|
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. |
And of course, the war hawks will be looking for another excuse to use to send in ground troops, when literally no one is willing to get involved with that disaster. It makes it way easier of terrorist across the middle east to fight the west if you put troops in the middle east. #IraqLessons
On April 05 2016 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +
MILWAUKEE — Charlie Sykes, a popular talk radio host here and leader of the “Stop Trump” movement, had spent months hammering Donald J. Trump on his show, calling him a “whiny, thin-skinned bully” and dismissing his supporters as “Trumpkins.”
If Trump loses, and he feels like there is a hint of illegitimacy to his defeat, he will run third party. No doubt in my mind. Why is the GOP trying so hard to make sure he runs as a third party?
Because they would rather lose than have him be the banner bearer of their party. A White House term if 4 years, the damage Trump could do to their party could take decades to undo. I would argue its already done, but that is just me.
|
On April 05 2016 06:15 Plansix wrote:
And of course, the war hawks will be looking for another excuse to use to send in ground troops, when literally no one is willing to get involved with that disaster. It makes it way easier of terrorist across the middle east to fight the west if you put troops in the middle east. #IraqLessons
Yup, Muslims start worrying that boots on the ground may eventually lead to losing a war that was lost hundreds of years ago.
|
On April 05 2016 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:
We tried to use a group of savages. Turned out to be a group of savages. What a surprise.
No one wants to admit that our savages are actually savages though. A mistake repeated way too many times in the past decades.
|
On April 05 2016 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:We tried to use a group of savages. Turned out to be a group of savages. What a surprise. Edit: It is bizarre how open this whole situation is. It truly is "the media against Trump" 6 Talk Radio Hosts, on a Mission to Stop Trump in WisconsinShow nested quote +
MILWAUKEE — Charlie Sykes, a popular talk radio host here and leader of the “Stop Trump” movement, had spent months hammering Donald J. Trump on his show, calling him a “whiny, thin-skinned bully” and dismissing his supporters as “Trumpkins.”
If Trump loses, and he feels like there is a hint of illegitimacy to his defeat, he will run third party. No doubt in my mind. Why is the GOP trying so hard to make sure he runs as a third party?
Just a note: You call them savages. I have dear friends in Syria. While they themselves are not fighting there, their friends are. Regular people with the kind of education you and I have (probably better than most people in this thread, generally from colleges in the US and Germany), but when your home is bombed and your family starts disappearing, people are willing to fight for what they believe.
It's a travesty that the US bungled it's support for moderate rebels as badly as it did. A lot of lives were lost that could have been avoided; either by not making empty promises or following up on one's words.
|
First, the right pounced on Jerry Moran after the Kansas senator cracked the door open to a hearing for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. Now, conservatives are starting to turn on John Boozman.
The Arkansas Republican will meet with Garland on Tuesday, even though he says the confirmation process should go no further beyond just courtesy meetings. But that isn’t enough for some on the right, who are upset with Boozman for merely sitting down with Garland.
“A little more than two weeks ago, Boozman vowed to join his Republican colleagues in the Senate and oppose any Supreme Court nominee while this president is in office,” FreedomWorks CEO Adam Brandon said Monday. “Now he is meeting with the nominee. It makes no sense. This is not the time for squeamishness or timidity.”
The backlash is similar, though not as intense, as the firestorm that faced Moran during the recess when he told Kansas voters that Garland deserved a confirmation process. Conservatives immediately went on the attack, threatening an ad campaign and perhaps even a primary challenger for Moran, who is up for reelection this fall. The former National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman then quickly backtracked on his call for hearings.
Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund Chairwoman Jenny Beth Martin praised Moran’s change of heart in a statement Monday, but warned that her group was still keeping an eye on the senator.
“While Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund and our supporters are grateful that Sen. Moran has decided to stand with Kansans on this critical issue, we will continue to watch the situation in Kansas to make sure he is fighting for the grassroots,” Martin said. “Or we will find a candidate who will."
The wrath of the right hasn’t been as sharp against Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, who is battling for reelection in a purple state and announced on Monday that she will meet with Garland next week. Her race has become a test case for the larger Democratic strategy of hitting vulnerable Republicans for obstructing Garland's nomination.
