|
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. |
Barack Obama said on Sunday his visit to Hiroshima, the first city to suffer an atomic bombing, would emphasize friendly ties between former enemies. But the US president reiterated he would not apologize for the devastating attack.
Obama will become the first sitting US president to tour the site of the world’s first nuclear bombing this Friday, accompanied by Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe.
In an interview with Japanese national broadcaster NHK, Obama said the reality is that leaders often have to make hard choices during times of conflict and no apologies would be included in brief remarks he is expected to make in the western Japanese city.
“It’s important to recognize that in the midst of war, leaders make all kinds of decisions, it’s a job of historians to ask questions and examine them,” Obama said.
“But I know, as somebody who’s now sat in this position for the last seven and half years, that every leader makes very difficult decisions, particularly during wartime.”
The bomb dropped on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945 killed thousands instantly and about 140,000 by the end of the year. Nagasaki was hit on 9 August and Japan surrendered six days later.
A majority of Americans see the bombings as having been necessary to end the war and save US and Japanese lives, although many historians question that view. Most Japanese believe the bombings were unjustified.
Source
|
It is fascinating that there are views that the bombings were unjustified. What a bizarre definition of war. When one of the participants of a war is suddenly much stronger than the other, suddenly the whole thing is unethical. Japan would have loved to win that war and they wouldn't have apologized for it.
|
Norway28665 Posts
erm, while I differ from most of my countrymen in that I think the bombing of hiroshima was justified, the notion that opposition to killing 100k+ civilians is 'bizarre' is absurd. Nobody is opposed to 'winning the war due to being stronger', people are opposed to what they consider unnecessary targeting of civilians. It's not a bizarre point of view at all - I think the opinion that deliberately targeting civilian areas to demoralize the war effort is okay, is far more bizarre.
To me, a large part of the reason why I think the bombing was justified is that estimates state that civilian losses (both japanese and elsewhere) would probably been higher and possibly been significantly higher through a land invasion, but having this type of brash attitude towards what is arguably the most contested historical event ever in terms of morality to me reeks of not understanding the issue at hand. I agree that Obama should not apologize, but especially if you include Nagasaki into the equation, the use of the atomic bombs continues to be heavily contested.
|
The whole thing no, "just" the use of weapon of mass destruction itself is considered unethical as it only serves to escalate conflict and kills indiscriminately. Like the British could had used biological or chemical weapons on german cities (or during the invasion of continental europe) and even tho it costed more soldier lives, they didn't for obvious reasons, the escalation and that. Civilians =/= Soldiers.
|
Spain17988 Posts
On May 23 2016 00:39 SK.Testie wrote: That same old attack by these regressive groups. I wonder what progressives think of women and minorities that support Trump? Do they write them off because they are the minority of minorities? "Ha, only 20% of X minority supports him. Clearly they're wrong."
Do they go with the "They're voting against their own self interests! They've been conned!" What best describes them I wonder from their perspective? Why should they? 20% of "minorities" may not be voting against their self interests. For instance, I could see it being in a legal Mexican immigrant's self interest to build a yuuuuge wall on the border with his former homeland, so that no other "spics" can come in and steal his job. Moreso if all his family and friends are in the US.
Similarly, plenty of Muslims (in the US) are afraid of Islamic terrorism. In fact, they are probably MORE afraid of it than westerners are, because they have the same chance (virtually 0) of being targeted directly by it, but the fallout "fear of muslims" will definitely target them. So being in favour of a ban on all muslims from entering the US could make sense in this mindset.
Note that both are, imho, incredibly shortsighted views (about shortsighted policies), but I can easily understand this appeal to people who happen to belong to minorities.
|
W/ regards to Trump i don't think it's possible to really vote against your on interests because a position he has one day may not be the position he has the next
|
Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks to 3 Points: New NBC News/WSJ Poll
Hillary Clinton's advantage over Donald Trump has narrowed to just three points — resulting in a dead-heat general-election contest with more than five months to go until November, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Clinton, who remains a heavy favorite to win the Democrat nomination, leads the presumptive GOP nominee 46 percent to 43 percent among registered voters, a difference that is within the poll's margin of error of plus-or-minus 3.1 percentage points. In April, Clinton held an 11-point advantage over Trump, 50 percent to 39 percent, and had led him consistently by double digits since December.
In a more hypothetical matchup, Democrat Bernie Sanders leads Trump by 15 points, 54 percent to 39 percent.
Looking inside the numbers of her race against Trump, Clinton holds the edge among African Americans (88 percent to 9 percent), Latinos (68 percent to 20 percent), women (51 percent to 38 percent) and those ages 18 to 34 (55 percent to 32 percent).
Trump, meanwhile, is ahead among whites (52 percent to 36 percent), seniors (52 percent to 41 percent), men (49 percent to 40 percent) and independents (42 percent to 37 percent).
The NBC/WSJ poll — conducted May 15-19 — comes after Trump became the Republican Party's presumptive presidential nominee, but also as the ongoing Clinton-vs.-Sanders Democratic race has become more contentious in recent days.
