EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 411
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
DeltaX
United States287 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On September 03 2013 10:17 ziggurat wrote: I'm sure that's true, but please take note that (1) Kerry was not the secretary of state at the time the picture was taken; and (2) it's a little bit unusual to take your civilian wife to have dinner with a homicidal maniac and his wife. That's going above and beyond the necessities of diplomacy. I seem to remember in the leadup to the invasion of Iraq, liberals were making a big deal of a photo of Dick Cheney and Saddam Hussein taken in the early 80s when Cheney was a Halliburton exec. I wonder if liberals will react the same way to this pic? Maybe they will, since even liberals don't seem to like Kerry very much. I don't really care about this since it's obvious (to everyone I think) that Kerry is a weasel who will make friends with anybody when he thinks it's politically expedient, and then turn around compare them to Hitler if he thinks it will help his star rise. Nothing about this is surprising. But I am feeling schadenfreude at how embarrassing the whole thing is. Edit: spelling. Turns out I rely on spell check a lot. Kerry has always been heavily involved in foreign service and diplomacy. He's a good pick for Secretary of State experience-wise. And I think a lot of diplomacy is using a lot of wishy-washy dialogue (and obviously he comes across as wishy-washy). I'm quite surprised that he's been so forceful for war in Syria. Eh, I'm pretty sure anyone who works in diplomacy that long is going to be buddy-buddy with lots of psychos. Like I don't think there's another option. Realistically, is he not supposed to have dinner with hitler-esque figures? Maybe I've just become more disillusioned with how foreign policy actually works over the years. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On September 03 2013 10:24 oneofthem wrote: what political expedience can be derived from smooching with assad, i'll never know. it's not like the guy's brutality wasn't known already at the time. also, kerry was still a high ranking senator with foreign policy committee duties. it's not out of the ordinary course of his duties to smooch with a foreign dignitary. D: schmooze | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Funnytoss
Taiwan1471 Posts
| ||
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On September 03 2013 10:47 DoubleReed wrote: Eh, I'm pretty sure anyone who works in diplomacy that long is going to be buddy-buddy with lots of psychos. Like I don't think there's another option. Realistically, is he not supposed to have dinner with hitler-esque figures? I think this is kind of the liberal left approach to diplomacy. Try to be friends with everybody, and then when you need it you can get your way with "soft power". I can see the logic to this, but the results in the last 5 years aren't anything to write home about. The other approach is to stand up for democratic principles, even when it alienates some of our allies. "It's more important to be right than to be popular". I was a huge fan of George Bush talking about the "axis of evil", because the regimes in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea really were evil. The latter two still are. I think we have too many diplomats running around having dinners with murderers and not enough people standing up for what's right. Just my opinion though. Edit: John Kerry imho is standing up for what's right in Syria. For once. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On September 03 2013 13:10 ziggurat wrote: The other approach is to stand up for democratic principles, even when it alienates some of our allies. "It's more important to be right than to be popular". I was a huge fan of George Bush talking about the "axis of evil", because the regimes in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea really were evil. The latter two still are. I think we have too many diplomats running around having dinners with murderers and not enough people standing up for what's right. ![[image loading]](http://melaniekillingervowell.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/bush-kisses-saudi-prince-4-15-09.png) ah, yes, "standing up for democratic principles" | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On September 03 2013 13:10 ziggurat wrote: I think this is kind of the liberal left approach to diplomacy. Try to be friends with everybody, and then when you need it you can get your way with "soft power". I can see the logic to this, but the results in the last 5 years aren't anything to write home about. The other approach is to stand up for democratic principles, even when it alienates some of our allies. "It's more important to be right than to be popular". I was a huge fan of George Bush talking about the "axis of evil", because the regimes in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea really were evil. The latter two still are. I think we have too many diplomats running around having dinners with murderers and not enough people standing up for what's right. Just my opinion though. Edit: John Kerry imho is standing up for what's right in Syria. For once. I don't really think I can remember a time in U.S. history that we simply stood up for "what's right". We refused to engage in two World Wars (one of them with a definitively evil enemy) until we were practically forced to, we have consistently dealt with and propped up horrible regimes because they were our primary allies in a region, and we have unnecessarily invaded multiple countries. Even when we do stuff that is "right", it tends to also have the tacked-on motive of helping out personal interests in some way. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