Source
|
On April 05 2016 06:21 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:We tried to use a group of savages. Turned out to be a group of savages. What a surprise. Edit: It is bizarre how open this whole situation is. It truly is "the media against Trump" 6 Talk Radio Hosts, on a Mission to Stop Trump in Wisconsin
MILWAUKEE — Charlie Sykes, a popular talk radio host here and leader of the “Stop Trump” movement, had spent months hammering Donald J. Trump on his show, calling him a “whiny, thin-skinned bully” and dismissing his supporters as “Trumpkins.”
If Trump loses, and he feels like there is a hint of illegitimacy to his defeat, he will run third party. No doubt in my mind. Why is the GOP trying so hard to make sure he runs as a third party? It's a travesty that the US bungled it's support for moderate rebels as badly as it did.
Or perhaps the Syrian people should be expected to solve their own problems else face the consequences of other countries that couldn't make it.
|
On April 05 2016 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:We tried to use a group of savages. Turned out to be a group of savages. What a surprise. Edit: It is bizarre how open this whole situation is. It truly is "the media against Trump" 6 Talk Radio Hosts, on a Mission to Stop Trump in WisconsinShow nested quote +
MILWAUKEE — Charlie Sykes, a popular talk radio host here and leader of the “Stop Trump” movement, had spent months hammering Donald J. Trump on his show, calling him a “whiny, thin-skinned bully” and dismissing his supporters as “Trumpkins.”
If Trump loses, and he feels like there is a hint of illegitimacy to his defeat, he will run third party. No doubt in my mind. Why is the GOP trying so hard to make sure he runs as a third party?
GOP doesn't actually want Cruz or Trump or Kasich to become president of the United States. I think they are hoping nominating Cruz with a 3rd party Trump run lets them kill two birds with one stone: Cruz won't run again and Trump will be relentlessly demonized in the right wing media as a man who handed Hillary the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
They are banking heavily on their party loathing Clinton.
Edit: They might also point to him running third party being a sign of complete and utter insanity with 0 benefit to him since he could not possibly win the election and could only damage the nominee and down-ballot Republicans.
Seriously, his 3rd party run threats have no benefit for him besides wasting money, so I am not sure why he still discusses them beyond a false bravado and stupid intimidation tactic.
|
On April 05 2016 06:21 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:We tried to use a group of savages. Turned out to be a group of savages. What a surprise. Edit: It is bizarre how open this whole situation is. It truly is "the media against Trump" 6 Talk Radio Hosts, on a Mission to Stop Trump in Wisconsin
MILWAUKEE — Charlie Sykes, a popular talk radio host here and leader of the “Stop Trump” movement, had spent months hammering Donald J. Trump on his show, calling him a “whiny, thin-skinned bully” and dismissing his supporters as “Trumpkins.”
If Trump loses, and he feels like there is a hint of illegitimacy to his defeat, he will run third party. No doubt in my mind. Why is the GOP trying so hard to make sure he runs as a third party? Just a note: You call them savages. I have dear friends in Syria. While they themselves are not fighting there, their friends are. Regular people with the kind of education you and I have (probably better than most people in this thread, generally from colleges in the US and Germany), but when your home is bombed and your family starts disappearing, people are willing to fight for what they believe. It's a travesty that the US bungled it's support for moderate rebels as badly as it did. A lot of lives were lost that could have been avoided; either by not making empty promises or following up on one's words.
That is the problem with what took place. No one directly supported the rebels early on. Congress voted down intervention by the US and UK when chemical weapons were used by the Syrian government. People only started to care once ISIS came in to fill the void, supported by unknown powers within the middle east. And then everyone concerned about filling the power vacuum, but by then it was to late. The moderates were gone, replaced by people who only see the West as someone who got involved because of ISIS. And they are not wrong.
On April 05 2016 06:25 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 06:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 05 2016 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:We tried to use a group of savages. Turned out to be a group of savages. What a surprise. Edit: It is bizarre how open this whole situation is. It truly is "the media against Trump" 6 Talk Radio Hosts, on a Mission to Stop Trump in Wisconsin
MILWAUKEE — Charlie Sykes, a popular talk radio host here and leader of the “Stop Trump” movement, had spent months hammering Donald J. Trump on his show, calling him a “whiny, thin-skinned bully” and dismissing his supporters as “Trumpkins.”