Republicans are now supporting Trump over Clinton by an 86 percent-to-6 percent margin, which is up from 72 percent to 13 percent a month ago, suggesting that GOP voters are consolidating around their presumptive nominee.
Complete Coverage: Decision 2016
While Democrats are backing Clinton by an 83 percent-to-9 percent clip, just 66 percent of Democratic primary voters preferring Sanders support Clinton in a matchup against Trump (compared with 88 percent of Clinton primary voters who favor Sanders in a hypothetical general-election contest). Those numbers underscore Clinton's challenge in winning over Sanders voters once the Democratic primary contest concludes.
Mr. and Mrs. Unpopular
Trump and Clinton are currently the two most unpopular likely presidential nominees in the history of the NBC/WSJ poll.
Thirty four percent of registered voters have a positive opinion of Clinton, versus 54 percent who have a negative opinion (-20) — a slight uptick from her minus-24 score last month.
Trump's rating is even worse than Clinton's: Twenty nine percent have a positive opinion of him, while 58 percent have a negative opinion (-29) — an improvement from his minus-41 score in April.
"This has never been matched, or even close to being matched," Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff, says of these negative ratings for Trump and Clinton.
By contrast, Sanders is in positive territory. Forty-three percent have a positive view of the Vermont senator, versus 36 percent who have a negative view (+7). One difference Clinton and Sanders: Clinton's rating among Democratic voters supporting Sanders is 38 percent positive, 41 percent negative (-3); Sanders' rating among Clinton supporters is 54 percent positive, 23 percent negative (+31).
President Obama's overall score in the current NBC/WSJ poll is at 49 percent positive, 41 percent negative (+8).
Forty Seven Percent Would Consider a Third-Party Candidate
Asked if they would consider a third-party candidate if Clinton and Trump were the major party nominees, 47 percent of registered voters say yes -- a higher percentage than those who said yes on a similar question in 2008 and 2012.
Fifty percent of voters say they would not consider a third-party candidate.
And both Fox and ABC have put out polls over the last few days showing Trump ahead by 2-3%, Rasmussen by even more (5%).
Edit: Oh wow, I haven't checked RCP in a while. In head to head match-ups between Trump and Clinton and Trump and Sanders, Sanders does something like 4-14% better than Clinton in every poll in the last few days that asked about both match-ups. I wonder if that is because of bitter Sanders supporters or independents really not liking Clinton.
|
Why do people keep posting match up polls like they matter at this time? The general literally hasn't even begun. A significant portion of the Democratic base isn't exactly in the mood to vote for Hillary in such polls. Wait until Hillary has handled Sanders at least, if not until the first debate.
|
On May 23 2016 03:02 On_Slaught wrote: Why do people keep posting match up polls like they matter at this time? The general literally hasn't even begun. A significant portion of the Democratic base isn't exactly in the mood to vote for Hillary in such polls. Wait until Hillary has handled Sanders at least, if not until the first debate.
Some of us are not very impressed with your country's inability to oppose a clear no to someone like Trump...
|
On May 23 2016 03:19 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 03:02 On_Slaught wrote: Why do people keep posting match up polls like they matter at this time? The general literally hasn't even begun. A significant portion of the Democratic base isn't exactly in the mood to vote for Hillary in such polls. Wait until Hillary has handled Sanders at least, if not until the first debate. Some of us are not very impressed with your country's inability to oppose a clear no to someone like Trump... Beacuse I'm sure your country (whatever it might be) doesn't also have a clear no someone like trump in their history or in their politics today.
|
On May 23 2016 03:21 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 03:19 Nebuchad wrote:On May 23 2016 03:02 On_Slaught wrote: Why do people keep posting match up polls like they matter at this time? The general literally hasn't even begun. A significant portion of the Democratic base isn't exactly in the mood to vote for Hillary in such polls. Wait until Hillary has handled Sanders at least, if not until the first debate. Some of us are not very impressed with your country's inability to oppose a clear no to someone like Trump... Beacuse I'm sure your country (whatever it might be) doesn't also have a clear no someone like trump in their history or in their politics today.
No my country is terrible on that account as well. I'm not impressed with it either. And if you were to bring it up, I wouldn't take it personally...
|
On May 23 2016 03:02 On_Slaught wrote: Why do people keep posting match up polls like they matter at this time? The general literally hasn't even begun. A significant portion of the Democratic base isn't exactly in the mood to vote for Hillary in such polls. Wait until Hillary has handled Sanders at least, if not until the first debate.
The old throw away line about general election polls doesn't apply here. There is not another candidate in the last 30 years that could have said a fraction of what Trump said and still be competitive. If Trump can say Hillary is only where she is because she's a woman, otherwise she would have 5%, and still be statistically tied that means Hillary is a terrible candidate not that the left is just waiting to support her. This "oh just wait until the left coalesces" reminds me of the "But Trump isn't going to be the nominee" it's not true no matter how hard you wish it.
And yes Moo Hillary isn't going to win WA in the general is what I'm saying. Trump, Gary Johnson, and Bernie as a write in all have a better chance. Every super delegate (supporting Hillary) was greeted at the caucuses by chants of Bernie and every caucus had a majority of Bernie or bust. The people being dismissed as immature, and other slights, aren't like they are described by Hillary supporters, They are veterans, immigrants from the middle east, Latinx's from places like Honduras, families destroyed by welfare reform and the crime bill, and on and on...
