|
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. |
On November 15 2015 12:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 11:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Wonder if we will hear some chest thumping during the debate tonight.
Climate change is directly related to the rise of terror, ooookay Bernie, correlated certainly
And interesting but poor attempt to avoid talking about Clinton's SoS performance
I also think that the Republicans are probably thanking their lucky stars the Paris attacks were after their debate, and not before it, because it threw a lot of plans out the window.
None of these three people are actually speaking very well tonight, I dunno if I can make it through this Actually it helped instigate immensely. What happened the year Arab Spring started, drought and wildfires in Siberia where the Wheat belt is located forcing Russian to suspend exports of wheat to Egypt, Syria and elsewhere. Flooding in Canada, and drought hampering the Wheat yields in the US. Who were the first causalities of the Arab Spring those those that started protesting the bread lines and the price. The first chants mentioned bread not only in Syria, but also Egypt, and even parts of Iraq. SO yes there is a correlation.
There was a correlation with the Arab Spring, perhaps, but that's no reason to assume that that correlation is universally causal or even universally correlated.
|
On November 15 2015 12:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 12:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On November 15 2015 11:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Wonder if we will hear some chest thumping during the debate tonight.
Climate change is directly related to the rise of terror, ooookay Bernie, correlated certainly
And interesting but poor attempt to avoid talking about Clinton's SoS performance
I also think that the Republicans are probably thanking their lucky stars the Paris attacks were after their debate, and not before it, because it threw a lot of plans out the window.
None of these three people are actually speaking very well tonight, I dunno if I can make it through this Actually it helped instigate immensely. What happened the year Arab Spring started, drought and wildfires in Siberia where the Wheat belt is located forcing Russian to suspend exports of wheat to Egypt, Syria and elsewhere. Flooding in Canada, and drought hampering the Wheat yields in the US. Who were the first causalities of the Arab Spring those those that started protesting the bread lines and the price. The first chants mentioned bread not only in Syria, but also Egypt, and even parts of Iraq. SO yes there is a correlation. There was a correlation with the Arab Spring, perhaps, but that's no reason to assume that that correlation is causal or even universal.
There's no need to assume. There is plenty of scientific research studying the links between global warming and violence increase.
This is a debate with serious candidates answering questions seriously. The contrast with the clown circus that was the Republican debate is stark.
|
On November 15 2015 12:24 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 12:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 15 2015 12:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On November 15 2015 11:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Wonder if we will hear some chest thumping during the debate tonight.
Climate change is directly related to the rise of terror, ooookay Bernie, correlated certainly
And interesting but poor attempt to avoid talking about Clinton's SoS performance
I also think that the Republicans are probably thanking their lucky stars the Paris attacks were after their debate, and not before it, because it threw a lot of plans out the window.
None of these three people are actually speaking very well tonight, I dunno if I can make it through this Actually it helped instigate immensely. What happened the year Arab Spring started, drought and wildfires in Siberia where the Wheat belt is located forcing Russian to suspend exports of wheat to Egypt, Syria and elsewhere. Flooding in Canada, and drought hampering the Wheat yields in the US. Who were the first causalities of the Arab Spring those those that started protesting the bread lines and the price. The first chants mentioned bread not only in Syria, but also Egypt, and even parts of Iraq. SO yes there is a correlation. There was a correlation with the Arab Spring, perhaps, but that's no reason to assume that that correlation is causal or even universal. There's no need to assume. There is plenty of scientific research studying the links between global warming and violence increase.
Are they comparing countries with rising temperatures to those without rising temperatures or are they just checking whether the two rise in sync lately? I mean the first google scholar result says that it's not a universal association over the last millenium...but that could be poor sampling of the scientific consensus obviously.
|
Such a thing is useless anyway because any one, or even series of events, can't be linked in a meaningful way. To link ISIS to CC in a debate is just trying to save face for what he said last time, in light of the Paris attack.
|
Just tuned in. Seems like the moderator is really soft, and absolutely giving them the questions they want; allowing them to knock off talking point after talking point. Pretty useless infomercial...
|
On November 15 2015 12:33 Acrofales wrote:
Just tuned in. Seems like the moderator is really soft, and absolutely giving them the questions they want; allowing them to knock off talking point after talking point. Pretty useless infomercial...
