|
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 September 12 2016 13:13 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2016 13:06 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 12 2016 12:50 bo1b wrote:On September 12 2016 12:46 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 12 2016 12:16 bo1b wrote:
I just went to the snow and there were people in shorts and t-shirts going down the mountain, should I look at them and say it's hot and humid? wew lad pack it up folks, this is perhaps the greatest argument ever argued in the us politcs megathread and all its predecessors. You literally told me people were in shorts so it's hot and humid short wearing weather. Seem's to me that my sarcastic response is exactly whats deserved Its unfortunate we don't live in an era where things can be looked up instantly and instead we're forced to speculate as to what temperature it could have been. I pray future generations will be able to come up with some sort of technological answer. w1.weather.gov Would you say that 80 f is sweltering humid heat? I pray for future generations to look at something that is clearly horse shit and make conclusions.
I find this completely unjust. Global warming causes unexpected heat bursts that even the brilliant people of Clintons campaign couldn't possible predict, and to make matters worse, Trumps campaign is seizing on this, pointing towards her health. It's a grim joke, really.
|
On September 12 2016 09:01 jello_biafra wrote:
Is it even possible for them to do this? My understanding is they can't get on the ballot in most states at this late stage.
Last week : Hillarys health is fine, watch her open this pickle jar with ease.Only Alt-right conspiracy nuts think Hillary is ill!
This week : We are considering replacing Hillary as democrat candidate due to health concerns.
|
I will never vote for Hillary so here's to hoping she drops out
|
On September 12 2016 13:39 plasmidghost wrote:
I will never vote for Hillary so here's to hoping she drops out
So you not voting for Hillary is basically a vote for Trump, is that your preferred option of the two?
|
Maybe she was feeling a bit meh but hadn't been looked at yet until that incident. Before that she was stubborn about working. I don't think she was diagnosed until after her fainting spell. People delay getting looked at when they are feeling a little bad all the time and only go when it gets bad. Which leads it getting worse because they didn't properly address is early on.
|
United States43552 Posts
On September 12 2016 12:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2016 11:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 12 2016 11:32 Danglars wrote:Cheney unloads Defeating our enemies has been made significantly more difficult by the policies of Barack Obama. No American president has done more to weaken the U.S., hobble our defenses or aid our adversaries.
President Obama has been more dedicated to reducing America’s power than to defeating our enemies. He has enhanced the abilities, reach and finances of our adversaries, including the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, at the expense of our allies and our own national security. He has overseen a decline of our own military capabilities as our adversaries’ strength has grown.
Our Air Force today is the oldest and smallest it has ever been. In January 2015, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno testified that the Army was as unready as it had been at any other time in its history. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert testified similarly that, “Navy readiness is at its lowest point in many years.”
Nearly half of the Marine Corps’ non-deployed units—the ones that respond to unforeseen contingencies—are suffering shortfalls, according to the commandant of the Corps, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr. For the first time in decades, American supremacy in key areas can no longer be assured.
The president who came into office promising to end wars has made war more likely by diminishing America’s strength and deterrence ability. He doesn’t seem to understand that the credible threat of military force gives substance and meaning to our diplomacy. By reducing the size and strength of our forces, he has ensured that future wars will be longer, and put more American lives at risk. WSJObama's presidency truly has been historic, no joke. Are we supposed to take Cheney seriously? He was the VP during what is widely agreed upon as one of the worst presidencies in American history, and he definitely contributed to how poorly it went. Obama might well take the cake fifty years from now, for the very reasons Cheney highlights. The shine hasn't yet worn off, nor has the country had to face the shattered reputation the US now has in the world.
This is one of those areas where I don't doubt your sincerity but need to remind you that you live in a completely different reality to most people. Obama has grown American international prestige significantly since the low point of the Bush presidency which culminated in the United States leading the world into both military disaster and widespread financial collapse. I'm sure you believe the things you say but when you're speaking for other people you must realize that most of them will completely disagree with you. You can argue that the rest of the world is wrong for thinking Obama has significantly increased America's prestige but you can't really argue that he hasn't, that's not actually up to you, that's about how people who aren't you subjectively perceive him.