Though with how easily vaporizing 100k civilians seems to go over in Hillary's camp I guess I can't really be surprised that her and Trump both planning on going to Kissinger for FP advice doesn't bother her supporters either.
|
On May 23 2016 03:21 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 03:19 Nebuchad wrote:On May 23 2016 03:02 On_Slaught wrote: Why do people keep posting match up polls like they matter at this time? The general literally hasn't even begun. A significant portion of the Democratic base isn't exactly in the mood to vote for Hillary in such polls. Wait until Hillary has handled Sanders at least, if not until the first debate. Some of us are not very impressed with your country's inability to oppose a clear no to someone like Trump... Beacuse I'm sure your country (whatever it might be) doesn't also have a clear no someone like trump in their history or in their politics today. I wonder how many of our European friends would prefer Trump to Le Pen or Hofer.
|
On pure assholeness Trump outshines them easily.
Now on politics, hard to tell, has Trump said anything clear yet?
|
On May 23 2016 03:46 Velr wrote: On pure assholeness Trump outshines them easily.
Now on politics, hard to tell, has Trump said anything clear yet?
Just the wall, ironically the big difference between Hillary and Trump on it are that Hillary (Barrier breaker extraordinaire) wants to call it a "barrier" and have us pay for it instead.
|
|
I don't know much about Hofer, but here's the thing, I can afford not to know much about him. He could be twice the asshole Trump is, his influence would still be limited, as Austria is Austria and the US is the US...
|
The US has more power than Italy and foreign policy affects everybody so obviously more people look at the US than at Italy. Also what from my pov makes the US look scarier is that the party system in the US is so egalitarian that a random guy can take half of the established political system hostage over night. The Austrian president doesn't hold that much actual power so Hofer's win(if he wins) is more symbolic than political.
I still trust the French political system that it's going to keep Le Pen out which it probably is able to do, the US looks pretty shaky.
|
On May 23 2016 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 03:02 On_Slaught wrote: Why do people keep posting match up polls like they matter at this time? The general literally hasn't even begun. A significant portion of the Democratic base isn't exactly in the mood to vote for Hillary in such polls. Wait until Hillary has handled Sanders at least, if not until the first debate. The old throw away line about general election polls doesn't apply here. There is not another candidate in the last 30 years that could have said a fraction of what Trump said and still be competitive. If Trump can say Hillary is only where she is because she's a woman, otherwise she would have 5%, and still be statistically tied that means Hillary is a terrible candidate not that the left is just waiting to support her. This "oh just wait until the left coalesces" reminds me of the "But Trump isn't going to be the nominee" it's not true no matter how hard you wish it. And yes Moo Hillary isn't going to win WA in the general is what I'm saying. Trump, Gary Johnson, and Bernie as a write in all have a better chance. Every super delegate (supporting Hillary) was greeted at the caucuses by chants of Bernie and every caucus had a majority of Bernie or bust. The people being dismissed as immature, and other slights, aren't like they are described by Hillary supporters, They are veterans, immigrants from the middle east, Latinx's from places like Honduras, families destroyed by welfare reform and the crime bill, and on and on... Though with how easily vaporizing 100k civilians seems to go over in Hillary's camp I guess I can't really be surprised that her and Trump both planning on going to Kissinger for FP advice doesn't bother her supporters either.
There is a certain irony in this coming from a Sanders supporter, since certainly his supporters have a significant amount of blame in her polling where she is at this time. Considering the entire platform Sanders has shifted towards post-Trump victory is that he is better positioned to beat Trump in the general, is it unthinkable that Sanders voters would vote for Trump in these polls in order to fuel that narrative?
Ultimately, these don't matter. Let's wait until Sanders endorses Hillary, Obama endorses Hillary and goes on the offensive against Trump, and the democratic party unites behind Hillary.
If anything, it should be sad that the sole remaining Republican can't consistently out poll the Democrat who is in a still fractured party. If Trump can "unite" his party, then so can Hillary. The difference is she is still winning even without it.
|
On May 23 2016 03:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 03:21 Sermokala wrote:On May 23 2016 03:19 Nebuchad wrote:On May 23 2016 03:02 On_Slaught wrote: Why do people keep posting match up polls like they matter at this time? The general literally hasn't even begun. A significant portion of the Democratic base isn't exactly in the mood to vote for Hillary in such polls. Wait until Hillary has handled Sanders at least, if not until the first debate. Some of us are not very impressed with your country's inability to oppose a clear no to someone like Trump... Beacuse I'm sure your country (whatever it might be) doesn't also have a clear no someone like trump in their history or in their politics today. I wonder how many of our European friends would prefer Trump to Le Pen or Hofer. Trump or Le Pen? Riot! Oh wait, as usual I guess.
I don't think you can expect those kind of encounters because they're basicly the same, they target the same electorate so one of the two should emerge as a favorite and would be the far right candidate against other parties.
|
|
|
|