EPT+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpSFp8uCEAEWKr9.jpg)
It looks like she's using a walker, though it's probably a chair.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1091
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + It looks like she's using a walker, though it's probably a chair. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10732 Posts
On June 05 2014 23:22 coverpunch wrote: Yes, they WERE the legitimate government Afghanistan. Now they're not. This is important for the distinction of whether the United States is "negotiating with terrorists". On another issue, it broadly treats the Taliban as a terrorist group and not a government for the purposes of drone strikes and military operations. The executive does have broad flexibility in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding prisoner transfers, but that's another distinction that it's not clear if he has the same flexibility with militant groups. Its so hilarious. You declare war on a country to hunt terrorists (actually 2 countries on one just for shits ang giggles...)... In the course of this you destabilise the whole region and kick the Regimes out. The regime and various groups don't just stop fighting and are to this day fighting back... TERRORISTS! Not that i have any sympathy for the Taliban but ffs... They were ruling these lands before you invaded and as it seems they will or allready do rule big parts of it again. It "might" be time to stop shouting "TERRORIST" at everyone that isn't welcoming your army on his homesoil(!) and feels the need to defend against your freedomspreading... Your actually still at war with the former goverment of afghanistan. You "declared" peace on that country like you "declared" war on it... Declaring war on it did not work out that well, i doubt declaring peace will. But in the process you at least created enough new terrorists to keep yourselves busy for the next 50 years... Or many more mentally broken veterans that might or might not snap, but for sure many of them never will be "usefull/functioning" parts of society ever again. Mission accomplished! | ||
|
farvacola
United States18829 Posts
| ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On June 05 2014 23:33 KwarK wrote: The point being that if the Taliban are terrorists and people you can't negotiate with then there is no meaningful distinction between a government you don't like and terrorists. It's a resistance group and government in exile, no different to that of the Polish during the second world war. The word terrorist has a meaning beyond "people I need justification to declare illegitimate and kill". Well, there is when you consider that the Taliban was a fundamentalist, authoritarian regime that was a state sponsor of international terrorism and regularly committed human rights violations. As opposed to a nominal democratic government whose laws broadly comply with standards set by the international community. That is the difference why we acknowledged one (Poland in WW2) as a government in exile and label the other a terrorist group. I would also note that the Taliban's fate is not set in stone. If they give up their more violent tendencies and are willing to loosen some of the laws and practices that violated human rights, then they could plausibly be reintroduced to Afghan politics. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18829 Posts
| ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/06/03/what_the_release_of_bowe_bergdahl_says_about_obamas_afghan_strategy I'm a bit dubious of the move myself, especially because it will have consequences out of Afghanistan too. But people who know for sure that Obama is as wimpy as Carter or who think everyone who doubts this move is a hawk are probably a bit blinded. We're short on info here, and while speculation is possible and interesting, it is clear that' we're missing far too many elements to conclude yet. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
President Barack Obama said Thursday that he will not apologize for approving the prisoner swap that brought Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl into U.S. custody and that it was the right thing to do. “We saw an opportunity and we seized it. And I make no apologies for that,” he said at a press conference in Brussels. “We have a basic principle: we do not leave anybody wearing the American uniform behind,” Obama said, repeating the defense he offered earlier in the week... “I’m never surprised by controversies that are whipped up in Washington,” he said. “That’s par for the course.” Though lawmakers have said they hadn’t been updated in years on the administration’s progress on the Bergdahl release, Obama asserted that Congress did know that a secretive deal might be necessary. “We had discussed with Congress the possibility that something like this might occur but because of the nature of the folks that we were dealing with and the fragile nature of these negotiations, we felt it was important to do what we did,” he said. “And we’re now explaining to Congress the details of how we move forward.” Senior administration officials spent two hours Wednesday night meeting with the full Senate... “I think it was important for people to understand that this is not some abstraction, this is not a political football,” he said. “You have a couple of parents whose kid volunteered to fight in a distant land who they hadn’t seen in five years and they didn’t know if they would ever see again.” Obama added that he gets letters from parents who say that if their children are going to be sent to war, it’s up to him to “make sure that that child is being taken care of.” And, he added, “I write too many letters to folks who unfortunately don’t see their children again after fighting a war.” Then, Obama repeated his insistence that he won’t be saying sorry. “I make absolutely no apologies for making sure that we get back a young man to his parents and that the American people understand that this is somebody’s child. And that we don’t condition whether or not we make the effort to try to get them back,” he said. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On June 05 2014 04:19 mcc wrote: Want to teach scientific controversy in science classes, fine. It is bad teaching method as all scientific controversies are completely beyond material that the kids have time to be taught and ability to comprehend, but if you really want to, go ahead. Creationism though is not a scientific controversy and thus it does not belong to science classroom. Might as well start allowing faith-healing in medical courses in universities if particular state has religious enough voters. There is a reason why modern states are not direct and pure democracies. Those suck. This is actually the same position that I have on creationism. I don't think it has any place in science, but if people want to do it, I don't think other people have the right to make them shut up about it. Ironically for your sarcastic point, Johns Hopkins, one of the best hospitals and medical schools in the US, does offer energy healing. According to the article, Harvard and Yale also offer it at their medical centers. It's not totally clear if it's offered in the curriculum but it is strongly implied in the article and the centers' websites that it is. Also, California has a referendum system that does make it a fairly direct democracy. Although that seems to support your argument that it sucks... | ||
|
farvacola
United States18829 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42821 Posts
On June 05 2014 23:50 coverpunch wrote: Well, there is when you consider that the Taliban was a fundamentalist, authoritarian regime that was a state sponsor of international terrorism and regularly committed human rights violations. As opposed to a nominal democratic government whose laws broadly comply with standards set by the international community. That is the difference why we acknowledged one (Poland in WW2) as a government in exile and label the other a terrorist group. I would also note that the Taliban's fate is not set in stone. If they give up their more violent tendencies and are willing to loosen some of the laws and practices that violated human rights, then they could plausibly be reintroduced to Afghan politics. I'm not defending the Taliban, I'm merely pointing out that the sovereign government of a nation trying to kill your troops when you invade them is not an act of terrorism. We acknowledged Poland because they were on our side against people we didn't like, had the USSR succeeded in conquering Afghanistan we'd have acknowledged the Taliban too. It is an absurd twisting of logic to declare that the Taliban, who were the sovereign government, have no right to use violence against the US army, who invaded the country against the wishes of the sovereign government, and that the use of violence is an act of terrorism. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18829 Posts
Most Fortune 500 corporations have units in offshore tax havens that they use to avoid paying U.S. taxes through "accounting tricks," two left-leaning tax activist groups said on Thursday. In a report that comes amid increased attention to corporate tax avoidance worldwide, the groups said U.S. multinationals each year avoid paying about $90 billion in federal income tax. "Many large, U.S.-based multinational corporations avoid paying U.S. taxes by using accounting tricks to make profits made in America appear to be generated in offshore tax havens - countries with minimal or no taxes," said Citizens for Tax Justice and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG). About 72 percent of Fortune 500 companies had subsidiaries in low-tax jurisdictions in 2013, with most of these units located in the Cayman Islands or Bermuda, said the report. "These subsidiaries are often shell companies with few, if any employees, and which engage in little to no real business activity," it said. Big corporations regularly defend their tax planning practices as legal and in the best interest of shareholders who want companies to pay as little tax as possible. But fiscal constraints facing many governments, as well as a step-up recently in the aggressiveness of some tax-avoidance strategies, have fueled a political backlash. Earlier this week, the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development held a conference in Washington on its effort to rein in corporate tax avoidance, launched last year at the request of the G20 group of leading world economies. The OECD project has a long way to go, with completion not expected until next year, and it will not have the force of law. But lawyers and accountants agree that changes may be ahead if national legislatures enact the OECD's recommendations. The U.S. Congress has not thoroughly overhauled the U.S. tax code since 1986, leaving it riddled with loopholes that corporations, families and individuals can take advantage of. "The loopholes in America's corporate tax (code) have grown so outrageous that our policymakers should be embarrassed," said Steve Wamhoff, legislative director at Citizens for Tax Justice, which studies tax policy and often criticizes corporations. "The data in this report demonstrate that a huge portion of the supposedly 'offshore' profits are likely to be U.S. profits that are manipulated so that they appear to be earned in countries like Bermuda or the Cayman Islands where they won't be taxed. Policymakers should close the loopholes that make this manipulation possible," Wamhoff said. Tax haven use widespread among Fortune 500 cos-activist groups | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
Or it is confirmation bias, you never know  | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13960 Posts