I don't really think I can remember a time in U.S. history that we simply stood up for "what's right". hmmm it's a fantasy standard that doesn't exist in the real world and should not but there are plenty of times where the US was unambiguously on the side of "what's right" revolution civil war freeing cuba from spain ww1 ww2 greece turkey korea taiwan gulf war cold war (sorry commies but the soviets were not good folks) etc. We refused to engage in two World Wars (one of them with a definitively evil enemy) until we were practically forced to, precisely what did a war between imperialist powers over who would be top imperialist power have to do with the united states until one side started sinking our ships and trying to fool mexico into a stupid war with us? imperial germany was an aggressive militarist state but kaiser wilhelm wasn't planning to take over the world i seem to remember reading about this lend-lease dealy where we gave britain dozens of vessels including warships and russia a lot of crap too to the tune of billions of dollars (billions of dollars back then mind you) before december 7 1941, also FDR ordering the US Navy to basically go to war with German submarines from april 1941 on... also again what business was ww2 of ours until we were attacked? in 1939 the US didnt have a crystal ball or 70 years of every form of entertainment and medium of art telling it about how the nazis were the Worst Ever and how fighting them was the One of the Only Good Wars Ever and a Real Crusade and all that. and even then isolationism was not as strong in the pre-war US especially the last few years before the war as it has been portrayed we have consistently dealt with and propped up horrible regimes because they were our primary allies in a region, so team america: world police is the right way to go? and we have unnecessarily invaded multiple countries. so team america: world police is not the right way to go? also which countries has the US "unnecessarily invaded" other than iraq, there seems to be a tendency to think that hey maybe iraq wasnt bad enough we have to make up invasions because it sounds worse Even when we do stuff that is "right", it tends to also have the tacked-on motive of helping out personal interests in some way. so fucking what i mean really so fucking what "doing stuff" when we're talking about countries "doing stuff" costs real money and more often than not real lives it's not the same thing as going down and volunteering at the soup kitchen there has to be more than "it's right" to justify spending people's lives and money thousands of miles away especially because if you want a country to act when "it's right" it's probably not the best idea to cheapen what it does by qualifying it with "oh it was in your interest anyway." well no shit, doesn't change the fact that whatever it was got done. it should be a testament to that country that its interests and "what's right" have aligned so often. the main takeaway is that you are confused, you dont really know what you want the US to do. on one hand the US is wrong for not doing right. on the other hand the US is wrong for not doing right just because it's right. the US is useful but has this unfortunate tendency to exercise a mind of its own. well damn no wonder you're disappointed in the US, you want everything and nothing from it. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On September 03 2013 13:10 ziggurat wrote: I think this is kind of the liberal left approach to diplomacy. Try to be friends with everybody, and then when you need it you can get your way with "soft power". I can see the logic to this, but the results in the last 5 years aren't anything to write home about. The other approach is to stand up for democratic principles, even when it alienates some of our allies. "It's more important to be right than to be popular". I was a huge fan of George Bush talking about the "axis of evil", because the regimes in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea really were evil. The latter two still are. I think we have too many diplomats running around having dinners with murderers and not enough people standing up for what's right. Just my opinion though. Edit: John Kerry imho is standing up for what's right in Syria. For once. The right wing and Bush has been buddy buddy with plenty of brutal dictators over the years. The attempt to paint this as a partisan or left v right thing is not sensible at all. It's more of a "How the laymen think diplomacy should work" v "How diplomacy actually works." It's more about how we don't want to see how the sausage gets made. Btw, you might actually want to look at Kerry's service record before taking dumb potshots like "for once." | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15742 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
 TL this is going to be very interesting. All the votes, the few, that have passed through the house Boehner has needed Pelosi to bring the Dem's in marching order as he can't control his own Caucus. If Boehner does this for the Syria vote he could easily give the ammo for the Tea PArty, and GOP scared enough for a primary, to seek his removal of the Speaker-ship.House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced on Tuesday that he would support President Barack Obama's call for action in Syria, and urged his colleagues to do so as well. "I'm going to support the president's call for action. I believe my colleagues should support this call for action," Boehner said after a meeting with Obama and congressional leaders. "We have enemies around the world that need to understand that we're not going to tolerate this type of behavior." Source | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On September 03 2013 14:29 DeepElemBlues wrote: hmmm it's a fantasy standard that doesn't exist in the real world and should not but there are plenty of times where the US was unambiguously on the side of "what's right" revolution civil war freeing cuba from spain ww1 ww2 greece turkey korea taiwan gulf war cold war (sorry commies but the soviets were not good folks) etc. precisely what did a war between imperialist powers over who would be top imperialist power have to do with the united states until one side started sinking our ships and trying to fool mexico into a stupid war with us? imperial germany was an aggressive militarist state but kaiser wilhelm wasn't planning to take over the world i seem to remember reading about this lend-lease dealy where we gave britain dozens of vessels including