If Trump loses, and he feels like there is a hint of illegitimacy to his defeat, he will run third party. No doubt in my mind. Why is the GOP trying so hard to make sure he runs as a third party? It's a travesty that the US bungled it's support for moderate rebels as badly as it did. Or perhaps the Syrian people should be expected to solve their own problems else face the consequences of other countries that couldn't make it.
This is a child’s point of view. This is how power vacuums work. The EU and US sitting this one out allowed the vacuum to happen. The war started in 2011 and ISIS didn’t show up until 2013. It was naïve to think it wouldn’t happen or that a protracted civil war should continued until one side surrendered. But the people who wanted to get involved were voted down by their congresses and someone else filled in the gap.
|
Here's a nice overview of the mess FP and intelligence services are in and what it means for the fight against ISIS. There's also a nice GOP candidate assessment from the early days that fun to read:
It’s happening again. A White House fumbling with the violent mess of Iraq finds itself surrounded by mounting accusations that it’s played dirty games with intelligence. A Pentagon facing charges that its analysts have skewed assessments on Iraq to tell top policymakers what they want to hear, rather than what is really happening in that troubled country. If this sounds terribly familiar, it should. Only a dozen years after the George W. Bush White House was buffeted by allegations that it had “cherry-picked” intelligence to justify its 2003 invasion of Iraq, Barack Obama is facing similar accusations. Intelligence Community analysts alleged that, in the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, they were pressured to exaggerate Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Now, analysts claim that they have been pushed to present Obama’s war against the Islamic State as more successful than it really is. Only the most optimistic Obama backers still portray that year-long air campaign (its proper name is Operation Inherent Resolve) as adequate, and most security experts agree that the Islamic State is winning the war on the ground, thanks in part to an American-led air war that is bombing too little and too cautiously. There is no indication that Western airpower is anywhere near inflicting decisive pain on the Islamic State, while our Iraqi partners, who serve as the ground anvil for the U.S. airborne hammer, increasingly feel left in the lurch by Obama. The air campaign is led by the Pentagon’s Central Command, which is headquartered in Tampa, Florida, half a world away from its foes. Rumors have swirled for months of low morale at CENTCOM, as the Pentagon calls it, as Operation Inherent Resolve drags on without a coherent strategy. Stories of White House interference with CENTCOM headquarters, commonly heard in the military, paint a disturbing picture, with Susan Rice’s bloated and confused National Security Council waging war against the Islamic State in a micro-managerial style reminiscent of President Johnson’s failed efforts against North Vietnam a half-century ago. Worse, rumors have mounted for months that CENTCOM’s intelligence staff has been pressured to promote “good news” about the struggle against the Islamic State, despite much evidence to the contrary. Such rumors can now be verified. ... long article... read the rest here.
|
On April 05 2016 06:25 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 06:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 05 2016 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:We tried to use a group of savages. Turned out to be a group of savages. What a surprise. Edit: It is bizarre how open this whole situation is. It truly is "the media against Trump" 6 Talk Radio Hosts, on a Mission to Stop Trump in Wisconsin
MILWAUKEE — Charlie Sykes, a popular talk radio host here and leader of the “Stop Trump” movement, had spent months hammering Donald J. Trump on his show, calling him a “whiny, thin-skinned bully” and dismissing his supporters as “Trumpkins.”
If Trump loses, and he feels like there is a hint of illegitimacy to his defeat, he will run third party. No doubt in my mind. Why is the GOP trying so hard to make sure he runs as a third party? It's a travesty that the US bungled it's support for moderate rebels as badly as it did. Or perhaps the Syrian people should be expected to solve their own problems else face the consequences of other countries that couldn't make it.
