|
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:Post the bills Trump has signed that directly assist his base you cowardly gently caress. If Republicans love and respect their base so very much and serve them tirelessly unlike the dems, show your proof. How the hell did you get that from his post?
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 23:22 |
|
|
Frijolero posted:So I've been peeping around the Democratic Party platform and found these two foreign policy gems: Oh gently caress off with this, if you've been looking at Syria for the last four years and think Assad and what he represents isn't 99% of the reason the country is in such a disaster then you are a god damned fool. He probably has more blood on his hand than any political leader in power today and frankly the continued presence of despots like him will ensure the Middle East remains unstable for decades to come. They aren't even wrong about Iran in some ways, they have sent a vast amount of resources to prop up Assad's regime and have huge influence in Iraq (and to a lesser extent Yemen and Lebanon). In neither case have they really taken many steps to try and reel in the Shi'ite supremacism and violence that has helped make organisations like ISIS so appealing to disenfranchised Sunnis, and honestly why would they?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well then best we give guns to wahabist rebels aligned with AQ then. 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, most of the resources went to the FSA, but it being a civil war guns and combatants tend to float around much more loosely than everyone wishes they would. As it was any arms and training provided against Assad was very constrained because of such political considerations, way too small to have a real impact on the war or seriously help the rebels. Most US assistance came in the form of food or medical aid. Then you had the emergence of ISIS and pretty much everything against Assad was abandoned and all efforts instead focused on crushing ISIS. Of course I doubt anyone here has a problem with that, especially when it involves the Kurds, even though US behavior didn't really change that much and some fighter and weapons still ended up in questionable places.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:
American foreign policy doesn't mind control the people of the Middle East you jackass, Syria's instability has much deeper roots than American meddling or the Iraq war and the spark that set the whole thing off was the region wide Arab Spring which America had practically nothing to do with. Syria at that point was a critically unstable society since the Assad family had been in power, uninterrupted, for decades and the state violently stifled dissent while clearly favoring the Alawite minority in the country against the more numerous Sunni population. In 2011 things came to a head with serious problems stemming from major droughts and crop failures that threatened huge amounts of people with starvation and destitution, as well as vastly inflating the population in the cities beyond what could be supported. Combined with the sentiment of the wider Arab Spring unrest began, unrest which was made worse by the Assad regime's decision to turn the screws and not offer any real concession, they fired on protesters and the war began in earnest. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:Nice omission of US, Turkish, Saudi support for FSA and jihadis. None of those countries even approach the amount of assistance Assad has received from his friends, I mean really, to the best of my knowledge the US air force has not taken any deliberate combat action against his regime (and instead focused everything on defeating ISIS, along with a million other countries or paramilitaries, and yet still ISIS had recently been able to inflict humiliating reverses on Assad's forces with seemingly the weight of the world arrayed against them which ought to tell you something about the quality and enthusiasm of much of Assad's forces). By contrast the Russian air force is hammering rebel positions constantly, the Saudi's are much more tied up in Yemen and the Turks have been playing nice with the Russians for months. quote:
The rest of the sentence you decided to quote recognizes that guns and militants were bound to end up in some unsavory places but the point was that there was absolutely not any official policy to arm wahhabists like people pretend there was. Your very link talks about how the weapons were straight up stolen by intelligence operatives from another country, do you think that was part of the plan? In any event such support came too late to seriously affect the conflict, and was shifted away from focusing on Assad towards the Islamic State pretty much as soon as they forced their way onto the scene. The United States stance against Assad has mostly been rhetoric for years now. Frijolero posted:
Reminder: both Libya and Syria became unstable while Assad and Qaddafi were in power, so they actually didn't really maintain stability like people pretend. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:Gun control is a losing issue and dropping it would allow Democrats to go further left on the rest of their agenda. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Harik posted:I suppose it depends on what they replace it with. Gun control won't stop police officers from seeing every unarmed black teenager as a hulking demon that needs to be put down, it won't help with neo-segregation in schools, it won't help with endemic racism that will hire a white ex-felon over a black man with no record. Well, gun control ought to extend to the police force and involve heavily disarming them to make it much more difficult for the boys in blue to kill people, many police forces in countries like Ireland and the UK are almost entirely unarmed and shockingly, that means less police related shootings. The vast majority of police in Ireland have no qualifications whatsoever to handle a gun and thusly aren't allowed to use them. You're presenting a false dilemma anyway, gun control doesn't exist in a vacuum without any supporting policies to try and reel in violence and racism, my point was moreover that concerns about Gun Rights are a much larger issue for white, male people than most other segments of society and capitulating on that issue by the Democrats would show once again that that is the demographic deigned to matter most.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 23:22 |
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:So long as Democrats can convince minorities that its guns destroying their communities and families and not you know the crushing poverty, drug war or overzealous police forces they'll still have some power on the national stage. Yeah, why would those stupid gullible minorities know what things could be damaging their communities? As we all know its a zero sum game where its only some specific things and not a summation of multiple factors.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 02:35
|
|