EPT
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1683
| 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. | ||
Falling
Canada11460 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18246 Posts
On March 01 2015 16:08 Falling wrote: He's not one of them, he's one of us That's quite a good illustration of the deplorable state of the political debate at the moment. The fact that there's an us and a them... even the good ideas from the other "team" must be rabidly opposed, simply because it came from them. | ||
|
lastpuritan
United States540 Posts
On March 01 2015 00:43 Gorsameth wrote: They could accuse a foreign nation of murder with 0 proof to show for it and bring the world a step closer to another cold war? so why are they tampering or commenting even on low-key internal affairs of middle eastern countries via ambassadors or marie harf whenever they want to, with your logic, simple answer is, because that would not take us closer to another cold war since they are not equivalent to russia, nor as powerful as she. if you are ruling a coalition against jihadists who wont be capable of shooting a missile into your soil for like a hundred years, you should do more when an opposition leader is shot down, his life was worth 5.000 jihadists in terms of chess-game you play with putin. and "0 proof" was way off dubious. i would not be surprised if we knew who was the shooter, what kind of ammo he had, where did he eat before assassination etc. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
On March 01 2015 20:20 Acrofales wrote: That's quite a good illustration of the deplorable state of the political debate at the moment. The fact that there's an us and a them... even the good ideas from the other "team" must be rabidly opposed, simply because it came from them. Describe these good ideas, please. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON -- House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (La.) on Sunday rejected the suggestion that House Republicans had made a deal with Democrats to pass a "clean" bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security next week, telling "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace, "There is no such deal and there's no such bill." Scalise is seen as a leader of the conservative wing of the GOP-controlled House, which has so far rejected any long-term funding for DHS that does not include language that dismantles President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration. That action, announced last year, would enable as many as 5 million undocumented people to remain in the country and work legally for three years. Republicans claim that the president in issuing that directive has overstepped his authority. A federal judge temporarily halted the actions from moving forward. "On Friday there was a bill on the House floor to pass a clean [DHS] funding bill, and we rejected that because we said, 'We're fighting the president on what he's done illegally on immigration and we want to continue this battle,'" Scalise said. Instead of funding DHS for the year, the House passed a one-week funding bill, ensuring that the GOP's internal battle on the matter would continue for another week. "What we did was pass a bill that now forces the Senate to vote on going to conference. We actually passed a bill that pushes back on the president's illegal actions on immigration. They made changes to that bill that we don't like," Scalise said. "On Monday, the Senate will actually be taking that vote." Scalise did not offer any resolution to the impasse beyond encouraging the public to press the Senate to move forward with the House version of the bill, which is all but assured to fail. "I would encourage anybody who disagrees with the president's illegal actions on immigration, like I do, to light up the Senate switchboard between now and Monday evening," he said. Source | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
Beats the shit out of me, but I wonder the same thing about Democrats. Republicans: Rape? What rape? Democrats: Let's have a two-tiered system of justice where the poor get prosecuted by the cops and the rich get prosecuted by idiot college administrators! On March 01 2015 13:04 puerk wrote: + Show Spoiler + On March 01 2015 12:36 Mercy13 wrote: There's a big difference between a political agreement like the US had with the Ukraine and a treaty like NATO. If Russia straight up invades a NATO country I would support intervening militarily, as would most liberal minded Americans (I think), and Obama would be under a lot of pressure to defend our allies. The oligarchs care about their own money and power. If Putin's actions cause them to lose money and power, they will get rid of him. There's a reason the sanctions initially focused on Putin's political allies, rather than the Russian economy. You're right that the sanctions weren't hugely effective at first, but falling oil prices have compounded their effect. Russia currently is facing a huge budget deficit, and no one will lend them money to plug it because of the existing sanctions and fears of future ones. Putin's popularity doesn't come into it - if the oligarchs decide that what Putin is doing isn't good for them, he'll be gone. Do you have a source suggesting that oligarchs are getting rich off Crimea? It is my understanding that Russia has committed to pay the equivalent of billions of dollars in subsidies to Crimea as part of the annexation deal. I suppose this might not directly impact the oligarchs, but I find it hard to believe that Russians are looting Crimea, for political reasons if nothing else. Your answer to my question about what you would have done is a pretty big cop out... So what would