... yeah "they should solve their own problems that we caused" - makes sense
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 04 2016 22:35 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:so yea lets make that comparison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_under_Japanese_rulegetting colonized by a power that wants to show off their power by improving your territory is definitely a better plan than taking a poorer, less educated population over thirty times the size and attempting weird shit like the great leap forward and the cultural revolution under the name of "communism," especially after getting royally fucked by the same power that's trying to improve that smarter group of people who decided to get colonized we've learned a lot today
you realize the stuff you listed were done under mao, the guy whitedoge tried to defend on education and health?
the indian comparison is dumb because of wide sociopolitical differences. all of the india comparison is designed to say, yes, a centralized state can provide rudimentary basic services. but both the quality and political characteristic of that service system also need to be considered. basic literacy with a side order of propaganda is not really what one would call education.
it is simply appalling for an economist to be defending mao of all people on this stuff. just lol
|
On April 05 2016 06:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 06:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 05 2016 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:We tried to use a group of savages. Turned out to be a group of savages. What a surprise. Edit: It is bizarre how open this whole situation is. It truly is "the media against Trump" 6 Talk Radio Hosts, on a Mission to Stop Trump in Wisconsin
MILWAUKEE — Charlie Sykes, a popular talk radio host here and leader of the “Stop Trump” movement, had spent months hammering Donald J. Trump on his show, calling him a “whiny, thin-skinned bully” and dismissing his supporters as “Trumpkins.”
If Trump loses, and he feels like there is a hint of illegitimacy to his defeat, he will run third party. No doubt in my mind. Why is the GOP trying so hard to make sure he runs as a third party? Just a note: You call them savages. I have dear friends in Syria. While they themselves are not fighting there, their friends are. Regular people with the kind of education you and I have (probably better than most people in this thread, generally from colleges in the US and Germany), but when your home is bombed and your family starts disappearing, people are willing to fight for what they believe. It's a travesty that the US bungled it's support for moderate rebels as badly as it did. A lot of lives were lost that could have been avoided; either by not making empty promises or following up on one's words. That is the problem with what took place. No one directly supported the rebels early on. Congress voted down intervention by the US and UK when chemical weapons were used by the Syrian government. People only started to care once ISIS came in to fill the void, supported by unknown powers within the middle east. And then everyone concerned about filling the power vacuum, but by then it was to late. The moderates were gone, replaced by people who only see the West as someone who got involved because of ISIS. And they are not wrong.
You remember incorrectly. UK's House of Commons voted against intervention Source and then Obama decided not to launch the attack against Assad. He framed it as "seeking authorization from Congress" but I don't think that ever happened. And even if it did, it was moot as before that the US negotiated with Russia to remove some of Assad's chemical weapons, and that was considered 'enough'. Here's a nice video that gives the timeline: Atlantic
|
On April 05 2016 06:34 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 06:25 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 06:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 05 2016 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:We tried to use a group of savages. Turned out to be a group of savages. What a surprise. Edit: It is bizarre how open this whole situation is. It truly is "the media against Trump" 6 Talk Radio Hosts, on a Mission to Stop Trump in Wisconsin
MILWAUKEE — Charlie Sykes, a popular talk radio host here and leader of the “Stop Trump” movement, had spent months hammering Donald J. Trump on his show, calling him a “whiny, thin-skinned bully” and dismissing his supporters as “Trumpkins.”
If Trump loses, and he feels like there is a hint of illegitimacy to his defeat, he will run third party. No doubt in my mind. Why is the GOP trying so hard to make sure he runs as a third party? It's a travesty that the US bungled it's support for moderate rebels as badly as it did. Or perhaps the Syrian people should be expected to solve their own problems else face the consequences of other countries that couldn't make it. ... yeah "they should solve their own problems that we caused" - makes sense
Are you familiar with how modern day borders were established? Are these the same borders as 600 years ago? What changed and why? Weak, failed states need to crumble.