You can't look at them as if they're anything more then a dog chasing cars (where cars are profit) They don't know what they would do if they actualy caught one but they just do. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Ohio lawmakers held a hearing on a bill Tuesday that would prohibit health insurance plans in the state from covering abortion even if a woman's life is in danger, as well as some popular forms of birth control, The Columbus Dispatch reports. House Bill 351 prevents insurance policies in Ohio from covering any "abortion services," including drugs and devices "used to prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum." The bill makes an exception for ectopic pregnancies but has no exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother. The sponsor of the Ohio bill, Rep. John Becker (R-Cincinnati), said the bill should not ban insurance plans from covering the regular birth control pill, but should ban coverage of the intrauterine device, an increasingly popular long-acting form of birth control that is implanted in the uterus and can prevent pregnancy for as long as five to 10 years. Becker said he believes IUDs are the same as abortion. “This is just a personal view," he said at the hearing, according to The Columbus Dispatch. "I’m not a medical doctor." Scientists generally agree that emergency contraception and the IUD work to prevent pregnancy by preventing the sperm from fertilizing the egg. They are 99 percent effective at preventing pregnancy for as long as five to 10 years. But religious groups and many anti-abortion activists believe those methods prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus and are therefore equivalent to an abortion. If Ohio bans the insurance coverage of emergency contraception and IUDs, it will violate a rule in the Affordable Care Act that requires most insurance plans to cover the full range of contraceptives at no out-of-pocket cost to women. The ban would hit lower-income women the hardest, because the cost of implanting an IUD without insurance runs anywhere from $500 to $1000. Source | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21717 Posts
On June 06 2014 00:42 KwarK wrote: I'm not defending the Taliban, I'm merely pointing out that the sovereign government of a nation trying to kill your troops when you invade them is not an act of terrorism. We acknowledged Poland because they were on our side against people we didn't like, had the USSR succeeded in conquering Afghanistan we'd have acknowledged the Taliban too. It is an absurd twisting of logic to declare that the Taliban, who were the sovereign government, have no right to use violence against the US army, who invaded the country against the wishes of the sovereign government, and that the use of violence is an act of terrorism. The reason is that this is how America justified there actions. There not prisoners of war so they don't have to respect the Geneva Convention, there not a government that we invaded (who would have the right to fight back until the end of time) but terrorists so they are 'evil'. Its about removing any possible way to legitimatize the Taliban's actions and denying their rights. Tobad it works both ways and now bites them in the ass. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On June 06 2014 01:24 Sermokala wrote: If there is a way you can make more money as a corporation by hiring a certain type of staff and you don't you're providing a disservice to your investors and workers. It's actually not that cut and dried. There is actually such a thing as Corporate Social Responsibility: http://www.taxjustice.net/2014/05/13/another-reason-corporations-may-want-taxed-properly/ is the summary. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2423045 for the paper itself. The fact is that if corporate tax avoidance ends up destroying the states that support those corporations then those corporations are not acting in the interests of anyone other than management. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23255 Posts
It's not as if these guys are the only ones on the planet motivated to/capable of doing whatever it is that has got the right so terrified? The best thing that could possibly happen may be to have them reintegrate into the opposition. Although after being out of the fight for over a decade (A long time to spend in prison without having a charge to defend) they may not have much more than a superficial position. But any contact between them and active fighters just makes it easier to point the drones at the right places. Hell for all we know we turned one of them? The point is we don't know. The rights faux outrage should at least wait until we know more about what actually happened. As for the congressional thing, I totally get why he would do that, but he just never should of signed the law in the first place. But that was back when he still thought there might be some chance of getting congress to be reasonable when it came to things he wanted to accomplish and thought giving them this would make them a bit more pliable. Either way these guys don't pose any specific threat that isn't already out there in spades. Acting like this was some great usurpation of power is a bit ridiculous though. I mean what he did would of been perfectly legal prior to him signing the law (probably still not ever going to actually considered 'illegal'). I know the right hates to acknowledge it, but they did have a president before Obama and after Reagan who did basically everything they whine about Obama doing 1) Allowing terrorists to strike the US after being warned by the previous administration (A much higher body count than Obama's 9/11 which the right never shuts up about). 2) The wait times at the VA... First, Shinseki was the one who got fired for telling the truth about what the Iraq war would take. Then the Bush administration did NOTHING to prepare for the 100's of thousands of combat veterans that it created. Did nothing to address 10's of thousands of Agent Orange victims who are suffering from a plethora of problems (Lost an uncle during the Bush administration where his 'paperwork was lost' several times and eventually succumbed to the cancer without ever being able to see a specialist or receive any thing other than pain medication). 3) Bush released hundreds of Gitmo Prisoners, more of which went back into the fight than the ones Obama has released, not to mention Bush didn't get anything in return for letting them go back to killing Americans. 4) No one on the right is hating on the several republicans that called Berghdal a hero or 'fighting man' or any of the other praises the right had for Berghdal until they got the most recent memo from the rights talking points leading people like XDaunt to say 'let him rot'. 