|
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 April 05 2016 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 06:55 oneofthem wrote:and gh here's the evidence you wanted in case you didn't see earlier. https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/bernie-vs-hillary-boils-over-nevada-clark-conventionlook into the link in that. we've got a sanders volunteer mailing clinton delegate information to sanders campaign, falsifying information about the convention, and all the while making highly charged and biased remarks on social media declaring her partisan status. it's further noted in the link that she tried to mislead and in some instances force people to pay a POLL TAX to attend the convention. I see allegations from Hillary's camp and Ralston's apparent misunderstanding of the delegates (surprising because he's one of the most knowledgeable public faces for NV politics). At least that's what my resident caucus rule guru tells me the rules mean. It's rather telling that all it has from the other side is that video and nothing else. The email thing has been explained in that HFA was having improper conversation (rules say they have to be open). Without the email chain we can't really know which side is telling more of the truth. If information they didn't want public was on the email chain I'm pretty sure HFA had the responsibility of not having that conversation with the committee. It get's complicated and the process is a mess but we have bigger problems ahead, NY, CA, PA all have reports of voter registration problems (like the ones proven in AZ) and none of you will bet on the length of lines because you know, I know, and the NY Democrats, and the DNC all know there are going to be problems but I'm not hearing anything about what they are doing to try to prevent them. So it rings disingenuous af to get ones panties all in a twist on this (when the problem plain and simple is that not enough Hillary folks showed up regardless of any allegations of foul play) and have nothing to say on the problems we'll see in upcoming states.
Calm down dude.
|
On April 05 2016 07:11 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:On April 05 2016 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 06:51 Plansix wrote: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. Yeah, natural selection has a lot to do with geo-political relations. These are super good points you are making here. Failed states are where terrorism finds a home, so if you want more of them, you want more terrorism. What are you saying here? Natural selection played no role in the establishment of modern day borders? When did natural selection stop being acceptable? When would a state not be worth saving? First of all, the modern borders were established in 1918. Many of the nations in the Middle East "fake nations" filled with people who don't identify as the country they are from. The nations and powers structures around them were not created by the people in those nations. This includes Syria, which was "created" by the French in 1924. And then the revolt took place soon after and was put down by the French. You can ask for the state to fail, but it won't go back to a group of tribes like it was before the western powers show up. A new nation will rise out of it. At this point, that new nation calls itself ISIS. On April 05 2016 07:01 puerk wrote:
natural selection stopped being acceptable when we became conscious enough and able to be compassionate And when you accept the political reality that the people who take over might be totally hostile to you. I think you're talking pass each other. Mohdoo is asking, if Syria can't defend itself from ISIS, then why shouldn't ISIS take over?
Because once ISIS is no longer engaged in warring with its neighbors it has the time and resources to make war (terrorist acts) on the west.
We want the war in the Middle East to continue because it keeps our enemy occupied with more immediate threats and bleeds their resources.
The West has the power to end ISIS as a nation within weeks. We chose not to because its better for us.
The innocent lives lost in the conflict are unfortunate collateral to keep our own citizens safe.
Note, I don't entirely agree with this action but that's the way I see it being.
|
On April 05 2016 06:56 Saryph wrote:
Sorry that this is off-topic, but a quick US politics question:
I am the polar opposite of a Trump supporter, but watching the leadership of the Republican party be so against the person who has been the frontrunner for essentially the entire primary sits very oddly with me. Can anyone think of an example similar to this, where the leadership of a party openly talk against the frontrunner, or just the negativity in general?
You'd have to define "establishment" really, because such a concept didn't really exist for a good time.
For my part I would point towards 1896 (William Jennings Bryan and his "cross of gold") as a prime example of a populist movement "hijacking" a nomination.
For other examples of highly fragmented elections, look to 1948, and Truman's victory despite open defections in the Democratic party from both the left and right wings, with other highly contentious conventions including the 1924 1972 Democratic conventions.
|
Years before more than a hundred media outlets around the world released stories Sunday exposing a massive network of global tax evasion detailed in the so-called Panama Papers, U.S. President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed for a Bush administration-negotiated free trade agreement that watchdogs warned would only make the situation worse.