|
On April 05 2016 01:16 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 00:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2016 23:31 ticklishmusic wrote:On April 04 2016 23:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2016 22:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On April 04 2016 15:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2016 14:57 ticklishmusic wrote:
You keep drawing parallels between different situations. There's winkwink nudgenudge stuff going on with coordination b/w a campaign and SuperPACs, but it's very different from campaign donations. You can track the money pretty clearly and if the FEC thought there was anything going on there, they would run an audit. You seem to again be engaging with an argument you don't understand/I'm not making. What I was showing is that Hillary legally circumvents FEC contribution laws by exploiting this loophole (or whatever one wants to call it). On top of that she brags about it as "supporting Democrats down ticket" even while the WP rightly suggests she's the one benefiting from this (and DWS, as it's being used to pay off DNC debt). Before the Hillary Victory Fund, the money she is receiving directly from the Hillary Victory Fund would of had to go to a superPAC or at least stay within the DNC, as it would be in excess of the $2,700 limit for candidates. I was attempting to show you what that means. Let's try again this way. By those donors giving a $300k check to her at an event, then her handing it to her campaign staff, then her campaign staff handing the check to her HVF staff (in at least one case, that's the same person), the HVF staff can then legally hand the check back to Hillary to spend however she pleases. Which is precisely what I just showed you, with pictures and everything.* Are you refuting that it's happening or are you trying to say that because it's legal that I should use different words to describe it? EDIT: *I hope you realize that's a simplification. Obviously they have to do the normal accounting for donations but I used the check to illustrate the absurdity of it. No, she can't, and you're writing fiction about a non-existent loophole. As I said before, the source and amount of donations are tracked. Because of that, there is a money trail that is very easy to follow for the FEC, which has all these records. She can't pump money into her campaign by breaking the max, unless you're suggesting that she's taking big chunks of money and committing fraud by breaking it up into smaller fake donations. It would be stupid and blatantly obvious, and looking at it Hillary really doesn't need the money right now. There is no evidence and no real motive. There could be better separation of powers between HVF since it's embedded in the Clinton campaign. However, I'm sure that it has been properly firewalled off, and it definitely has financial controls like separate accounts at a minimum. The worst violation I see is the campaign overallocating expenses to the fund for stuff like salary, though then you get into shades of grey like "HVF duties make up 20% of this employee's responsibilities (however that is defined), but they are being paid 40% out of the fund which is improper etc. etc." How... Ill try to say this very simply. The HVA can give Hillary as much money as it wants, see that they have already given her $4 million+. She can raise money for the HVA. So instead of writing a $33k dollar check to Hillary's campaign, they write it to the HVA. The HVA takes it and divides it. The first chunk fills the FEC limit to Hillary. The next chunk gets dumped into the HVA. The HVA piles up those donations, then hands them back to Hillary to spend as if they were standard campaign donations. So they aren't added to the maxed out total of the person who gave the HVA and Hillary money, instead they are counted as coming from HVA even though HVA was just serving as a pass-through for the donation that the Hillary campaign can't legally accept directly from the original donor. Her campaign staff is the HVA staff, the treasurer is the COO of her campaign. So yes it's all legal with separate accounts and such, that was never my point although you seem insistent on arguing that instead of what I am telling you. As for the tracking, there's several reasons why you can't find anything showing you how much money the Hillary campaign, of the ~$23M they raised last month, or any other month for that matter, came from the HVA. But again that would just be for us, as I've already said several times, there's nothing the FEC could do anyway because using the HVF as a pass through for large donations (while pretty unethical and not great PR) is totally legal. Is that not clear enough? And how is the HVF piling money together and putting it into the Hillary campaign's general funds without it being illegal and obvious? Because it would be both illegal and obvious. Money is tracked and moving it through a couple different hands doesn't change the original source or magically exempt it from limits. If Soros gives 353K and it's moved through the HVF it doesn't magically become magical money that magically appeared in the HVF account-- money is fungible, but the amounts are accounted for. A money trail can be hidden in laundering cases because an auditor does not have all the financial docs, but the FEC does have all the financial docs. If campaigns were companies, they'd be the most financially transparent on Earth, they basically publish their general ledgers every month. No one cares about this because it's a non-issue built on a misunderstanding of accounting and campaign finance. Let's try it this way. Let's look at the Clooney dinner. The "fundraising expenses" can be paid by the HVF as it's actually their event (they being Hillary's Campaign staff) instead of the Clinton Campaign paying the expenses, which do you think her staff chooses? Tadaa, you've turned Soros $300k check into paying for a Clooney fundraiser for your campaign, and it's all legal. Sure, and the money from that fundraiser goes to HVF. The first $2700 goes to the Clinton campaign as allowed but the vast majority goes to state parties and the DNC. None of us know how expenses are allocated-- perhaps the Clinton campaign itself pays a proportion in line with the percentage of proceeds they get from their general accounts and the HVF accounts pay the rest, and/or Clinton makes an "in kind" contribution to account for her campaign's portion of expense instead of putting in cash. It's a two birds one stone/ everyone wins scenario where Clinton raises a bunch of money for herself and the party. God forbid, Clinton has raised money for those downballot candidates. Your argument has gone from Clinton is laundering 300K donations through HVF to the HVF uses HVF funds to pay for HVF events... and Clinton potentially, maybe generates some benefits from it. It was all perfectly legal, and at worst Hillary has avoided spending a little cash in this particular scenario. You're now making a mountain out of a molehill which we're not even sure is really there.
