| 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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 12 2016 08:34 RealityIsKing wrote: It is important to not generalize the whole country. Its not like he is losing badly in the polls, some polls even have him being favored. I have bad news for you. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9112 Posts
On October 12 2016 08:34 RealityIsKing wrote: It is important to not generalize the whole country. Its not like he is losing badly in the polls, some polls even have him being favored. He is losing badly in polls, double digits badly. And it's not some polls that have him favored, it's one poll, singular. The LA Times poll which has some big flaws, which I'd have taken the time to explain if I thought there's a higher than 0 chance of you not ignoring it and moving on to the next nonsense claim. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The death toll from Hurricane Matthew in the United States climbed again on Tuesday as officials warned of a continuing threat from floodwaters still rising in several areas of North Carolina. Overnight, four more people were reported killed in the state, Governor Pat McCrory announced at a morning briefing, bringing the tally in North Carolina to 14. One victim was shot dead late on Monday after a “confrontation” involving a state trooper and two deputies assisting with rescue efforts, McCrory said. Details of the incident, which took place during a “high water situation”, were still being investigated. The three others killed were motorists, one by a falling tree and two found in submerged vehicles. Hurricane Matthew, which has killed at least 1,000 people in Haiti, has now accounted for at least 33 deaths in the US, including 12 in Florida, three each in South Carolina and Georgia and one in Virginia. “It was a very difficult night for thousands of people in North Carolina,” an emotional McCrory said on Tuesday, warning that for many the worst could be yet to come, two days after the storm moved away from the state’s coastline and dissipated in the Atlantic. “Certain parts of the state are going through recovery, certain parts are still going through ongoing floods, and now we have other parts of the state that are about to deal with some very serious circumstances. “Too many people have died and we don’t want any more, and yet there are going to be conditions over the next 72 hours that will be extremely dangerous.” Authorities have warned that levels in several rivers, including the rivers Tar, Neuse and Lumber, were rising above record levels and that the towns of Rocky Mountain, Greenville and Goldsboro would almost inevitably be flooded. A breach in the Woodlake dam was “imminent”, Moore County officials said, threatening nearby residential areas. Source | ||
KwarK
United States42499 Posts
On October 12 2016 08:30 RealityIsKing wrote: Then it will depend how will he reframe the story and what other dirt does he have Hillary if this story even get brought up. It was already brought up in the first debate. He said it was the 80 and that everyone did it. Please try to keep up with reality. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42499 Posts
On October 12 2016 08:34 RealityIsKing wrote: It is important to not generalize the whole country. Its not like he is losing badly in the polls, some polls even have him being favored. He needs to go 6/6 in the following states to hit 270. Florida. North Carolina. Ohio. Iowa. Nevada. Arizona. He's currently 40 points behind in Florida and only ahead in Arizona, of that list. Your boy is fucked. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On September 29 2016 08:34 LegalLord wrote: There's only one superpower in the world at the moment. That said, Tolkien and Kwark are really reaching with their conclusions about Russia, partially based off wishful thinking. The economic/military/political/technological power of Russia is quite significant even on a global scale. The concerns they bring up (demographics, cash shortages, etc) are real and valid, but their conclusions based on them are a reflection of their desires more so than the truth. It would be like saying the US is fucked because it has a dysfunctional Congress, a debt-to-GDP ratio of over 100%, ethnic strife between blacks and the police, and it can't even win a war in Iraq. All those concerns are important and real but the conclusion based on those concerns is a pile of horseshit. Similarly, the issues of FP are far more complex than you make them out to be in your appraisal of US/Russian/Chinese policies. Every country in the world is a piece of shit from the proper perspective. And this whole post is horseshit. You're just trying to be contrarian without providing any meaningful figures or evidence to back up your assertions that clear power indicators of Russian decline are baloney. For instance, demographic decline is perhaps one of the fundamental indicators of economic and military power. Demographics are what allowed France to dominate Europe from the 16th to mid-19th century through their massive population advantage over the rest of Europe, and demographics are what propelled Great Britain, and later Germany, to the forefront and to French decline. Demographics are why China is the rising power, yet faces quite severe economic hardships in the future, and why the notion of an oncoming a geriatric peace in the next few decades is not unrealistic in the slightest. It's even more true today, where with high life expectancy, decline in the workforce corresponds with growing disparity between workers and dependents, and the growing fiscal need for social security and medical care for the elderly, to say nothing of the necessary increases in average worker productivity to keep an economy growing, if the size of a workforce is declining. You tell me how Russia can lose over half of it's net population by the end of the 