Soon after taking office in 2009, Obama and his secretary of state — who is currently the Democratic presidential front-runner — began pushing for the passage of stalled free trade agreements (FTAs) with Panama, Colombia and South Korea that opponents said would make it more difficult to crack down on Panama’s very low income tax rate, banking secrecy laws and history of noncooperation with foreign partners.
Even while Obama championed his commitment to raise taxes on the wealthy, he pursued and eventually signed the Panama agreement in 2011. Upon Congress ratifying the pact, Clinton issued a statement lauding the agreement, saying it and other deals with Colombia and South Korea "will make it easier for American companies to sell their products." She added: "The Obama administration is constantly working to deepen our economic engagement throughout the world, and these agreements are an example of that commitment."
Critics, however, said the pact would make it easier for rich Americans and corporations to set up offshore corporations and bank accounts and avoid paying many taxes altogether.
“A tax haven ... has one of three characteristics: It has no income tax or a very low-rate income tax; it has bank secrecy laws; and it has a history of noncooperation with other countries on exchanging information about tax matters,” Rebecca Wilkins, a senior counsel with Citizens for Tax Justice, a nonpartisan nonprofit that advocates changes in U.S. tax policy, told the Huffington Post in 2011. “Panama has all three of those. ... They’re probably the worst.”
The Panama FTA pushed for by Obama and Clinton, watchdog groups said, effectively barred the United States from cracking down on questionable activities. Instead of requiring concessions of the Panamanian government on banking rules and regulations, combating tax haven abuse in Panama could violate the agreement. Should the U.S. embark on such an endeavor, it could be exposed to fines from international authorities.
Source
|
The problem is
1. The borders in the middle east were not made through local wars where rulers had to get the submission (not necessarily consent) of the populace (as they were in Europe)
2. This means that the states often have to resort to external support to get the submission of the populace (which was easily available given the local oil and the Cold War)
The problem is those states need to have their borders redrawn.
Outside actors are very unlikely to help the situation (due to low desire or ability to redraw those borders).
So the locals need to redraw the borders... that is a Really nasty bloody process, about the best the outside world can do is smash the states that rise up to threaten multiple other communities (like ISIS).
Fortunately, cheap oil and the lack of the Cold War means it may actually be worth stepping back and letting the Middle East burn (only occasionally attacking state sponsors of western-targeted terror and actual invading powers ie 1990 Iraq). That way the smaller states that emerge may be capable of getting the submission of their subjects.
|
On April 05 2016 07:15 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 05 2016 06:55 oneofthem wrote:and gh here's the evidence you wanted in case you didn't see earlier. https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/bernie-vs-hillary-boils-over-nevada-clark-conventionlook into the link in that. we've got a sanders volunteer mailing clinton delegate information to sanders campaign, falsifying information about the convention, and all the while making highly charged and biased remarks on social media declaring her partisan status. it's further noted in the link that she tried to mislead and in some instances force people to pay a POLL TAX to attend the convention. I see allegations from Hillary's camp and Ralston's apparent misunderstanding of the delegates (surprising because he's one of the most knowledgeable public faces for NV politics). At least that's what my resident caucus rule guru tells me the rules mean. It's rather telling that all it has from the other side is that video and nothing else. The email thing has been explained in that HFA was having improper conversation (rules say they have to be open). Without the email chain we can't really know which side is telling more of the truth. If information they didn't want public was on the email chain I'm pretty sure HFA had the responsibility of not having that conversation with the committee. It get's complicated and the process is a mess but we have bigger problems ahead, NY, CA, PA all have reports of voter registration problems (like the ones proven in AZ) and none of you will bet on the length of lines because you know, I know, and the NY Democrats, and the DNC all know there are going to be problems but I'm not hearing anything about what they are doing to try to prevent them. So it rings disingenuous af to get ones panties all in a twist on this (when the problem plain and simple is that not enough Hillary folks showed up regardless of any allegations of foul play) and have nothing to say on the problems we'll see in upcoming states. Calm down dude.
lol, you must be reading that with a different tone than I had in my head when I wrote it. I just don't play footsie, especially with oneof.