5) People were dying on the street, and going bankrupt trying to pay for healthcare. They were being denied coverage for 'pre-exisisting conditions' and reaching caps that meant children were being denied cancer treatment and more. What did the last Republican administration do about it? practically NOTHING. 6) I could go on all day but I think people get the point. The right's faux outrage about any and everything Obama does has gone so far passed being able to be taken seriously it's kind of sad. Because everything he does is a 'gate' or scandal in the eyes of the right, whenever there is something legitimate it gets lost in the weeds of the rights blind obstruction and distaste for Obama. TL;DR: This whole Berghdal situation is being way overblown. The right has gotten to the point where it is almost a total satire of itself. Think about what the last republican administration did/didn't do and what you had to say about them before you bother to critique Obama. I have no question that Obama will go down as the Jackie Robinson of Presidential politics (Not the best in the game, but someone had to take the spit, slurs, and hate to lessen the venom for the next one to 'play the game'). | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9154 Posts
According to multiple reliable sources, on Air Force One during President Barack Obama's recent Asia trip, he spent some time talking with his traveling press corps about his approach to foreign policy. He was defensive and, by one account, "fuming." He felt that the criticism of his approach was unfair. He had clear ideas about how to manage America's global interests. In his own words, they centered on a single concept: "Don't do stupid shit." In fact, after making this point, he reportedly stood up, headed forward toward his own cabin on the plane, and then stopped. He turned back to the gathered reporters, and, much like an elementary school teacher hammering rote learning into students, he said, "So what is my foreign policy?" The reporters, in unison, then said, "Don't do stupid shit." How far we have come from the audacity of hope; yes, we can; the soaring expectations framed by the brilliant oratory of the president's Cairo speech on relations with the Muslim world; his Prague speech on eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide; and his Oslo speech when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, "don't do stupid shit" is a comedown even from his expectation-lowering remarks in the Philippines on that same Asia trip in which he limned his vision for a foreign policy that consisted mostly of "singles" and "doubles." What's more, this aromatic, distilled essence of the Obama doctrine was not, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, offered up in the heat of the moment. It was not a one-time manifestation of temper from the famously cool commander in chief. Last week, in a private meeting with foreign-policy columnists, he reportedly used the exact same formulation again. Mike Allen later observed in Politico's Playbook that the White House was consciously selling the idea to the media as if it were the kind of elevating notion that would lift the president's foreign policy out of the reputational ditch in which it has recently found itself. The author puts it even better than I can further in the article. Announcing the red line in Syria? Definitely stupid shit; he didn't have to say anything and shouldn't have if he didn't mean to follow through. Letting it be crossed 12 times before acting? Stupid shit. Announcing a plan to take moderate action and then withdrawing it afterward? Also stupid. Announcing support for Syrian moderates and not giving it in a timely or adequate fashion? Same. Entering Libya without a long-term plan and letting it fall into chaos immediately after the U.S. departure? Given all we know from every other intervention the United States has ever been involved with overseas, ditto. Overly focusing on core al Qaeda as terrorist franchises spread around the world as never before? More of same, mainly because it involved willful self-delusion and valuing a political message over the ground truth. Being so indecisive on Egypt that the United States had two policies at once -- one in the State Department and one in the White House? Appointing ambassadors without the credentials to do the job only because they donated money? Taunting Russian President Vladimir Putin into action with laughable sanctions? Yes, yes, yes. In each case, not only should we have known better, but there were actually people in the administration who did know better and were ignored. To give the president and his team the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it was doing all these things that helped shape the new doctrine. Perhaps it takes time to learn stupid. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/06/04/obama_dont_do_stupid_shit_foreign_policy_bowe_bergdahl I cannot wait until the next president is around, whoever he (or probably she) is, because in the grand order of Presidents of the United States I don't think we can get much worse in terms of rudderless arbitrary asininity than what we have today. When replying, keep in mind, this is not a knee-jerk reaction to Bergdahl. This is about the course and conduct of grand strategy in American foreign policy and our lack of any such credible strategy for the past near decade. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On June 06 2014 03:03 GreenHorizons wrote: The best thing that could possibly happen may be to have them reintegrate into the opposition. Although after being out of the fight for over a decade (A long time to spend in prison without having a charge to defend) they may not have much more than a superficial position. But any contact between them and active fighters just makes it easier to point the drones at the right places. I'm guessing none of these guys are going to be invited to any Afghan weddings any time soon. Amirite? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42821 Posts
| ||
| ||