Holy shit you're being so dense.
Anything can turn into a HVf fundraiser so any event her campaign does can be paid for by the HVF. Her travel, catering, etc... What, in your mind, can she not get with HVF money that she can get with campaign money?
How much money do you think down ballot Democrats have been given out of the HVF?
Why do you think Obama placed the restrictions on the DNC fundraising and why do you think Hillary got rid of them?
You're still arguing from this position of extreme faux naivete like Kwiz is on his thing. It just doesn't ring true to anyone who isn't looking at it through child-like lenses. Like a student in civics after a pep talk about how America is the greatest at democracy.
The thing is we all know you're smarter than that. It's obvious you all are defending stuff you wouldn't defend if Trump/Any Republican was doing it.
|
On April 05 2016 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 06:34 puerk wrote:On April 05 2016 06:25 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 06:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 05 2016 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:We tried to use a group of savages. Turned out to be a group of savages. What a surprise. Edit: It is bizarre how open this whole situation is. It truly is "the media against Trump" 6 Talk Radio Hosts, on a Mission to Stop Trump in Wisconsin
MILWAUKEE — Charlie Sykes, a popular talk radio host here and leader of the “Stop Trump” movement, had spent months hammering Donald J. Trump on his show, calling him a “whiny, thin-skinned bully” and dismissing his supporters as “Trumpkins.”
If Trump loses, and he feels like there is a hint of illegitimacy to his defeat, he will run third party. No doubt in my mind. Why is the GOP trying so hard to make sure he runs as a third party? It's a travesty that the US bungled it's support for moderate rebels as badly as it did. Or perhaps the Syrian people should be expected to solve their own problems else face the consequences of other countries that couldn't make it. ... yeah "they should solve their own problems that we caused" - makes sense Are you familiar with how modern day borders were established? Are these the same borders as 600 years ago? What changed and why? Weak, failed states need to crumble.
yes, no, imperialism, and are you familiar with the iraq war?
|
Imperialism is nothing new. The weak get overtaken. The only difference is that now we see failed states as something worth saving.
|
On April 05 2016 06:38 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 06:27 Plansix wrote:On April 05 2016 06:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 05 2016 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:We tried to use a group of savages. Turned out to be a group of savages. What a surprise. Edit: It is bizarre how open this whole situation is. It truly is "the media against Trump" 6 Talk Radio Hosts, on a Mission to Stop Trump in Wisconsin
MILWAUKEE — Charlie Sykes, a popular talk radio host here and leader of the “Stop Trump” movement, had spent months hammering Donald J. Trump on his show, calling him a “whiny, thin-skinned bully” and dismissing his supporters as “Trumpkins.”