|
On April 05 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 06:51 Plansix wrote: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. Yeah, natural selection has a lot to do with geo-political relations. These are super good points you are making here. Failed states are where terrorism finds a home, so if you want more of them, you want more terrorism. What are you saying here? Natural selection played no role in the establishment of modern day borders? When did natural selection stop being acceptable? When would a state not be worth saving? First of all, the modern borders were established in 1918. Many of the nations in the Middle East "fake nations" filled with people who don't identify as the country they are from. The nations and powers structures around them were not created by the people in those nations. This includes Syria, which was "created" by the French in 1924. And then the revolt took place soon after and was put down by the French. You can ask for the state to fail, but it won't go back to a group of tribes like it was before the western powers show up. A new nation will rise out of it. At this point, that new nation calls itself ISIS.
Ok but here is my point. These borders were established by the people who had power over these areas. I suppose I have a really hard time with the idea that borders aren't legitimate if it was hostile in some way. No one was there to defend modern day Syria. By all accounts, France was the owner. If not France, then who? When a state can't defend itself and has no one else to defend it, does it actually...exist?
And once this area that could not defend itself and had no powerful allies is "taken over", how does it make sense for France to then leave Syria by itself? If it can not defend itself, it will continue to not defend itself. At one point, every piece of land in our planet needs to be defendable. When something is not defendable, it somewhat ceases to exist because there then become power plays by larger nations that seek to use that state.
In a way, I am arguing that as a matter of definition, a state ceases being a state when it loses its ability to determine its own path. Until Syria is essentially property of Russia/USA/China/Europe, it will continue to not actually exist as a state. So sure, lets say in some wild fantasy, we body slam ISIS and Assad and we let Syria "rule itself". For how long? How long until this weak country gets taken over again by a puppet or the CIA or whoever? Ultimately, Syria needs to be controlled by someone MUCH more powerful than the Syrian people. No one is just going to leave free shit sitting there.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there are actual electronic evidence involved. this is not even challenged by either the activist at issue or the sanders campaign. rather they have offered excuses and spin.
if you insist on her neutrality you are doing so in the face of clear evidence to contrary.
like whitedoge defending mao or you defending the neutrality of this lady, mh advice is pick easier fights. seriously stop being so partisan as to defend every sanders ally or every commie.
|
Err, that FTA article doesn't make any sense to me. As someone who analyzed FTA's for the government, I have no idea how an FTA would prohibit the US from "cracking down on offshore companies". Perhaps they mean that it opens up the possibility for an ISDS challenge (i.e., arbitration outside of the US) that otherwise wouldn't be there, but that's generally available anyway. I can't check this as the US database that holds FTA's is down for maintenance... (get your IT services to the 21st century, pls).
|
On April 05 2016 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:On April 05 2016 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 06:51 Plansix wrote: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. Yeah, natural selection has a lot to do with geo-political relations. These are super good points you are making here. Failed states are where terrorism finds a home, so if you want more of them, you want more terrorism. What are you saying here? Natural selection played no role in the establishment of modern day borders? When did natural selection stop being acceptable? When would a state not be worth saving? First of all, the modern borders were established in 1918. Many of the nations in the Middle East "fake nations" filled with people who don't identify as the country they are from. The nations and powers structures around them were not created by the people in those nations. This includes Syria, which was "created" by the French in 1924. And then the revolt took place soon after and was put down by the French. You can ask for the state to fail, but it won't go back to a group of tribes like it was before the western powers show up. A new nation will rise out of it. At this point, that new nation calls itself ISIS. Ok but here is my point. These borders were established by the people who had power over these areas. I suppose I have a really hard time with the idea that borders aren't legitimate if it was hostile in some way. No one was there to defend modern day Syria. By all accounts, France was the owner. If not France, then who? When a state can't defend itself and has no one else to defend it, does it actually...exist? And once this area that could not defend itself and had no powerful allies is "taken over", how does it make sense for France to then leave Syria by itself? If it can not defend itself, it will continue to not defend itself. At one point, every piece of land in our planet needs to be defendable. When something is not defendable, it somewhat ceases to exist because there then become power plays by larger nations that seek to use that state. In a way, I am arguing that as a matter of definition, a state ceases being a state when it loses its ability to determine its own path. Until Syria is essentially property of Russia/USA/China/Europe, it will continue to not actually exist as a state. So sure, lets say in some wild fantasy, we body slam ISIS and Assad and we let Syria "rule itself". For how long? How long until this weak country gets taken over again by a puppet or the CIA or whoever? Ultimately, Syria needs to be controlled by someone MUCH more powerful than the Syrian people. No one is just going to leave free shit sitting there.
