|
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 October 08 2016 01:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 01:41 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 07 2016 22:07 Kickstart wrote:On October 07 2016 21:36 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 07 2016 21:28 Kickstart wrote:
Indeed, I think the people I know are probably just unique cases! Voted Rand Paul and profess to be libertarian (before they considered themselves just republicans) but in reality they are and were part of the evangelical right. I dunno, was just making some casual observation that being viewed as part of that demographic seems to be more unfavorable these days. As a libertarian, I understand why most would align with republicans. Consesions that can be fought later (like drug legalization) are details compared with the huge welfare state, war troughtout the middle east (funny which party are the warmongers now) and demographic manipulation carried out by democrats. This is where I don't understand this kind of partisanship. The fact of the matter is there has to be some sort of welfare systems in place. I mean most of the argument I want to make against what you just said can be summed up by the old utilitarian approach of "do the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people". Social programs do way more than the traditional push points from the right, like military spending. The government has to prioritize what to allocate funds to, and while it should, in my opinion, do what is best for the largest number of people, it often does what is in the interest of those with the most lobbying power. Also not sure what you mean with this demographic manipulation. It wasn't that long ago that the right employed what we now call 'the southern strategy'. I'm rather liberal/progressive in my politics, but the only people the right can blame for their only solid demographic being middle aged or older white people are themselves. The natural effect of stirring up fear and resentment towards segments of the population in order to get votes is that the people you demonize aren't going to vote for you. You can't have a history of being against every minority demographic and then be surprised that the other party gets the majority of all their votes. By demographic manipulation I mean bribing people (trough the Welfare State) from 3rd world countries (Mexico mostly) to go live in the U.S., so you can later grant them cizitenship (their kids get it automatically) to vote Democrats. It worked for the Irish and like every other immigrant demographic that exist in the US(so everyone but native Americans). The master plan of keeping out immigrants to make sure your demographic remains the majority is a losing plan and always has been. Especially when your demographic is naturally shrinking without immigration anyways.
Incidentally, perhaps support of women's rights on issues such as maternal leave would probably help said demographic grow rather than shrink if they provide a means for that demographic to have children under favorable conditions.
|
On October 08 2016 01:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 01:41 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 07 2016 22:07 Kickstart wrote:On October 07 2016 21:36 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 07 2016 21:28 Kickstart wrote:
Indeed, I think the people I know are probably just unique cases! Voted Rand Paul and profess to be libertarian (before they considered themselves just republicans) but in reality they are and were part of the evangelical right. I dunno, was just making some casual observation that being viewed as part of that demographic seems to be more unfavorable these days. As a libertarian, I understand why most would align with republicans. Consesions that can be fought later (like drug legalization) are details compared with the huge welfare state, war troughtout the middle east (funny which party are the warmongers now) and demographic manipulation carried out by democrats. This is where I don't understand this kind of partisanship. The fact of the matter is there has to be some sort of welfare systems in place. I mean most of the argument I want to make against what you just said can be summed up by the old utilitarian approach of "do the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people". Social programs do way more than the traditional push points from the right, like military spending. The government has to prioritize what to allocate funds to, and while it should, in my opinion, do what is best for the largest number of people, it often does what is in the interest of those with the most lobbying power. Also not sure what you mean with this demographic manipulation. It wasn't that long ago that the right employed what we now call 'the southern strategy'. I'm rather liberal/progressive in my politics, but the only people the right can blame for their only solid demographic being middle aged or older white people are themselves. The natural effect of stirring up fear and resentment towards segments of the population in order to get votes is that the people you demonize aren't going to vote for you. You can't have a history of being against every minority demographic and then be surprised that the other party gets the majority of all their votes. By demographic manipulation I mean bribing people (trough the Welfare State) from 3rd world countries (Mexico mostly) to go live in the U.S., so you can later grant them cizitenship (their kids get it automatically) to vote Democrats. It worked for the Irish and like every other immigrant demographic that exist in the US(so everyone but native Americans). The master plan of keeping out immigrants to make sure your demographic remains the majority is a losing plan and always has been. Especially when your demographic is naturally shrinking without immigration anyways.