If Trump loses, and he feels like there is a hint of illegitimacy to his defeat, he will run third party. No doubt in my mind. Why is the GOP trying so hard to make sure he runs as a third party? Just a note: You call them savages. I have dear friends in Syria. While they themselves are not fighting there, their friends are. Regular people with the kind of education you and I have (probably better than most people in this thread, generally from colleges in the US and Germany), but when your home is bombed and your family starts disappearing, people are willing to fight for what they believe. It's a travesty that the US bungled it's support for moderate rebels as badly as it did. A lot of lives were lost that could have been avoided; either by not making empty promises or following up on one's words. That is the problem with what took place. No one directly supported the rebels early on. Congress voted down intervention by the US and UK when chemical weapons were used by the Syrian government. People only started to care once ISIS came in to fill the void, supported by unknown powers within the middle east. And then everyone concerned about filling the power vacuum, but by then it was to late. The moderates were gone, replaced by people who only see the West as someone who got involved because of ISIS. And they are not wrong. You remember incorrectly. UK's House of Commons voted against intervention Source and then Obama decided not to launch the attack against Assad. He framed it as "seeking authorization from Congress" but I don't think that ever happened. And even if it did, it was moot as before that the US negotiated with Russia to remove some of Assad's chemical weapons, and that was considered 'enough'. Here's a nice video that gives the timeline: Atlantic
He requested approval from Congress in 2013 because he knew the Republicans would frame it as an unauthorized use of force. From my readings, it never made it to a full vote and died in the Senate. Without that approval, Obama did not did not use military force earlier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_the_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_the_Government_of_Syria_to_Respond_to_Use_of_Chemical_Weapons
|
On April 04 2016 01:50 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +merely that it shouldn't be utilized primarily as a means of equalizing wealth inequality, because tax policy aiming to do so with that as it's primary objective, as opposed to revenue generation, is generally ineffective Your point is that a non progressive is better at generating revenue and thus should be used to support a more efficient welfare ? If not then I don't really understand : if the goal is to reduce inequalities, then why is it that the fact that they are less efficient at generating revenue is relevant ? A progressive taxation system is very efficient in itself in regards to inequalities, outside of its use (in welfare or through a social safety net). Most countries combine both added value taxes and progressive income tax, for different purposes (generate state income or reduce inequalities). The effect of the progressivity of the taxation on inequalities differ in function of the policies that the country adopt or in function of the capacity of the country to actually enforce and fight loopholes and such, and thus most empirical datas we have suggest that the effect of progressive taxation in under developped countries is weaker, but that's certainly not the case for the US (pretty strong country). In certain countries, a progressive tax system can even reduce tax evasion, so the relationship between progressivity and taxation is a little more complex than what we all commonly think. There are ton of works on that subject, here is one : Show nested quote +The second stage results presented in Panel A indicate that progressivity has a statistically significant negative effect on reported income inequality. For example, a one percentage point increase in the top statutory PIT [measure for the progressivity of the income tax) rate reduces the GINI by 0.95 points [GINI is a measure of inequalities), ceteris paribus. Show nested quote +Another important finding in Table 2 is that changes in ARP-bottom has a smaller impact on income inequality compared to changes in ARP-top, i.e., increasing progressivity at the top of the income scale is a more effective method of reducing inequality in observed income. Show nested quote +We acknowledge that our IV estimates reflect the local average treatment effect (LATE) of the progressivity on observed income inequality, and that the inequality response may not be same for every country, i.e., there is an underlying distribution of δ's that may vary with certain country characteristics. For example, as we show in subsequent sections,the inequality response is estimated to be higher in absolute value in countries with more developed democratic and legal institutions. http://ftp.iza.org/dp6910.pdf
To a degree, that is my argument. Though it's not so much "non-progressive taxation is better at generating revenue", moreso that "the primary function and goal of taxation is to generate revenue (and thus the most efficient means, including regressive taxes like VATs, should be used), not to reduce income inequality (which can be a secondary objective, besides improving economic activity)". A somewhat less progressive taxation system (but significantly more efficient one) would provide the US with the funds and resources to invest in a largely decayed social safety net, which overall would have a significantly greater impact on our current opportunity gap and abysmal social mobility, than a marginally more progressive taxation system.
As for which is more efficient, a non progressive taxation and a good welfare or a progressive taxation and a less efficient welfare (because it has less revenue) then to be fair I don't know (that's an immensely complicated topic from my point of view), but the US has none of those two anyway.