Because the question is not about the responsibility of states to defend themselves, the question is about moral responsibility. How many people do you knowingly let die before you are complicit in the killings.
|
On April 05 2016 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:On April 05 2016 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 06:51 Plansix wrote: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. Yeah, natural selection has a lot to do with geo-political relations. These are super good points you are making here. Failed states are where terrorism finds a home, so if you want more of them, you want more terrorism. What are you saying here? Natural selection played no role in the establishment of modern day borders? When did natural selection stop being acceptable? When would a state not be worth saving? First of all, the modern borders were established in 1918. Many of the nations in the Middle East "fake nations" filled with people who don't identify as the country they are from. The nations and powers structures around them were not created by the people in those nations. This includes Syria, which was "created" by the French in 1924. And then the revolt took place soon after and was put down by the French. You can ask for the state to fail, but it won't go back to a group of tribes like it was before the western powers show up. A new nation will rise out of it. At this point, that new nation calls itself ISIS. Ok but here is my point. These borders were established by the people who had power over these areas. I suppose I have a really hard time with the idea that borders aren't legitimate if it was hostile in some way. No one was there to defend modern day Syria. By all accounts, France was the owner. If not France, then who? When a state can't defend itself and has no one else to defend it, does it actually...exist? And once this area that could not defend itself and had no powerful allies is "taken over", how does it make sense for France to then leave Syria by itself? If it can not defend itself, it will continue to not defend itself. At one point, every piece of land in our planet needs to be defendable. When something is not defendable, it somewhat ceases to exist because there then become power plays by larger nations that seek to use that state. In a way, I am arguing that as a matter of definition, a state ceases being a state when it loses its ability to determine its own path. Until Syria is essentially property of Russia/USA/China/Europe, it will continue to not actually exist as a state. So sure, lets say in some wild fantasy, we body slam ISIS and Assad and we let Syria "rule itself". For how long? How long until this weak country gets taken over again by a puppet or the CIA or whoever? Ultimately, Syria needs to be controlled by someone MUCH more powerful than the Syrian people. No one is just going to leave free shit sitting there.
Except that the world doesn't work like that. Or nations such as Paraguay (or for that matter, most nations) would not exist.
EDIT: the reason I picked Paraguay is because it has essentially lost every war it has ever fought, and had every single one of its neighbours bite off huge chunks of its land. But even so, it continued to exist as a country.
|
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.
Whatever legitimate opposition there was in Syria died with the rise of the Islamist forces there, and the folding of those rebel groups into ISIS and Al Qaeda. It is yet another example of how poor a judge of character the US foreign policy advisory has been.
I have a fair few Syrian friends as well. The vast majority of them chose to leave the country to avoid one of its many eras of instability. None of them see the rebels through anything near the rose-tinted glasses that you seem to, and that has a lot to do with how this sort of thing has a tendency to devolve into Islamic crusades.