you have done differently in the beginning? Tried harder to get the EU to levy stiffer sanctions? Put American troops in the Ukraine (this would have been beyond stupid, in my opinion)? The truth is that there is not and never has been any easy solution to Russia's shenanigans in the Ukraine. The world is a complicated place, and just because America is rich and has a strong military doesn't mean there's a possible solution to every problem. Out of curiosity: Poll: Would you support war with Russia to defend a NATO country? Yes (18) No (3) Not Sure (3) 24 total votes Your vote: Would you support war with Russia to defend a NATO country? Apparently, about 60% of Americans support fulfilling our treaty obligations, though the support is lower for certain countries: Source The poll didn't mention which countries were in NATO, however. I would be interested to see how that information would change peoples' responses. wait what, 30% of americans wouldn't want to defend france if it got attacked by russia but they want to invade middle eastern countries to kill bearded men with bronze age morals? straight priorities... The people who don't want to defend France are not the same people who want to intervene in the Middle East. On March 01 2015 20:20 Acrofales wrote: That's quite a good illustration of the deplorable state of the political debate at the moment. The fact that there's an us and a them... even the good ideas from the other "team" must be rabidly opposed, simply because it came from them. The truth is spoken. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker on Sunday made an effort to walk back recent controversial comments comparing union protesters to the Islamic State group and expressing doubt over whether President Barack Obama loves America. Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Walker said he was "not comparing" union protesters to the terrorist group known as ISIS. The comment came three days after Walker answered a question about ISIS at a conservative conference by saying, "If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world." Walker was referring to the protesters who gathered in Wisconsin in 2011 to oppose his efforts to strip public sector unions of collective bargaining rights. His remarks at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference drew an immediate backlash, and since then, both Walker and his spokespeople have been working overtime to dial back and "clarify" what he meant. "What I meant was it's about leadership, and the leadership we provided under extremely difficult circumstances," Walker, a likely 2016 Republican presidential candidate, told "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace. "To me, I apply that to saying, 'If I were to run and if I were to win and be commander-in-chief, I believe that kind of leadership is what's necessary to take on radical Islamic terrorism.'" Walker also sought to use the interview to repair another self-inflicted wound to his potential presidential campaign: His failure to rebut comments by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at a fundraiser for Walker last month, in which Giuliani said Obama doesn't "love this country." Source | ||
|
Falling
Canada11460 Posts
On March 01 2015 20:20 Acrofales wrote: That's quite a good illustration of the deplorable state of the political debate at the moment. The fact that there's an us and a them... even the good ideas from the other "team" must be rabidly opposed, simply because it came from them. It would be... if I was serious and not simply making a play on his name. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On March 01 2015 13:04 puerk wrote: + Show Spoiler + On March 01 2015 12:36 Mercy13 wrote: There's a big difference between a political agreement like the US had with the Ukraine and a treaty like NATO. If Russia straight up invades a NATO country I would support intervening militarily, as would most liberal minded Americans (I think), and Obama would be under a lot of pressure to defend our allies. The oligarchs care about their own money and power. If Putin's actions cause them to lose money and power, they will get rid of him. There's a reason the sanctions initially focused on Putin's political allies, rather than the Russian economy. You're right that the sanctions weren't hugely effective at first, but falling oil prices have compounded their effect. Russia currently is facing a huge budget deficit, and no one will lend them money to plug it because of the existing sanctions and fears of future ones. Putin's popularity doesn't come into it - if the oligarchs decide that what Putin is doing isn't good for them, he'll be gone. Do you have a source suggesting that oligarchs are getting rich off Crimea? It is my understanding that Russia has committed to pay the equivalent of billions of dollars in subsidies to Crimea as part of the annexation deal. I suppose this might not directly impact the oligarchs, but I find it hard to believe that Russians are looting Crimea, for political reasons if nothing else. Your answer to my question about what you would have done is a pretty big cop out... So what would you have done differently in the beginning? Tried harder to get the EU to levy stiffer sanctions? Put American troops in the Ukraine (this would have been beyond stupid, in my opinion)? The truth is that there is not and never has been any easy solution to Russia's shenanigans in the Ukraine. The world is a complicated place, and just because America is rich and has a strong military doesn't mean there's a possible solution to every problem. Out of curiosity: Poll: Would you support war with Russia to defend a NATO country? Yes (18) No (3) Not Sure (3) 24 total