Well to me the ridiculous part of this whole importing votes discussion is the fact that for years one of the two sides of this debate has actively disenfranchised immigrant voter groups rather than court them as well. There is no reason that an immigrant cannot identify with republican ideals so long as those ideals arent grounded in nationalistic worship, because in that case it is directly opposed to them and what they stand for. It just feels like alot of people want to continue being "American" while discarding all the things that make America great.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure what business the US has in Syria at this point. The opportunity to establish strategic control was lost as soon as Russia moved in. And whatever residual interest that the US has in Syria certainly isn't worth the risk of war with Russia.
|
Simple let the Islamists bleed themselves then have Russia have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars of money it doesn't have to prop up a powerless dictator.
|
On October 08 2016 02:09 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not sure what business the US has in Syria at this point. The opportunity to establish strategic control was lost as soon as Russia moved in. And whatever residual interest that the US has in Syria certainly isn't worth the risk of war with Russia.
The opportunity to establish strategic control was lost as soon as it became clear that the US didn't have a plan beyond giving weapons to Al Qaeda, ISIS, and associates to fight against Assad, with no forethought as to what happens after Assad is gone. The Russians weren't strongly involved when that happened.
On October 08 2016 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Simple let the Islamists bleed themselves then have Russia have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars of money it doesn't have to prop up a powerless dictator.
The Russian intervention has been relatively cheap, all things considered. A few billion. The bigger cost has been the cost of acting against US and Saudi interests in the area, which has cost a lot of money (albeit indirectly) but is very much not related to Assad specifically.
|
Ok, two things:
1: I bet Trump tries to funnel as much campaign money into his own businesses before this is over, which seems to have been his plan all along.
2: Apparently if you intimate people into confessing to a crime, they are guilty under the Trump school of law.
|
On October 08 2016 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Simple let the Islamists bleed themselves then have Russia have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars of money it doesn't have to prop up a powerless dictator.
ah, the old afghanistan strategy
|
Hard to understand this one.
|
|
|
On October 08 2016 02:16 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Simple let the Islamists bleed themselves then have Russia have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars of money it doesn't have to prop up a powerless dictator. ah, the old afghanistan strategy
The US paid a lot of money (trillions) for the direct consequences of that strategy a few decades down the road, so it's surprising to me that anyone would want to repeat that.
|
A group of former top national security officials and outside experts is warning that Russian intelligence agents may “doctor” emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee and other political groups as part of a sophisticated “disinformation” campaign aimed at influencing the 2016 election.
The group, including former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke, is urging the news media to be “cautious” about publishing such material lest they be playing into the Russians’ hands.
“What is taking place in the United States follows a well-known Russian playbook: First leak compelling and truthful information to gain credibility. The next step: Release fake documents that look the same,” the group said in a joint public statement to be released Friday. An advance copy was provided to Yahoo News.
The statement is being released the day after DCLeaks — a mysterious, recently created pop-up website that has been linked to Russia’s military intelligence service — posted a cache of emails apparently hacked from the private gmail account of Capricia Marshall, a longtime Hillary Clinton aide who served as chief of State Department protocol during the time the Democratic nominee was secretary of state.
Yahoo
|
On October 08 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 02:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 08 2016 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Simple let the Islamists bleed themselves then have Russia have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars of money it doesn't have to prop up a powerless dictator. ah, the old afghanistan strategy The US paid a lot of money (trillions) for the direct consequences of that strategy a few decades down the road, so it's surprising to me that anyone would want to repeat that.
I'd much prefer that Assad retain power in Syria to the other available options.
|
On October 08 2016 02:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 08 2016 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Simple let the Islamists bleed themselves then have Russia have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars of money it doesn't have to prop up a powerless dictator. ah, the old afghanistan strategy The US paid a lot of money (trillions) for the direct consequences of that strategy a few decades down the road, so it's surprising to me that anyone would want to repeat that. I'd much prefer that Assad retain power in Syria to the other available options.