|
On April 05 2016 07:32 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:On April 05 2016 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 06:51 Plansix wrote: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. Yeah, natural selection has a lot to do with geo-political relations. These are super good points you are making here. Failed states are where terrorism finds a home, so if you want more of them, you want more terrorism. What are you saying here? Natural selection played no role in the establishment of modern day borders? When did natural selection stop being acceptable? When would a state not be worth saving? First of all, the modern borders were established in 1918. Many of the nations in the Middle East "fake nations" filled with people who don't identify as the country they are from. The nations and powers structures around them were not created by the people in those nations. This includes Syria, which was "created" by the French in 1924. And then the revolt took place soon after and was put down by the French. You can ask for the state to fail, but it won't go back to a group of tribes like it was before the western powers show up. A new nation will rise out of it. At this point, that new nation calls itself ISIS. Ok but here is my point. These borders were established by the people who had power over these areas. I suppose I have a really hard time with the idea that borders aren't legitimate if it was hostile in some way. No one was there to defend modern day Syria. By all accounts, France was the owner. If not France, then who? When a state can't defend itself and has no one else to defend it, does it actually...exist? And once this area that could not defend itself and had no powerful allies is "taken over", how does it make sense for France to then leave Syria by itself? If it can not defend itself, it will continue to not defend itself. At one point, every piece of land in our planet needs to be defendable. When something is not defendable, it somewhat ceases to exist because there then become power plays by larger nations that seek to use that state. In a way, I am arguing that as a matter of definition, a state ceases being a state when it loses its ability to determine its own path. Until Syria is essentially property of Russia/USA/China/Europe, it will continue to not actually exist as a state. So sure, lets say in some wild fantasy, we body slam ISIS and Assad and we let Syria "rule itself". For how long? How long until this weak country gets taken over again by a puppet or the CIA or whoever? Ultimately, Syria needs to be controlled by someone MUCH more powerful than the Syrian people. No one is just going to leave free shit sitting there. Except that the world doesn't work like that. Or nations such as Paraguay (or for that matter, most nations) would not exist.
You are saying no one would defend Paraguay if Russia declared war? The world definitely works like that. You're not just considering the wide ranging diplomacy across the world. My point is that if one will defend you, you don't exist. Paraguay would absolutely be defended.
Edit: WRT your edit: they bit off chunks, but they were not capable of eating the whole pie. The newly established borders became borders because they are what Paraguay could effectively defend.
On April 05 2016 07:31 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:On April 05 2016 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 06:51 Plansix wrote: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. Yeah, natural selection has a lot to do with geo-political relations. These are super good points you are making here. Failed states are where terrorism finds a home, so if you want more of them, you want more terrorism. What are you saying here? Natural selection played no role in the establishment of modern day borders? When did natural selection stop being acceptable? When would a state not be worth saving? First of all, the modern borders were established in 1918. Many of the nations in the Middle East "fake nations" filled with people who don't identify as the country they are from. The nations and powers structures around them were not created by the people in those nations. This includes Syria, which was "created" by the French in 1924. And then the revolt took place soon after and was put down by the French. You can ask for the state to fail, but it won't go back to a group of tribes like it was before the western powers show up. A new nation will rise out of it. At this point, that new nation calls itself ISIS. Ok but here is my point. These borders were established by the people who had power over these areas. I suppose I have a really hard time with the idea that borders aren't legitimate if it was hostile in some way. No one was there to defend modern day Syria. By all accounts, France was the owner. If not France, then who? When a state can't defend itself and has no one else to defend it, does it actually...exist? And once this area that could not defend itself and had no powerful allies is "taken over", how does it make sense for France to then leave Syria by itself? If it can not defend itself, it will continue to not defend itself. At one point, every piece of land in our planet needs to be defendable. When something is not defendable, it somewhat ceases to exist because there then become power plays by larger nations that seek to use that state. In a way, I am arguing that as a matter of definition, a state ceases being a state when it loses its ability to determine its own path. Until Syria is essentially property of Russia/USA/China/Europe, it will continue to not actually exist as a state. So sure, lets say in some wild fantasy, we body slam ISIS and Assad and we let Syria "rule itself". For how long? How long until this weak country gets taken over again by a puppet or the CIA or whoever? Ultimately, Syria needs to be controlled by someone MUCH more powerful than the Syrian people. No one is just going to leave free shit sitting there. Because the question is not about the responsibility of states to defend themselves, the question is about moral responsibility. How many people do you knowingly let die before you are complicit in the killings.
You are not proposing an alternative method to achieve border equilibrium. My point is that these conflicts will naturally develop for as long as a nation can not be defended.
|
On April 05 2016 07:24 oneofthem wrote:
there are actual electronic evidence involved. this is not even challenged by either the activist at issue or the sanders campaign. rather they have offered excuses and spin.
if you insist on her neutrality you are doing so in the face of clear evidence to contrary.
like whitedoge defending mao or you defending the neutrality of this lady, mh advice is pick easier fights. seriously stop being so partisan as to defend every sanders ally or every commie.
