EPTPS the number of pages in thread exceeded the year, hurray!
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2016
| 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. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
PS the number of pages in thread exceeded the year, hurray! | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23489 Posts
On June 01 2015 14:55 zlefin wrote: So replace the police force. Sadly I rather doubt there's someone with the authority to do that directly; I wonder what the local laws are for hiring/firing from the police. PS the number of pages in thread exceeded the year, hurray! I think that's the right choice, but the Feds have mostly given the police a chance to accept reforms first, unless they were small or the systemic violations of rights so egregious. Anyway, I'm curious to see how Rand Paul's Patriot Act shenanigans will be received by primary voters. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11640 Posts
| ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On June 01 2015 14:55 zlefin wrote: So replace the police force. There might be a union that wants to have a word with you... | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On June 01 2015 21:21 Simberto wrote: How can "being against the patriot act" be a problem? Isn't it generally accepted fact that the Patriot act is scary as hell? 1. Wait for terrorist attack. 2. Pretend said attack would have been prevented. It's a really easy and standard "standing on corpses" rhetorical strategy. You see it invoked in many places to varying degrees of disgusting dishonesty from meat inspection to TSA to gun control. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 01 2015 20:58 cLutZ wrote: I don't think the Patriot Act will be the rock he dies on, if he fails to get the nomination. It will be either ISIS/ Mideast stuff, or lack of money. Rand's vulnerability is on his previous foreign policy statements. The country (and the world) has gotten a good look at what American global disengagement looks like during the past 7 years of Obama's presidency, and a majority of people don't like what they see. Yes, an argument can be made that the idea is right, but Obama's execution has been horrifically bad. Nonetheless, and as a reaction to Obama, I strongly suspect that the country is going to demand a far stronger foreign policy stance than what Rand will offer. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21963 Posts
On June 02 2015 00:21 xDaunt wrote: Rand's vulnerability is on his previous foreign policy statements. The country (and the world) has gotten a good look at what American global disengagement looks like during the past 7 years of Obama's presidency, and a majority of people don't like what they see. Yes, an argument can be made that the idea is right, but Obama's execution has been horrifically bad. Nonetheless, and as a reaction to Obama, I strongly suspect that the country is going to demand a far stronger foreign policy stance than what Rand will offer. And yet they are not willing to occupy the Middle East for the next 50 or 60 years. You cant bomb something like ISIS and then go home and expect anything to change. You either stay for several generations and effect meaningful cultural change or you don't bother showing up at all. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43272 Posts
On June 02 2015 00:56 zlefin wrote: Obama isn't doing global disengagement, he's been quite engaged from what I've seen. Bombing and spying aren't the same things as feet on the ground, although they win you about as many friends. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 02 2015 00:56 zlefin wrote: Obama isn't doing global disengagement, he's been quite engaged from what I've seen. He's hugely disengaged globally compared to all of his predecessors since WW2. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21963 Posts
On June 02 2015 01:20 xDaunt wrote: He's hugely disengaged globally compared to all of his predecessors since WW2. Is America willing to occupy the middle east for several decades? If not then his option might be the realistic one. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 02 2015 01:37 Gorsameth wrote: Is America willing to occupy the middle east for several decades? If not then his option might be the realistic one. There's a lot of middle ground between occupation and nigh total disengagement. As Foreign Policy recently wrote: While I am deeply sympathetic to the president’s impulse to avoid the mistakes of the Bush years, it is now clear that unilateralism, multilateralism, interventionism and/or strategic withdrawal all share one common reality — the trick is in the implementation. Too little is as bad as too much. Too cautious is as bad as too reckless.Too little is as bad as too much. Too cautious is as bad as too reckless. It may not feel that way at first, but if, for example, the Middle East descends into a major region-wide war and our long-term interests are at risk or we are drawn in at a more dangerous moment, we will recognize just how costly mismanaged restraint can be. Indeed, one of the risks of relying on other people’s armies is that while we may be wise to exercise caution, they may not be — and we may still pay the price either through economic costs, threats to allies, spread of unrest, or other factors. ... For these reasons, for all the amity and good will engendered at Camp David, for all the good intentions of the Obama administration which is dedicated to fulfill its commitment to reverse the errors of the Bush years, questions clearly remain about whether the Obama approach reflects applied wisdom or over-learned lessons, prudence or punting today’s problems until tomorrow. Relying on other people’s armies is a great idea if you can make it work, but the past few years has once again shown that it is easier said than done. And while their victories might come at a lower cost than our own would have, we may end up having to cover the tab for the worst of their failures or defeats. That should be food for thought for the candidates now lining up to replace Obama … because one of them will be the one in office when that tab comes due, as it almost certainly will. Source. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23489 Posts
| ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On June 02 2015 01:20 xDaunt wrote: He's hugely disengaged globally compared to all of his predecessors since WW2. Isn't that because of what everyone wants globally though? I remember he actually wanted to stay longer in Iraq, but the new government insisted that he uphold the agreed deadline set with Bush, for example. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21963 Posts
On June 02 2015 01:46 xDaunt wrote: There's a lot of middle ground between occupation and nigh total disengagement. As Foreign Policy recently wrote: Source. Sadly im about to go out so I cant read the piece but the quote of it doesn't actually offer a middle ground. It says relying on other armies isn't working, which is true. So that means the US would have to do it themselves and that once again comes back to long term occupation to effect lasting cultural chance. I'll read the full piece when I get back in a few hours because it is something that actually interest's me. I dont see how you can defeat a threat like ISIS without long term occupation. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 02 2015 01:20 xDaunt wrote: He's hugely disengaged globally compared to all of his predecessors since WW2. I can't count your opinion due to your long history of hating on Obama regardless of the situation. I'll keep an eye on what others are saying though. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43272 Posts
On June 02 2015 02:13 cLutZ wrote: I thought the lesson of the last 50 years is that middle grounds don't work in war. Weird. I thought the lesson of the last 50 years is that restraint and proportionality was the only thing saving us from armageddon. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On June 02 2015 02:18 KwarK wrote: Weird. I thought the lesson of the last 50 years is that restraint and proportionality was the only thing saving us from armageddon. That's more like a conflation of two things. On one hand, restraint on the battlefield in several "proxy" wars (Against the USSR or militant Islam) has led to the failure to secure meaningful objectives. On the other, you are correct in that judicious selection of conflicts has prevented heads-up conflicts with true peers, which would really in mad devastation. What the two, together, mean is that if you are unwilling to kill nearly every adult in a country to achieve the objective militarily, then the military option is a mistake. | ||
| ||