21st century and still "grow" as a Great Power, without accounting for the brain drain and other health factors that Russia currently faces, because at current fertility rates, that's what's going to happen. And demographic numbers are notoriously difficult to change without radical shifts in government and immigration policies. Japan for instance has tried running major fertility campaigns to little avail, and unless they're able to effect a massive change in their national culture and start taking on boatloads of immigrants, it's not going to change. Their rapid demographic decline is, fundamentally, why their economy has been in the doldrums for the past few decades, despite the intense focus on mechanization and on robots to fill the growing shortfall. France faced a similar problem in the late 19th and early 20th century, as German population continued to explode while French population growth stagnated, mitigated by being one of the few net migrant positive European nations in the period, and the demographic catastrophe for France that was World War One was only mitigated by the massive influx of migrants to France from the colonies or Europe. Demographics are long-term trends with well-noted consequences, and to say that we cannot predict the influence they will have in the future power projection capabilities of a country is willfully denying the facts. Beyond this, Russia, since the 1990s, has seen its global influence in perpetual recession with the collapse of the USSR. The loss of the Visegrad states, the loss of the Balkans, the loss of the Baltics, and the current erosion of Russian former monopoly in the Central Asian states (for anyone who actually pays attention to it, the growth of Chinese investment and interests in the region directly challenges Russia's former primacy in the region: for instance, Russia use to be the only power capable of shipping/pipe-lining petroleum or natural gas out of the region which gave them significant clout: not anymore). The Wars in Georgia and even the Ukraine have been attempts to temporarily reverse the trends, but have been nothing if not been damaging to Russia as a whole. The whole kerfuffle over Ukraine has as much to do with the pro-Russian government of Ukraine being ousted by pro-EU partisans and Russia not wanting Sevastapol under possibly NATO/EU control as with anything else. That of course brings of the problems of Russian geography, and the problems they've historically face in building global power projection when they need to maintain 4 separate fleets (Black, Baltic, Arctic, Far East), and a vast, relatively underpopulated land empire. The Russian economy still remains tethered to their oil fortunes to prop it up, as the remaining sectors of the economy remains underdeveloped/invested, as their case of "dutch disease" is both well-known and still entirely unaddressed. Without even commenting on their present fiscal/monetary/currency woes (which are actually quite severe, and a collapse in the ruble over it or somesuch will cause lasting economic damage), the Russian economy is in desperate need of FDI in non-petroleum/natural gas sectors, and there are systemic reasons as to why it's not showing up. Even if a turnaround is in the cards in the medium-term (it's not happening so long as sanctions remain in place), it's still going to have to grow at a sufficient pace to keep the metaphorical neck of the Russian economy above the water in terms of demographic decline. This is without touching the state of Russia's military (which, while certainly better than it was 10 years ago, when the intelligence community doubted the majority of Russian nuclear missiles could even launch, is still regionally limited, and the most important part of the nuclear triad, the nuclear submarines, remains in dismal condition). For the record, Russia is a Great Power. My point in that post was to note that in the traditional, military-industrial focused definition Russia is not, simply due to their limited power projection capabilities on a global scale. However, in the broader, modern definition of "power", Germany Japan, and even arguably India and Brazil are construed as "Great Powers", heck even South Korea, despite these countries having only a regional capacity for military operation. The Russian economy is still large and essential (being anywhere between the 13th and 6th, depending on if you're using PPP or nominal GDP), and no one denies that they remain a major regional player. However, to say that the long-term indicators do NOT point at Russian decline being in the cards is just being grossly ignorant of the fundamentals of power, as Russia's current position in most indicators of power are in either relative and/or absolute decline. Your dismissal of basic indicators of economic and military strength and the fundamentals of "power" is moderately surprising, but mostly just an indicator you likely haven't scratched the basic corpus of IR literature. I'll start you off. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Paul Kennedy This is probably the most relevant to the above. And for follow up. The Future of Power, Robert Nye Theory of International Politics, Kenneth Waltz Power & Interdependence, Keohane & Nye And please, no "whataboutisms": it is not relevant that the US is in relative decline when we're discussing the strong possibility of absolute decline of Russia. If you did a side-by-side comparison of the United States and Russia, the United States is in far better condition, both short- and long-, in pretty much every relevant "power" category. On September 29 2016 08:38 LegalLord wrote: Saudi Arabia might just be the shittiest ally ever, and I look forward to the day the US reworks its political alignments to distance itself from it. I'd levy John Boner's criticism of Ted Cruz at the Sauds - I've never seen a more miserable son-of-a-bitch of a country in my life. And there