Well several people have attested to her credibility. No one is suggesting she was wholly neutral. It's that she did her job in a neutral fashion. Frankly neither of us KNOW whether she did or not. Not sure if you have voted and whether it's in a caucus state or not but it's not uncommon for organizers not to be neutral. They all have presidential preferences otherwise they wouldn't be doing all that damn work for free. This particular one happened to support Bernie, you're delusional if you think she's the most biased so far or that Hillary biased organizers don't severely outnumber and generally outrank Bernie biased party organizers.
Notice you don't want to talk about problems we can prevent. Maybe it would just be easier if I gave the answer I got about AZ. "If there was any foul play, she has remedies".
You can accuse the Sanders camp of a lot, but you can't accuse them of being defenders of the dumbass rules surrounding this process.
|
On April 05 2016 07:24 oneofthem wrote:
there are actual electronic evidence involved. this is not even challenged by either the activist at issue or the sanders campaign. rather they have offered excuses and spin.
if you insist on her neutrality you are doing so in the face of clear evidence to contrary.
like whitedoge defending mao or you defending the neutrality of this lady, mh advice is pick easier fights. seriously stop being so partisan as to defend every sanders ally or every commie.
Honey, you can believe that you're standing on evidence all you want. If you can't make it appear you're going to fall flat on your face just like your argument.
You don't have to defend every moronic pro-Hillary move either. Her camp says the sky is purple. All the evidence we've had so far says the sky ain't purple.
|
On April 05 2016 07:36 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 07:24 oneofthem wrote:
there are actual electronic evidence involved. this is not even challenged by either the activist at issue or the sanders campaign. rather they have offered excuses and spin.
if you insist on her neutrality you are doing so in the face of clear evidence to contrary.
like whitedoge defending mao or you defending the neutrality of this lady, mh advice is pick easier fights. seriously stop being so partisan as to defend every sanders ally or every commie. Honey, you can believe that you're standing on evidence all you want. If you can't make it appear you're going to fall flat on your face just like your argument. You don't have to defend every moronic pro-Hillary move either. Her camp says the sky is purple. All the evidence we've had so far says the sky ain't purple.
For calibration, do you believe Sanders is going to be the nominee?
|
On April 05 2016 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:On April 05 2016 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 06:51 Plansix wrote: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. Yeah, natural selection has a lot to do with geo-political relations. These are super good points you are making here. Failed states are where terrorism finds a home, so if you want more of them, you want more terrorism. What are you saying here? Natural selection played no role in the establishment of modern day borders? When did natural selection stop being acceptable? When would a state not be worth saving? First of all, the modern borders were established in 1918. Many of the nations in the Middle East "fake nations" filled with people who don't identify as the country they are from. The nations and powers structures around them were not created by the people in those nations. This includes Syria, which was "created" by the French in 1924. And then the revolt took place soon after and was put down by the French. You can ask for the state to fail, but it won't go back to a group of tribes like it was before the western powers show up. A new nation will rise out of it. At this point, that new nation calls itself ISIS. Ok but here is my point. These borders were established by the people who had power over these areas. I suppose I have a really hard time with the idea that borders aren't legitimate if it was hostile in some way. No one was there to defend modern day Syria. By all accounts, France was the owner. If not France, then who? When a state can't defend itself and has no one else to defend it, does it actually...exist? And once this area that could not defend itself and had no powerful allies is "taken over", how does it make sense for that nation to then leave it by itself? If it can not defend itself, it will continue to not defend itself. At one point, every piece of land in our planet needs to be defendable. When something is not defendable, it somewhat ceases to exist because there then become power plays by larger nations that seek to use that state. In a way, I am arguing that as a matter of definition, a state ceases being a state when it loses its ability to determine its own path. Until Syria is essentially property of Russia/USA/China/Europe, it will continue to not actually exist as a state. So sure, lets say in some wild fantasy, we body slam ISIS and Assad and we let Syria "rule itself". For how long? How long until this weak country gets taken over again by a puppet or the CIA or whoever? Ultimately, Syria needs to be controlled by someone MUCH more powerful than the Syrian people. No one is just going to leave free shit sitting there.