As a Brit who was paying attention during the Bush/Blair years I feel like I can comment on this with some authority. There was an extremely strong feeling that the way Blair followed Bush into Iraq was below our national dignity. Blair was raked over the coals in the national press for being Bush's poodle, a nickname that got so prevalent that he had to go on national television and publicly deny being a poodle before the nation. After Blair's fall it became politically convenient for PMs to deliberately distance themselves from the United States, who ought to be our closest ally. Bush completely exhausted the political capital of the US in Britain and I don't know when that will recover. Certainly not under Trump. Even when our interests align British politicians must be cautious to not present themselves as dancing to an American tune where previously it was assumed we'd stand together as allies.
|
On September 12 2016 13:43 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2016 13:39 plasmidghost wrote:
I will never vote for Hillary so here's to hoping she drops out So you not voting for Hillary is basically a vote for Trump, is that your preferred option of the two?
Without a doubt, yes. The only candidate worse than Trump in this election is by far Hillary
|
On September 12 2016 13:43 Slaughter wrote:
Maybe she was feeling a bit meh but hadn't been looked at yet until that incident. Before that she was stubborn about working. I don't think she was diagnosed until after her fainting spell. People delay getting looked at when they are feeling a little bad all the time and only go when it gets bad. Which leads it getting worse because they didn't properly address is early on.
She was diagnosed on friday apparently.
|
On September 12 2016 13:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2016 12:52 Danglars wrote:On September 12 2016 11:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 12 2016 11:32 Danglars wrote:Cheney unloads Defeating our enemies has been made significantly more difficult by the policies of Barack Obama. No American president has done more to weaken the U.S., hobble our defenses or aid our adversaries.
President Obama has been more dedicated to reducing America’s power than to defeating our enemies. He has enhanced the abilities, reach and finances of our adversaries, including the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, at the expense of our allies and our own national security. He has overseen a decline of our own military capabilities as our adversaries’ strength has grown.
Our Air Force today is the oldest and smallest it has ever been. In January 2015, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno testified that the Army was as unready as it had been at any other time in its history. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert testified similarly that, “Navy readiness is at its lowest point in many years.”
Nearly half of the Marine Corps’ non-deployed units—the ones that respond to unforeseen contingencies—are suffering shortfalls, according to the commandant of the Corps, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr. For the first time in decades, American supremacy in key areas can no longer be assured.
The president who came into office promising to end wars has made war more likely by diminishing America’s strength and deterrence ability. He doesn’t seem to understand that the credible threat of military force gives substance and meaning to our diplomacy. By reducing the size and strength of our forces, he has ensured that future wars will be longer, and put more American lives at risk. WSJObama's presidency truly has been historic, no joke. Are we supposed to take Cheney seriously? He was the VP during what is widely agreed upon as one of the worst presidencies in American history, and he definitely contributed to how poorly it went. Obama might well take the cake fifty years from now, for the very reasons Cheney highlights. The shine hasn't yet worn off, nor has the country had to face the shattered reputation the US now has in the world. This is one of those areas where I don't doubt your sincerity but need to remind you that you live in a completely different reality to most people. Obama has grown American international prestige significantly since the low point of the Bush presidency which culminated in the United States leading the world into both military disaster and widespread financial collapse. I'm sure you believe the things you say but when you're speaking for other people you must realize that most of them will completely disagree with you. You can argue that the rest of the world is wrong for thinking Obama has significantly increased America's prestige but you can't really argue that he hasn't, that's not actually up to you, that's about how people who aren't you subjectively perceive him.
While I completely agree with you, you could make the argument that a stronger military presence is more important for securing geo political interests then the feelings of citizens in other nations.
|
A stronger mitary presence also drains both our own resources and international credibility. We don't need to be team America world police nor some Neo empire anymore. We shouldn't have to have to use military to advance Geopolitical interests in lands that aren't our own.
|
That's fairly easy to say as you enjoy the benefits of them right now. There's 70 years of objective history to show that a strong military and nuclear deterrent has prevented world wars, and for that matter, most serious war in general. I find it fairly distasteful to disregard the importance of secure ocean travel, and the deterrent that America has on say Russia and China from expanding more then they already have.