A factor many miss when talking about how bad and evil Assad is.
|
Am I the only one who thinks this just can't be true? Trump canceling advertising in these states can't be real unless they are just buying ads from somewhere else. It isn't possible that Trump simply doesn't intend to advertise in these states, right?
|
On October 08 2016 02:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 02:23 xDaunt wrote:On October 08 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 08 2016 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Simple let the Islamists bleed themselves then have Russia have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars of money it doesn't have to prop up a powerless dictator. ah, the old afghanistan strategy The US paid a lot of money (trillions) for the direct consequences of that strategy a few decades down the road, so it's surprising to me that anyone would want to repeat that. I'd much prefer that Assad retain power in Syria to the other available options. A factor many miss when talking about how bad and evil Assad is.
I don't think anyone misses that. Its just that supporting him or allowing him to remain in power is a short term solution. The people who suffer under him will grow up and blame someone. And I bet it won't be Russia.
|
On October 08 2016 02:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 02:25 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:23 xDaunt wrote:On October 08 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 08 2016 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Simple let the Islamists bleed themselves then have Russia have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars of money it doesn't have to prop up a powerless dictator. ah, the old afghanistan strategy The US paid a lot of money (trillions) for the direct consequences of that strategy a few decades down the road, so it's surprising to me that anyone would want to repeat that. I'd much prefer that Assad retain power in Syria to the other available options. A factor many miss when talking about how bad and evil Assad is. I don't think anyone misses that. Its just that supporting him or allowing him to remain in power is a short term solution. The people who suffer under him will grow up and blame someone. And I bet it won't be Russia.
So I ask once more: what is the viable alternative? As of now the only options seem to be Assad and worse. And heavy-handed dictatorship is far superior to perpetual civil war, as many who have lived under both situations will tell you.
|
On October 08 2016 02:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 02:25 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:23 xDaunt wrote:On October 08 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 08 2016 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Simple let the Islamists bleed themselves then have Russia have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars of money it doesn't have to prop up a powerless dictator. ah, the old afghanistan strategy The US paid a lot of money (trillions) for the direct consequences of that strategy a few decades down the road, so it's surprising to me that anyone would want to repeat that. I'd much prefer that Assad retain power in Syria to the other available options. A factor many miss when talking about how bad and evil Assad is. I don't think anyone misses that. Its just that supporting him or allowing him to remain in power is a short term solution. The people who suffer under him will grow up and blame someone. And I bet it won't be Russia.
Well in fairness that was always going to be a problem. The thing you have to realise about dictators is that as miserable as it is countries have to organically evolve themselves out of it.
Yes it can be brutal and miserable but if its organic what needs to happen will happen. Thats what history will tell you for where the west finds itself today. Being world police is fine if countries are damaging each other.. But with all the power vacuums that intervention creates and the amount of weapons that start flowing around you now have set back that organic progression decades if not hundreds of years.
The US has been doing it since Iran in the 50's and they just never learn. I guess the blinders from being so powerful can do that. You just gotta get your tentacles in there. Its a failed standard of FP that the US has been following and I dont know where the political will for it comes from but its helped refuck everyone who was already pretty fucked so the world isn't exactly going to thank you for pretending to help and then making things worse.
The people who suffered under Assad weren't going to blame the US.. They will now.
As someone who was born under a martial dictator that secreted Wahabism from every pore I can assure you that, it is still preferred to being in a perpetual state of civil war that power vacuums create.
Its to late now though, now you gotta stay and figure out how to clean this mess. Cant just hand it back to Assad anymore.
|
Assad's a genocidal maniac. The question whether heavy handed dictatorship is superior to civil war isn't relevant because Syria is experiencing both. I actually think now that Obama should not have tolerated the red line cross and that Assad should have been replaced when the US had the chance.
Could have arranged some kind of interim government made up by the different rebel factions under international supervision or something along those lines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