warships and russia a lot of crap too to the tune of billions of dollars (billions of dollars back then mind you) before december 7 1941, also FDR ordering the US Navy to basically go to war with German submarines from april 1941 on... also again what business was ww2 of ours until we were attacked? in 1939 the US didnt have a crystal ball or 70 years of every form of entertainment and medium of art telling it about how the nazis were the Worst Ever and how fighting them was the One of the Only Good Wars Ever and a Real Crusade and all that. and even then isolationism was not as strong in the pre-war US especially the last few years before the war as it has been portrayed so team america: world police is the right way to go? so team america: world police is not the right way to go? also which countries has the US "unnecessarily invaded" other than iraq, there seems to be a tendency to think that hey maybe iraq wasnt bad enough we have to make up invasions because it sounds worse so fucking what i mean really so fucking what "doing stuff" when we're talking about countries "doing stuff" costs real money and more often than not real lives it's not the same thing as going down and volunteering at the soup kitchen there has to be more than "it's right" to justify spending people's lives and money thousands of miles away especially because if you want a country to act when "it's right" it's probably not the best idea to cheapen what it does by qualifying it with "oh it was in your interest anyway." well no shit, doesn't change the fact that whatever it was got done. it should be a testament to that country that its interests and "what's right" have aligned so often. the main takeaway is that you are confused, you dont really know what you want the US to do. on one hand the US is wrong for not doing right. on the other hand the US is wrong for not doing right just because it's right. the US is useful but has this unfortunate tendency to exercise a mind of its own. well damn no wonder you're disappointed in the US, you want everything and nothing from it. I'm not confused, you're just being a condescending dick for no reason. All I was saying is that the U.S. has never stood up for anything simply "because it is right". In fact, no regime has in the history of humanity. It's a fairy tale and a pretty pathetic one at that to say that America is a bunch of "good guys". Sure, we've done many things that are "good", but they pretty much always serve our self-interest in a major way. The U.S. is not a white knight that rides out into the world to do justice. We act in our self interest and, hopefully, while we do that, we also do it in a morally acceptable way. I don't expect us to do what is "right" simply to be the world's police because that is a ridiculous and absurd notion, and the fact that you got so bent out of shape about my comment speaks volumes about your attitude and how you can't take any criticism of the U.S. My statement was specifically pointed at who I quoted; he mentioned that he liked Bush's slant with the whole "Axis of Evil" thing, and I was essentially pointing out that it was all B.S., because this country never goes to war simply for morally sound or altruistic reasons. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/8/26/live-updates-crisisinsyria.html | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On September 03 2013 10:54 Funnytoss wrote: The "Obama as lame duck if this vote fails" narrative amuses me. I mean, the Republican party is *already* voting no to pretty much *anything* he proposes, so what's the difference? It's also pretty clear that Obama doesn't care all that much about attacking, since if he did, he'd do it without asking Congress in the first place. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 04 2013 04:04 HunterX11 wrote: It's also pretty clear that Obama doesn't care all that much about attacking, since if he did, he'd do it without asking Congress in the first place. He painted himself into a corner with the red line comment and had to hastily pull back from that. I could if I wanted to, but I'm not going to do that. He heaped derision on his predecessor Bush for unilateral action in campaign speech after campaign speech if you'll recall. He's coming off as weak and inexperienced--willing to talk tough, but hesitant to follow through. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On September 04 2013 04:47 Danglars wrote: He painted himself into a corner with the red line comment and had to hastily pull back from that. I could if I wanted to, but I'm not going to do that. He heaped derision on his predecessor Bush for unilateral action in campaign speech after campaign speech if you'll recall. He's coming off as weak and inexperienced--willing to talk tough, but hesitant to follow through. Just contrast this to Libya, though, where not only did he act, but he actually went all Nixon and acted without congressional approval or the War Powers Act. The difference of course is that Syria is going to be a huge mess that he doesn't want to get into, though I still don't understand why he didn't just order a few token strikes, Bill Clinton-style. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
Is the Affordable Care Act Different from Romneycare? A Labor Economics Perspective Measured in percentage points, the Affordable Care Act will, by 2015, add about twelve times more to average marginal labor income tax rates nationwide than the Massachusetts health reform added to average rates in Massachusetts following its 2006 statewide health reform. The rate impacts are different between the two laws for several reasons, especially that: the populations subject to the two laws are different, the Affordable Care Act’s employer penalty is an order of magnitude greater, before either reform Massachusetts had already been offering more means-tested and employment-tested health insurance assistance than other states had, and the subsidized health insurance plans created by the Massachusetts reform were less substitutable for employer-provided insurance than are the subsidized plans to be created nationwide next year. Link | ||
|
farvacola
United States18855 Posts
| ||
| ||