Maybe ask Japan how they feel next to China without a serious, credible military backing them up?
More over, if ww3 did break out tomorrow, I would bet my fucking life that certain nations would immediately be secured due to the resources they provide.
|
On September 12 2016 13:50 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2016 13:44 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2016 12:52 Danglars wrote:On September 12 2016 11:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 12 2016 11:32 Danglars wrote:Cheney unloads Defeating our enemies has been made significantly more difficult by the policies of Barack Obama. No American president has done more to weaken the U.S., hobble our defenses or aid our adversaries.
President Obama has been more dedicated to reducing America’s power than to defeating our enemies. He has enhanced the abilities, reach and finances of our adversaries, including the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, at the expense of our allies and our own national security. He has overseen a decline of our own military capabilities as our adversaries’ strength has grown.
Our Air Force today is the oldest and smallest it has ever been. In January 2015, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno testified that the Army was as unready as it had been at any other time in its history. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert testified similarly that, “Navy readiness is at its lowest point in many years.”
Nearly half of the Marine Corps’ non-deployed units—the ones that respond to unforeseen contingencies—are suffering shortfalls, according to the commandant of the Corps, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr. For the first time in decades, American supremacy in key areas can no longer be assured.
The president who came into office promising to end wars has made war more likely by diminishing America’s strength and deterrence ability. He doesn’t seem to understand that the credible threat of military force gives substance and meaning to our diplomacy. By reducing the size and strength of our forces, he has ensured that future wars will be longer, and put more American lives at risk. WSJObama's presidency truly has been historic, no joke. Are we supposed to take Cheney seriously? He was the VP during what is widely agreed upon as one of the worst presidencies in American history, and he definitely contributed to how poorly it went. Obama might well take the cake fifty years from now, for the very reasons Cheney highlights. The shine hasn't yet worn off, nor has the country had to face the shattered reputation the US now has in the world. This is one of those areas where I don't doubt your sincerity but need to remind you that you live in a completely different reality to most people. Obama has grown American international prestige significantly since the low point of the Bush presidency which culminated in the United States leading the world into both military disaster and widespread financial collapse. I'm sure you believe the things you say but when you're speaking for other people you must realize that most of them will completely disagree with you. You can argue that the rest of the world is wrong for thinking Obama has significantly increased America's prestige but you can't really argue that he hasn't, that's not actually up to you, that's about how people who aren't you subjectively perceive him. While I completely agree with you, you could make the argument that a stronger military presence is more important for securing geo political interests then the feelings of citizens in other nations.
Bush has always been the top scapegoat for anti-Americanism so Obama winning the popularity contest in his wake isn't unexpected.
|
On September 12 2016 13:50 bo1b wrote:
While I completely agree with you, you could make the argument that a stronger military presence is more important for securing geo political interests then the feelings of citizens in other nations.
That may be true, but the discussion in question is about the United States' "reputation". Reputation does not solely rest on military strength.
You could actually make the argument that the US overzealously pursuing its geopolitical interests paying little heed to the goodwill of its allies is injurious to it's reputation.
Ultimately what Kwark said is true: the "reputation" of the United States is not decided by what Americans think of America. It's decided by what the rest of the world thinks. And we as Americans tend to view the world through a very different lens from the rest of the world.
|
On September 12 2016 13:55 Slaughter wrote:
A stronger mitary presence also drains both our own resources and international credibility. We don't need to be team America world police nor some Neo empire anymore. We shouldn't have to have to use military to advance Geopolitical interests in lands that aren't our own.
I 100% agree, which is why I'm leaning towards Gary Johnson right now. However, say the US pulls completely out of the Middle East. Who's to stop Russia or some other power from completely reshaping the region in its image? (and if it's Russia, that means bombing it to oblivion)
|
On September 12 2016 14:03 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2016 13:55 Slaughter wrote:
A stronger mitary presence also drains both our own resources and international credibility. We don't need to be team America world police nor some Neo empire anymore. We shouldn't have to have to use military to advance Geopolitical interests in lands that aren't our own. I 100% agree, which is why I'm leaning towards Gary Johnson right now. However, say the US pulls completely out of the Middle East. Who's to stop Russia or some other power from completely reshaping the region in its image? (and if it's Russia, that means bombing it to oblivion)
The same ones stopping the US from doing the same?