They've dug into the candidates slightly more than Cooper did at the last one I think. Mostly during the start when talking about Wall Street/foreign policy (Clinton) and Bernie (guns/some of his tax stuff).
They're certainly more aggressive than the last Republican ones seemed to me.
|
On November 15 2015 12:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 12:24 kwizach wrote:On November 15 2015 12:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 15 2015 12:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On November 15 2015 11:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Wonder if we will hear some chest thumping during the debate tonight.
Climate change is directly related to the rise of terror, ooookay Bernie, correlated certainly
And interesting but poor attempt to avoid talking about Clinton's SoS performance
I also think that the Republicans are probably thanking their lucky stars the Paris attacks were after their debate, and not before it, because it threw a lot of plans out the window.
None of these three people are actually speaking very well tonight, I dunno if I can make it through this Actually it helped instigate immensely. What happened the year Arab Spring started, drought and wildfires in Siberia where the Wheat belt is located forcing Russian to suspend exports of wheat to Egypt, Syria and elsewhere. Flooding in Canada, and drought hampering the Wheat yields in the US. Who were the first causalities of the Arab Spring those those that started protesting the bread lines and the price. The first chants mentioned bread not only in Syria, but also Egypt, and even parts of Iraq. SO yes there is a correlation. There was a correlation with the Arab Spring, perhaps, but that's no reason to assume that that correlation is causal or even universal. There's no need to assume. There is plenty of scientific research studying the links between global warming and violence increase. Are they comparing countries with rising temperatures to those without rising temperatures or are they just checking whether the two rise in sync lately? I mean the first google scholar result says that it's not a universal association over the last millenium...but that could be poor sampling of the scientific consensus obviously.
You can for example take a look at the articles in Climatic Change's vol. 123, No 1 (March 2014), which was a special issue titled "Climate and Security: Evidence, Emerging Risks, and a New Agenda". The conclusions of the authors include that climate change is sometimes overemphasized as a variable to explain conflict, but that security risks are still increasingly an impact of climate change. If you speak French, François Gemenne in particular has published quite a bit of research on the topic.
|
On November 15 2015 12:33 Acrofales wrote:
Just tuned in. Seems like the moderator is really soft, and absolutely giving them the questions they want; allowing them to knock off talking point after talking point. Pretty useless infomercial...
Yeah you definitely missed the harsher stuff so far.
|
Hillary is really good at this.
|
I would be willing to pay to see Hillary face Trump or Carson on a debate stage. She would eat them alive. The only thing which did go poorly for her tonight was her mentioning of the 9/11 attacks with regards to her links to Wall Street, especially since the CBS moderator came back to the issue by bringing up a tweet questioning that link.
|
I think Clinton actually looked the worst tonight.
No one looked bad, but Clinton was on the defense all night and didn't look nearly as sharp as last time. She looked really bad when the discussion about Wall Street came up, her answer on foreign policy was pretty weak, and her answer on racial injustice was crap (she spent almost the entire answer describing the people she's met).
Sanders looked better than he did last time, but he doesn't have the presence to take the "killing blow" on issues. He needs to get more specific when asked about particular topics/given particular follow up questions. Instead, he sticks to his stump speech lines about political revolutions, the middle class being crushed, etc. He has the specifics in his policies, but he hasn't turned those into winning debate answers. He had a whole lot of near-misses tonight, which really blunted his performance.
I definitely think O'Malley had the best performance tonight. He had some hard-hitting answers, that line about Trump, and was quick and spot-on for the whole debate. Hope to see more of him before he drops out.