are a lot of shitty countries in the world. There are plenty of criticisms you can levy against Saudi Arabia, as a state and as an ally, but they're the best we've got at present in the region, and we need to make do with what we have as, at the very least, they are just as threatened by radical Islamic jihadist movements, and ISIL, as we are. In the column of "allies we aren't happy with" Israel and Turkey also fall here, as the continued Palestinian occupation (and from it, our support of Israel) is probably the most important issue that undermines our credibility in (and the stability of) the region, and Turkey has been, well. Between problems with the Kurds and Endrogan cozying up to Putin and the whole demanding extradition of Gulen, is not the staunch ally we used to have. Really, the only reliable ally of the US in the region has been the Kurds. I understand the Israeli security complex very well, but the Occupation is quite frankly detrimental to Israel's own security, let alone the stability of the region, but politically it's too complicated to untangle. But let's not linger too much on that. For those of you interested, The Gatekeepers (2012) is a fantastic film to watch if you want to learn more about the security implications of the Occupation. On October 01 2016 06:09 LegalLord wrote: NATO is a good example. Trump made the common sense, but understated, assertion that the security alliance as it exists is obsolete and does not serve a positive purpose. However, undermining it in a way that just benefits other countries (I won't call them enemies, because there is absolutely no necessity that they be enemies) is not the solution. It's undermining the real need to rethink how the alliance works before its more aggressive elements break it apart. Rubbish. NATO as it exists continues to serve a multitude of purposes, from the extension of a nuclear umbrella and deterrence to Europe, and the prevention of nuclear, efficient intelligence sharing and counter-terrorism coordination, basic conventional deterrence and the preservation of Eastern European territorial integrity, to even simple command/equipment interoperability that drastically improves the ability of NATO membership militaries to operate in conjunction with one another. Even if the traditional role of NATO as an anti-Russian defensive pact is far less relevant in the modern day, NATO remains the cornerstone of a stable European security environment. There are of course disagreements in the alliance as to the continued evolution of NATO, but there has been nothing, outside of Trump's ludicrous comments, that actually point to the development of an actual fracture of the alliance. Your comments here, simply put, highlight a gross lack of understanding of NATO's full extent and capacity, and utility in furthering US security interests. "Does not serve a positive purpose" my ass. On October 02 2016 09:26 LegalLord wrote: Yugoslavia was a mess of a country whose demise was quite likely. As with quite a few Eastern European countries, there was quite a bit of ethnic strife that made it quite hard to exist as a single country. Part of the reason the USSR even had such a substantial security apparatus was that there were quite a few conflicts within an unstable part of the world (though that apparatus did have a number of key weaknesses of note since it was established in a less sane and more paranoid environment). However, it is also true that NATO, in Yugoslavia as in multiple other countries in their operating zones, pushed to escalate those conflicts into civil war and to end those civil wars on terms more favorable to parties that were pro-Western. Yugoslavia was a special case simply because of when it happened - in the decade after the collapse of the USSR, when Russia really did not have the ability to oppose this intervention. It has moderate geopolitical importance due to its location, but more importantly the intervention there was a diplomatically aggressive move that destroyed any hopes of a genuine reset with Russia and led to a very neocon-esque approach to American FP. Rather imperialist. 1) Imperialism. Well, thats one way to view NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia I guess. The well-documented ethnic cleansing that was taking place had no part in it I guess, or the deliberate targeting of civilians by the Serbs and Sebrenica I guess, or the general ineffectiveness of UN Peacekeepers....I guess. No, we did it to establish pro-Western governments. Nevermind that any such government would take years to set up, the economy in the area were shattered, we left the formation of the government/state to be supervised and mediated by the UN, and the Serb leaders were put under trial for war crimes, no. Intervention in the former Yugoslavia is one of the least debatable moves the United States has done in quite some time, and while there are plenty of things to criticize in our record of interventions, the former Yugoslavia is not one of them. Yes, I'm sure that the eventual installation of a pro-EU/NATO government was a plus, but we could've done the same with the Serbs (and the Serbs are even now still leaning more with NATO than with Russia). US foreign policy has, generally, been dictated by the "4 P's", Power, Peace, Prosperity, and Principles. Yugoslavia is a case where our intervention was primarily lead by humanitarian concerns as opposed to any thoughts of expanding influence in the region, and, to be quite frank, we were fairly late to push through the intervention. 2) Those of you skeptical, LL is correct, Russia did oppose the Bosnia and Kosovo interventions. Officially, it was because our interventions "unduely" favored the Bosniaks and Kosovars and that we weren't giving the Serbs a fair shake (or were overlooking Bosnian/Kosovar atrocities), and it may even be true (though when there was ethnic cleansing being conducted and documented, I find this claim for equivalence amusing). The Russians mostly just wanted a seat at the table and some say in the intervention/outcome. But, really, the dissolution of the Yugoslavia and the fall of the USSR must have seemed quite similar, and I wouldn't doubt they saw the parallels between the Serbs and themselves, to say nothing of feelings of Slavic bonds of brotherhood. 