|
United States43552 Posts
On September 12 2016 14:03 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2016 13:55 Slaughter wrote:
A stronger mitary presence also drains both our own resources and international credibility. We don't need to be team America world police nor some Neo empire anymore. We shouldn't have to have to use military to advance Geopolitical interests in lands that aren't our own. I 100% agree, which is why I'm leaning towards Gary Johnson right now. However, say the US pulls completely out of the Middle East. Who's to stop Russia or some other power from completely reshaping the region in its image? (and if it's Russia, that means bombing it to oblivion)
The same thing that stops the US from successfully installing their own proxy states. The whole place is a clusterfuck. Russia has spent 20 years failing to stamp out Chechen resistance within their own borders. The USSR failed to take Afghanistan. Not every problem can be solved by military force as the US has found out at their cost.
|
|
|
The idea that Obama did anything to improve the US's global standing is a joke. He came into office with a tremendous head start and award of free good will because 1) he wasn't Bush, 2) Obama gave a good speech with the right rhetoric, and 3) he wasn't Bush. He was given the fucking Nobel Peace Prize for free. What's important is to look at what happened after that initial honeymoon period. What you'll see is highly wanting: fuckups with Russia, the antagonization of longtime allies, the loss of much influence in the Middle East, a laughable deal with Iran, and the continued pursuit of many of the same neocon policies of the Bush years that Obama said that he wouldn't pursue (and let's not forget Hillary's role in the dumpster fire that was the first four years of his foreign policy). As I have pointed out repeatedly over the years, there's a reason why many foreign policy journals -- including liberal ones like Foreign Policy -- have taken fat, steaming shits on Obama's handling of foreign policy.
|
United States43552 Posts
On September 12 2016 14:12 xDaunt wrote:
The idea that Obama did anything to improve the US's global standing is a joke. He came into office with a tremendous head start and award of free good will because 1) he wasn't Bush, 2) Obama gave a good speech with the right rhetoric, and 3) he wasn't Bush. He was given the fucking Nobel Peace Prize for free. What's important is to look at what happened after that initial honeymoon period. What you'll see is highly wanting: fuckups with Russia, the antagonization of longtime allies, the loss of much influence in the Middle East, a laughable deal with Iran, and the continued pursuit of many of the same neocon policies of the Bush years that Obama said that he wouldn't pursue (and let's not forget Hillary's role in the dumpster fire that was the first four years of his foreign policy). As I have pointed out repeatedly over the years, there's a reason why many foreign policy journals -- including liberal ones like Foreign Policy -- have taken fat, steaming shits on Obama's handling of foreign policy.
Better go tell the rest of the world that they're wrong for thinking the opposite.
You've got to remember that even if only hippie left wing commies think Obama did a good job, all of America's allies are pinko socialist scum. And given that it's subjective you don't really get to decide for them.
|
On September 12 2016 14:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2016 14:12 xDaunt wrote:
The idea that Obama did anything to improve the US's global standing is a joke. He came into office with a tremendous head start and award of free good will because 1) he wasn't Bush, 2) Obama gave a good speech with the right rhetoric, and 3) he wasn't Bush. He was given the fucking Nobel Peace Prize for free. What's important is to look at what happened after that initial honeymoon period. What you'll see is highly wanting: fuckups with Russia, the antagonization of longtime allies, the loss of much influence in the Middle East, a laughable deal with Iran, and the continued pursuit of many of the same neocon policies of the Bush years that Obama said that he wouldn't pursue (and let's not forget Hillary's role in the dumpster fire that was the first four years of his foreign policy). As I have pointed out repeatedly over the years, there's a reason why many foreign policy journals -- including liberal ones like Foreign Policy -- have taken fat, steaming shits on Obama's handling of foreign policy. Better go tell the rest of the world that they're wrong for thinking the opposite.
He should get a "didn't fuck FP relations up as much as Bush" award. Besides the Nobel Peace Prize I mean.
Not to mention it's complete BS that "the rest of the world" is so enamored with Obama's FP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