Overall I think it was an OK debate. It had a number of hard-hitting questions (both of the Democratic debates had more difficult questions than 2 of the 3 Republican debates) and the candidates answered them pretty well. However, I think that the candidates didn't "look" as strong as in their previous debate, and the most recent Republican debate made tose candidates look stronger (ignoring the actual particulars of any answers). While the first Democratic debate made all of the Republican debates look like a joke, this one just made the candidates look "eh".
I will say that the moderating was a lot better. The questions were pretty good and the debate didn't get completely out of control. However, I don't think that the questions were substantive enough (and the moderators didn't hold the candidates accountable enough) and there were way too many commercials. The debate was also really short. Shortest one so far by a large margin.
|
No one even watches this shit because the democratic party is scheduling all these things when they know no one is going to watch. Huge saturday night event. Cool.
|
On November 15 2015 13:31 IgnE wrote:
No one even watches this shit because the democratic party is scheduling all these things when they know no one is going to watch. Huge saturday night event. Cool.
Sanders torpedoed his candidacy by saying Americans didn’t “give a damn” about Clinton’s email scandal. Sanders’s momentum immediately halted and he has since plummeted in the polls. Former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee and former Virginia Senator Jim Webb dropped out of the race after that debate.
|
Your use of the word "plummeted"; care to point to any actual data to substantiate that?
|
United States42009 Posts
On November 15 2015 09:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 08:56 KwarK wrote:
NATO isn't really suited for a world where conflicts are fought in the minds of the people. When the Western world is ready to get serious about it, NATO will do just fine.
Do you think the troubles in Northern Ireland lasted as long as they did because Britain wasn't sufficiently serious? If people with French passports were behind the Paris attacks will NATO be attacking France? NATO is not built for asymmetric and ideological warfare.
|
President Barack Obama pledged Sunday to “redouble” U.S. efforts to wipe out the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), affirming solidarity with France at the beginning of a G-20 summit that has taken on new urgency following the Paris attacks.
Opening the two days of talks with world leaders in Turkey, Obama said "the skies have been darkened" by the incidents in the French capital on Friday. He offered no details about what the U.S. or its coalition partners might do to step up its fight against ISIL.
Later, Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin traded views on Syria's civil war and broached the tense topic of Ukraine during an impromptu sit-down, American and Russian officials said.
The White House said they discussed a new proposal to end the Syrian conflict and Obama's hope that Russia's airstrikes in Syria will focus on ISIL, not opposition groups fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
The U.S. said that Obama and Putin agreed that Syria needs a political transition led by Syrians, preceded by negotiations mediated by the United Nations and a ceasefire. Obama and Putin have long been at odds about whether Assad can maintain a role following such a transition.
Obama also renewed his call for Russia to withdraw forces, weapons and support for pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine, the White House said.
Putin's foreign affairs adviser, Yuri Ushakov, told reporters that Putin and Obama had a "quite detailed conversation," with Syria taking most of the time. He said they also talked about the attacks in Paris and other related issues.
"Strategic goals related to fighting the ISIL are very close, but tactical differences remain," Ushakov said.
Source
|
It's not directly related to US politics, but here's a really fascinating New Yorker article about how one member of the Westboro Baptist Church decided to leave it:
Phelps-Roper enjoyed picketing. When the targets were within driving distance, the group packed into a minivan and her grandfather saw them off from his driveway. “At five in the morning, he’d come out and give us all hugs,” she said. When they flew, she and Libby recounted “Saturday Night Live” skits. Amazing things happened on the trips. In New Orleans, they ran into Ehud Barak, the former Israeli Prime Minister, and serenaded him with an anti-Semitic parody of Israel’s national anthem. Phelps-Roper learned to hold two signs in each hand, a technique that Westboro members called the Butterfly. Her favorite slogans were “GOD IS YOUR ENEMY,” “NO PEACE FOR THE WICKED,” “GOD HATES YOUR IDOLS,” and “MOURN FOR YOUR SINS.” She laughed and sang and smiled in the face of angry crowds. “If you were ever upset or even scared, you do not show it, because this is not the time or the place,” she said. Phelps-Roper believed that she was engaged in a profound act of love. Leviticus 19:17 commands, “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.” “When you see someone is backing into traffic, you yell at them,” Phelps-Roper said. “You don’t mope around and say it’s such a good idea.”