The comparison, ultimately, would be between a less progressive, more efficient, taxation system (it should still be progressive if only due to wealth distribution, and the inclusion of the VAT and a general tax hike on income taxes, among other changes does not skew the system dramatically in favor of regression, while some of my proposed changes such as to capital gains and dividend payments are actually progressive) and well-funded social programs, versus a less efficient, more progressive taxation system and poorly-funded social programs. This, ultimately, is the dichotomy that presents itself, and in general the latter is ultimately a better policy, given government revenue can be utilized for a number of purposes to ease costs of living or improve education/workforce mobility (eg. the funding of career and technical colleges to help the unemployed find employment in new, growing industries).
It's clear that, in the modern world, with the absurd existence of some fiscal heaven (like that god damn luxemburg), old solution like increasing taxation have less effect : it does not mean that they don't work, but rather that they should be supported with other kind of solutions.
Which I am generally in agreement with.
On April 05 2016 05:26 Mohdoo wrote:
For Sanders supporters, how well does Clinton need to do in New York for your hope to be lost? I donated $100 to Sanders because I believe in him projecting his message and I wanted to support someone stabbing the idea of campaign finance. I feel like my money has been well spent. He has massively shifted this country's conversation in very positive (overall) ways. However, if he loses New York, continued attacks on Clinton are just silliness. I donated money because I felt like he is mainly doing this to change dialogue in our country. I would say that has for sure been accomplished.
And the fact of the matter is, I am but one of many viewpoints in my party. It is not reasonable for me to demand Sanders be my president. There are such wildly differing views in our country that I really don't think it is reasonable to ask for a candidate that feels like such a perfect fit. Being a part of a democracy means you will never get everything you want. There are too many other viewpoints to get that.
Sanders requires something along the lines of a 10-15% victory margin in New York to stay competitive in delegate totals (given that a number of remaining states, such as DC and Maryland, are solidly Clinton and very unlikely to flip, and this is being generous and giving him a landslide in Pennsylvania for instance).
This is the stark truth: if Sanders wants to win without superdelegates (which he by all accounts will have to given obvious reasons), he needs to start landsliding all the remaining states and/or tie Clinton in states favoring her.
|
On April 05 2016 03:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Climate change poses a serious danger to public health – worse than polio in some respects – and will strike especially hard at pregnant women, children, low-income people and communities of color, an authoritative US government report warned on Monday.
The report, The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment, formally unveiled at the White House, warned of sweeping risks to public health from rising temperatures in the coming decades – with increased deaths and illnesses from heat stroke, respiratory failure and diseases such as West Nile virus.
“Every American is vulnerable to the health impacts associated with climate change,” John Holdren, the White House science adviser, told reporters on Monday. “Some are more vulnerable than others,” he went on.
These included pregnant women, children, the elderly, outdoor workers, low-income people, immigrants, communities of color and those with disabilities or pre-existing medical conditions.
The diversity of risks – and vulnerable populations – made climate change a far more challenging threat to public health than even the polio epidemics in the past in some regards, said Vivek Murthy, the surgeon general.
“I don’t think we have seen something like this before where we have a force that has such a multitude of impacts,” Murthy said.
Polio was eradicated with a specific vaccine, but there was no such quick fix for climate change, he said. “Climate change is not like that. There is not one single source that we can target,” he went on. “As far as history is concerned this is a new kind of threat that we are facing.”
The grim, climate-inflected scenarios in the report – including projections of an additional 11,000 heat-related deaths by 2030 – intensify the efforts by the White House to rally public support for the Paris climate agreement and the clean power plant rules, which face a legal challenge on 2 June. Source
What is this sensationalist nonsense? Climate change is a serious problem and it's way past time people started clueing into that and doing something, but there is absolutely no need to hype it up further with claptrap like claiming we need to stop climate change, because it harms pregnant women, children and the elderly... they really aren't at increased risk except in the general sense that they are at increased risk for anything harmful.
|
United States43483 Posts
On April 05 2016 06:44 Mohdoo wrote:
Imperialism is nothing new. The weak get overtaken. The only difference is that now we see failed states as something worth saving.
That's called civilization. Imperialism is going the way of rape. And that's a pretty good thing because imperialism typically ends in either genocide or car bombs, depending on how thorough you are in the ethnic cleansing stage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