votes Your vote: Would you support war with Russia to defend a NATO country? Apparently, about 60% of Americans support fulfilling our treaty obligations, though the support is lower for certain countries: Source The poll didn't mention which countries were in NATO, however. I would be interested to see how that information would change peoples' responses. wait what, 30% of americans wouldn't want to defend france if it got attacked by russia but they want to invade middle eastern countries to kill bearded men with bronze age morals? straight priorities... It's pretty normal for a country to be more willing to defend itself than its allies. Flip it around. Following 9/11 NATO invoked Article 5, yet Europeans weren't thrilled about backing the US into Afghanistan. I guess Europeans won't defend their most important ally, but still wants us to kill men in fuzzy hats who own a lot of gas. Straight priorities  | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
| ||
|
hannahbelle
United States0 Posts
On March 02 2015 03:55 Paljas wrote: yeah, a terrorist attack by an global militant Islamist organization is literally the same as an invasion by russia It's not literally the same, but I'm not sure NATO treaty differentiates them? No? | ||
|
hannahbelle
United States0 Posts
Talk about much ado about nothing. The libs keep beating this horse, but it just shows their desperation. | ||
|
hannahbelle
United States0 Posts
On March 02 2015 03:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote: It's pretty normal for a country to be more willing to defend itself than its allies. Flip it around. Following 9/11 NATO invoked Article 5, yet Europeans weren't thrilled about backing the US into Afghanistan. I guess Europeans won't defend their most important ally, but still wants us to kill men in fuzzy hats who own a lot of gas. Straight priorities Not to mention the threat that Libya posed to France... | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On March 02 2015 04:05 hannahbelle wrote: It's not literally the same, but I'm not sure NATO treaty differentiates them? No? even invoking the NATO treaty was problematic. it simply wasnt designed for such cases | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On March 02 2015 03:55 Paljas wrote: yeah, a terrorist attack by an global militant Islamist organization is literally the same as an invasion by russia The poll question was: 'should the US use military force if Russia attacks any of the countries listed below?' Now its an invasion, and you're probably assuming unprovoked as well. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23766 Posts
I actually think his other walk back was funnier. "but I think it's pretty clear, that's the closest thing I have in terms of handling a difficult situation, not that there's any parallel between the two." And this one: As recently as Friday, Walker was still holding fast to his ignorance, telling a Wisconsin newspaper, "I don't really know what his opinions are on that one way or another." But Walker changed his tune in the interview with Wallace, saying, "I don't question" that Obama loves America, and emphasizing that the former New York mayor wasn't speaking on Walker's behalf. Presumably this one will be walked back eventually... Yet even as Walker sought to tamp down these two controversies, he ignored an opportunity to put to rest a third dust-up, this one regarding Obama's faith. Last month, Walker said he didn't know whether or not Obama was a Christian, telling the Washington Post, “I’ve actually never talked about it or I haven’t read about that." | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On March 02 2015 04:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The poll question was: 'should the US use military force if Russia attacks any of the countries listed below?' Now its an invasion, and you're probably assuming unprovoked as well. there is indeed a difference here, because as you figured out, the phrasing does indeed imply a clean cut scenario like that and not a terrorist attack by some extremist group. There was no real nato follow up on the charlie hebdo attacks either, or at least it's questionable sparking discussion, there was nothing comming from the Nato for the more recent ones in Denmark either because it just simply isn't that clean cut. If the question wasn't supposed to imply exactly that, and it does sound as if it does, the question's useless. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On March 02 2015 04:59 Toadesstern wrote: there is indeed a difference here, because as you figured out, the phrasing does indeed imply a clean cut scenario like that and not a terrorist attack by some extremist group. There was no real nato follow up on the charlie hebdo attacks either, or at least it's questionable sparking discussion, there was nothing comming from the Nato for the more recent ones in Denmark either because it just simply isn't that clean cut. If the question wasn't supposed to imply exactly that, and it does sound as if it does, the question's useless. I think you're illustrating my point very well. The US was attack on 9/11 and Europeans did and still do hem and haw over whether they should have supported the US into Afghanistan. Yet and minority of Americans voice disfavor towards protecting France from an attack, not details given, and that's just outrageous. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Pretty much all big European NATO countries did their part in the Afghanistan war and still do today. I don't know what hem and haw means in this context, or do you think we shouldn't even controversially discuss our military involvement and rename our french fries to freedom fries, too? | ||
| ||