www.newyorker.com
|
Also topical back in 2003:
http://www.theonion.com/multiblogpost/this-war-will-destabilize-the-entire-mideast-regio-11534
This War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism vs. No It Won’t
Nathan Eckert
George W. Bush may think that a war against Iraq is the solution to our problems, but the reality is, it will only serve to create far more.
This war will not put an end to anti-Americanism; it will fan the flames of hatred even higher. It will not end the threat of weapons of mass destruction; it will make possible their further proliferation. And it will not lay the groundwork for the flourishing of democracy throughout the Mideast; it will harden the resolve of Arab states to drive out all Western (i.e. U.S.) influence.
If you thought Osama bin Laden was bad, just wait until the countless children who become orphaned by U.S. bombs in the coming weeks are all grown up. Do you think they will forget what country dropped the bombs that killed their parents? In 10 or 15 years, we will look back fondly on the days when there were only a few thousand Middle Easterners dedicated to destroying the U.S. and willing to die for the fundamentalist cause. From this war, a million bin Ladens will bloom.
And what exactly is our endgame here? Do we really believe that we can install Gen. Tommy Franks as the ruler of Iraq? Is our arrogance and hubris so great that we actually believe that a U.S. provisional military regime will be welcomed with open arms by the Iraqi people? Democracy cannot possibly thrive under coercion. To take over a country and impose one's own system of government without regard for the people of that country is the very antithesis of democracy. And it is doomed to fail.
A war against Iraq is not only morally wrong, it will be an unmitigated disaster.
No It Won't
Bob Sheffer
No it won't.
It just won't. None of that will happen.
You're getting worked up over nothing. Everything is going to be fine. So just relax, okay? You're really overreacting.
"This war will not put an end to anti-Americanism; it will fan the flames of hatred even higher"?
It won't.
"It will harden the resolve of Arab states to drive out all Western (i.e. U.S.) influence"?
Not really.
"A war against Iraq is not only morally wrong, it will be an unmitigated disaster"?
Sorry, no, I disagree.
"To take over a country and impose one's own system of government without regard for the people of that country is the very antithesis of democracy"?
You are completely wrong.
Trust me, it's all going to work out perfect. Nothing bad is going to happen. It's all under control.
Why do you keep saying these things? I can tell when there's trouble looming, and I really don't sense that right now. We're in control of this situation, and we know what we're doing. So stop being so pessimistic.
Look, you've been proven wrong, so stop talking. You've had your say already. Be quiet, okay? Everything's fine.
You're wrong.
The Onion, the thing we look back on and go "Fuck, we totally did that."
|
President Obama on Monday ruled out sending more ground troops to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in response to the terrorist attacks in Paris.
During a press conference at the Group of 20 summit meeting in Turkey, Obama pushed back against calls for the U.S. to broadly rethink its strategy against the extremist group.
“It is not just my view, but the view of my closest military and civilian advisers, that that would be a mistake,” Obama said of sending additional U.S. troops to take on ISIS.
“A strategy has to be one that can be sustained,” Obama added.
“Given the fact there are sacrifices involved in any military action, it is best that we don’t shoot first and aim later,” the president added. “It’s important for us to get the strategy right, and the strategy that we are pursuing is the right one.”
Obama showed frustration with multiple questions about whether he underestimated the threat posed by ISIS against Western nations.
The president sniped at reporters who asked him why the U.S. isn’t doing more to fight the group in the Middle East. “I just spent the last three questions answering that question,” he told one.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
leave it for europeans to clean up their colonial mess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