Eh, what?
I'm not entirely sure what your rationale here is. Can you perhaps...clarify?
Regarding Amaryta Sen: please stop, oneofthem, the ignorance is astounding. You do realize Amartya Sen, as one of the most prominent economists working in the field of international development, and was the first major proponent of democracy and freedom as a vital part of economic development, yes? His book, "Development as Freedom", was paradigm-shattering, and for good reason (and you can all read it, I recommend it).
His discussions of Mao and the CCP are likely either in reference to post-1979 governance (see here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/13/india-learn-from-china_n_4782645.html for a more elaborate overview on the subject), or to specific aspects of CCP policy aimed at improving basic literacy and in making long-term plans. Any comparisons between India and pre-1979 China are likely to focus on the deficiencies present in India's democratic governance structure, and moreso Indian failings as opposed to praising Mao for the horrendous human suffering that the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution entailed.
As someone whose parents lived through the Cultural Revolution before immigrating, I believe I have some ground to stand on here when I say that Mao cannot be entirely shunned. His writings on political and military strategy are actually excellent in both readability and insight, and his works are commonly studied as a part of advanced degrees in military strategy.
|
Regardless of motive, leaking the contact information for Clinton delegates is a problem. There is pretty clear evidence she would have a motive for doing so, though it's possible (though I would say improbable) she did it on accident/ was incompetent. I want to see how things shake out between this and information that was supposedly sent out saying delegates need not attend. I have heard, despite shenanigans, the change in delegates might actually be 1 or even 0.
The Clinton campaign has been fighting voter suppression since June of last year BTW. They've filed suits in Ohio, Wisconsin and a few other states.
Also, the sky is indeed occasionally purple. If you have not seen a purple sky, you are missing out. Should have picked a better color. Or maybe another analogy, now that I think of it I've seen the sky in a lot of different colors.
|
On April 05 2016 07:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 07:32 Acrofales wrote:On April 05 2016 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:On April 05 2016 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 06:51 Plansix wrote: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. Yeah, natural selection has a lot to do with geo-political relations. These are super good points you are making here. Failed states are where terrorism finds a home, so if you want more of them, you want more terrorism. What are you saying here? Natural selection played no role in the establishment of modern day borders? When did natural selection stop being acceptable? When would a state not be worth saving? First of all, the modern borders were established in 1918. Many of the nations in the Middle East "fake nations" filled with people who don't identify as the country they are from. The nations and powers structures around them were not created by the people in those nations. This includes Syria, which was "created" by the French in 1924. And then the revolt took place soon after and was put down by the French. You can ask for the state to fail, but it won't go back to a group of tribes like it was before the western powers show up. A new nation will rise out of it. At this point, that new nation calls itself ISIS. Ok but here is my point. These borders were established by the people who had power over these areas. I suppose I have a really hard time with the idea that borders aren't legitimate if it was hostile in some way. No one was there to defend modern day Syria. By all accounts, France was the owner. If not France, then who? When a state can't defend itself and has no one else to defend it, does it actually...exist? And once this area that could not defend itself and had no powerful allies is "taken over", how does it make sense for France to then leave Syria by itself? If it can not defend itself, it will continue to not defend itself. At one point, every piece of land in our planet needs to be defendable. When something is not defendable, it somewhat ceases to exist because there then become power plays by larger nations that seek to use that state. In a way, I am arguing that as a matter of definition, a state ceases being a state when it loses its ability to determine its own path. Until Syria is essentially property of Russia/USA/China/Europe, it will continue to not actually exist as a state. So sure, lets say in some wild fantasy, we body slam ISIS and Assad and we let Syria "rule itself". For how long? How long until this weak country gets taken over again by a puppet or the CIA or whoever? Ultimately, Syria needs to be controlled by someone MUCH more powerful than the Syrian people. No one is just going to leave free shit sitting there. Except that the world doesn't work like that. Or nations such as Paraguay (or for that matter, most nations) would not exist. You are saying no one would defend Paraguay if Russia declared war? The world definitely works like that. You're not just considering the wide ranging diplomacy across the world. My point is that if one will defend you, you don't exist. Paraguay would absolutely be defended. Edit: WRT your edit: they bit off chunks, but they were not capable of eating the whole pie. The newly established borders became borders because they are what Paraguay could effectively defend. Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 07:31 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 05 2016 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:On April 05 2016 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 06:51 Plansix wrote: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. Yeah, natural selection has a lot to do with geo-political relations. These are super good points you are making here. Failed states are where terrorism finds a home, so if you want more of them, you want more terrorism. What are you saying here? Natural selection played no role in the establishment of modern day borders? When did natural selection stop being acceptable? When would a state not be worth saving? First of all, the modern borders were established in 1918. Many of the nations in the Middle East "fake nations" filled with people who don't identify as the country they are from. The nations and powers structures around them were not created by the people in those nations. This includes Syria, which was "created" by the French in 1924. And then the revolt took place soon after and was put down by the French. You can ask for the state to fail, but it won't go back to a group of tribes like it was before the western powers show up. A new nation will rise out of it. At this point, that new nation calls itself ISIS. Ok but here is my point. These borders were established by the people who had power over these areas. I suppose I have a really hard time with the idea that borders aren't legitimate if it was hostile in some way. No one was there to defend modern day Syria. By all accounts, France was the owner. If not France, then who? When a state can't defend itself and has no one else to defend it, does it actually...exist? And once this area that could not defend itself and had no powerful allies is "taken over", how does it make sense for France to then leave Syria by itself? If it can not defend itself, it will continue to not defend itself. At one point, every piece of land in our planet needs to be defendable. When something is not defendable, it somewhat ceases to exist because there then become power plays by larger nations that seek to use that state. In a way, I am arguing that as a matter of definition, a state ceases being a state when it loses its ability to determine its own path. Until Syria is essentially property of Russia/USA/China/Europe, it will continue to not actually exist as a state. So sure, lets say in some wild fantasy, we body slam ISIS and Assad and we let Syria "rule itself". For how long? How long until this weak country gets taken over again by a puppet or the CIA or whoever? Ultimately, Syria needs to be controlled by someone MUCH more powerful than the Syrian people. No one is just going to leave free shit sitting there. Because the question is not about the responsibility of states to defend themselves, the question is about moral responsibility. How many people do you knowingly let die before you are complicit in the killings. You are not proposing an alternative method to achieve border equilibrium. My point is that these conflicts will naturally develop for as long as a nation can not be defended.
Which is why I said that that wasn't the question asked.
When there is an unstable country (Syria for example) suffering from being unable to do something base definitions of a country depend on (being able to define and hold its borders) there are only two responses to it, intrusion or observation. Both have their pros and their cons.
If we stay back then people will die, horribly, and will continue to die by the millions for decades to come.
If we intrude, then less people will die, but of those smaller numbers very many will be your own people dying.
Hence its a moral dilema. How many dark skinned refugees is one soldier worth. If enough dark skinned refugees die, only then will I be willing to start losing soldiers. It then becomes an optimization problem of which one you value more. This is an idealism vs pragmatism aspect of the decision. You want to be idealistic enough to care that people are dying that you could help, but pragmatic enough to know that helping will mean you will have your own people getting killed needlessly.
The results of that dialogue is either a maintained or redefined border. The shape of the border only comes after the fighting, not before and not even during.
|
On April 05 2016 07:40 ticklishmusic wrote:
Regardless of motive, leaking the contact information for Clinton delegates is a problem. There is pretty clear evidence she would have a motive for doing so, though it's possible (though I would say improbable) she did it on accident/ was incompetent. I want to see how things shake out between this and information that was supposedly sent out saying delegates need not attend. I have heard, despite shenanigans, the change in delegates might actually be 1 or even 0.
The Clinton campaign has been fighting voter suppression since June of last year BTW. They've filed suits in Ohio, Wisconsin and a few other states.
Also, the sky is indeed occasionally purple. If you have not seen a purple sky, you are missing out. Should have picked a better color. Or maybe another analogy, now that I think of it I've seen the sky in a lot of different colors.
The sky analogy only works if you care more about presumed ideals instead of pragmatic science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
