concern minorities to chase centrist white votes.

mcmagic posted:

Condiv is gonna love this:

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/325160-chelsea-clinton-to-get-lifetime-achievement-award

Fulchrum posted:

Even if we know it can't happen?

Hillary treated voters like adults, Trump treated them like children, mainly cause he has the mind of a toddler. If we're just going to ignore political reality and pretend that there is a handy easy foolproof way to do these things, then all its gonna do is cause people to call the dems sellouts and backstabbers whenever the stars fail to align.

Fulchrum posted:

You know, that you can never once point to someone who was elected within the last half a century (and thus you in any way experienced the leadership of) as a sign you dont attack anyone who has to work with reality does speak volumes.

Obama and Clinton both made big promises, why not go to them? Oh yeah, because you keep consistently callung them neoliberal shills and backstabbers for (drumroll please) making promises they were unable to keep.

In fact, Obama failing to live up to his promises is the number one justification given by leftists for extreme lack of turnout in 2010.

Also, Hillary promised jobs that could actually exist and took more than 5 words to explain. Trump said he'd bring obsolete jobs back. Stop treating anyone who voted Trump as if they're not a chimp.

Fulchrum posted:

Stop treating anyone who voted Trump as if they're not a chimp.

Condiv posted:

Polygynous posted:

exactly how much should I hate chelsea clinton if I want the democrats to pick up seats in 2018

Fulchrum posted:

Perhaps you should be a Republican. That way you can read all of Breitbart, not just the parts about Hillary, Obama and the dem leadership that is totally trustworthy and you feel the need to keep spreading.

Until then, shut the gently caress up you nazi propaganda spewing little poo poo.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

KomradeX posted:

Politifact is now Right Wing propaganda, For fucks sake

Ze Pollack posted:

Fulchrum posted:

You might think Frijolero wouldn't be that stupid, but, no, he did claim that. When I pointed out you cannot attack someone the audience innately respects or envies without your messaging falling flat, he said that wasn't a problem since only billionaires respect or envy billionaires. I assume he thinks all poor people have perfect class consciousness understanding from birth due to the way their brains react to the magnetic fields of the earth.

Fulchrum posted:

And once again I do have to ask, since Frijolero figured out it was a loving stupid idea and backed off this argument, how deeply does this delusion of yours go, that only white suburban Republicans can ever respect anyone in the 1%?

Fulchrum posted:

I mistook your endless vapid whining for Kingfish's. It all sounds the same to me.

JeffersonClay posted:

Literally no one thinks that.

Why is it the dumb leftists can't engage with any of the actual arguments being made?

JeffersonClay posted:

Again, it seems extremely convenient that Rust belt voters are aware of Bill Clinton's policies from two decades ago, but are too overwhelmed by poverty to be aware of the policies Obama passed which clearly benefitted them, like auto industry bailouts and the ACA.

Main Paineframe posted:

Twenty-five Dem senators voted for Bush's border fence in 2006, including both Obama and Biden, but I don't remember it being an issue with anyone until Trump started dogwhistling.

Main Paineframe posted:

Exactly, but no one gave a poo poo about border walls till Trump started talking racistly about them, even though it had been part of the GOP platform for years and every significant Dem presidential candidate (except one!) in the last three elections had voted for one.