3) I find it sad that we forgot the lessons of the former Yugoslavia and Sebrenica, and have left Syria to fester and continue as it has. The primary, most vocal advocates for a Syrian intervention has always been the State Department (and the foreign policy community), because we, at least, remember. I understand of course that Obama is afraid of another Iraq and the political considerations that the state of the country has lead him to refuse any assistance, but our failure to properly intervene will be a stain on him, much like Somalia or Rwanda was for Clinton, and a blot on our record as a country. I however have faith that Hillary remembers Rwanda, remembers Sebrenica, and most of all the consequences and moral evils/complicity of inaction. You have another long post on NATO which I will touch upon later, sometime this week (probably), and I still need to discuss Clinton's record. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On October 12 2016 06:58 raga4ka wrote: US have gotten away with every war in the past decade, because no one really had the power to do anything about it. Russia is doing this because she is feeling cornered right now and doesn't want to lose any more allies. After the coup in Ukraine you think Russia wants to lose Syria as a potential ally as well? Russians are feeling insecure and that's why the support for Putin's party has went up after his annexation of Crimea and involvement in Syria, because he looks out for Russia's global interests. The west had a choice after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They could've offered a helping hand to countries like Russia and China who suffered a lot in WW2 to build ties and develop them in to a more stable, democracies even. Instead NATO expanded to the east to Russia's door step, something the west promised not to do.They build anti-missile shields surrounding Russia and China isolating them even more. I'm sorry but bringing democracy with terrorists, bombs and regime changes isn't really democratic, even if some countries are ruled by dictators. Economic reasons are of course the main reasons to get involved, but just having any geopolitical presence in the region is also important. You realize we DID offer helping hands, or that economic relationships between the West and Russia/China grew even when political relationships were frosty, right? Do you not understand the US-China relationship, or it's history? Heck, the China-Japan economic relationship is extremely important (immense amounts of trade between the two), and Japan was practically the only country to keep investing/loaning to china in the immediate aftermath of Tiananmen. Doesn't stop political relationships between the two to be...cold at best. No, of course not. This narrative of Western imperialism and the West's beating down on helpless China/Russia must continue. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
Nakajin
Canada8989 Posts
On October 12 2016 08:46 KwarK wrote: He needs to go 6/6 in the following states to hit 270. Florida. North Carolina. Ohio. Iowa. Nevada. Arizona. He's currently 40 points behind in Florida and only ahead in Arizona, of that list. Your boy is fucked. 40 points behind in Florida!? Like 30-70? WTF when did that happen? | ||
|
oBlade
United States5510 Posts
On October 12 2016 09:27 Nakajin wrote: 40 points behind in Florida!? Like 30-70? WTF when did that happen? When he says points he's talking about 538 forecast projected chances of winning the state. Not poll results. | ||
|
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/florida/ e- oh he means the chance of winning | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9112 Posts
Amazing, this is the level of the discussion this election | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Well, a day late and it only covered passing remarks for the most part, but the post is here. I'll be interested to see what you have to say about the rest of the NATO post as well. I'll have a response for you when I have the time. Might take more than a few minutes to address all that, and I have a busy few days ahead. Might get around to it tomorrow, but might take until Friday. | ||
|
Nakajin
Canada8989 Posts
On October 12 2016 09:28 oBlade wrote: When he says points he's talking about 538 forecast projected chances of winning the state. Not poll results. Ah ok that make a lot more sense. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
It’s not just the Democrats who are frustrated by Donald Trump’s “rigged election” talk. Republicans have started warning their increasingly ostracized nominee to stop stoking his supporters with claims that the 2016 election will be stolen, daring him to show proof or put a lid on it. “Somebody claiming in the election, ‘I was defrauded’, that isn’t going to cut it,” said former Sen. Kit Bond, a Missouri Republican who earlier in the campaign had endorsed Jeb Bush and then Marco Rubio. “They’re going to have to say how, where, why, when.” “I don’t think leading candidates for the presidency should undercut the process unless you have a really good reason,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who gained little support for his own 2016 White House run, told POLITICO. Trump and his running mate Mike Pence have been flogging for months the notion that Hillary Clinton supporters could tamper with voting to the point that they win the White House. Their campaign website is recruiting poll watchers, and longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone has been raising unlimited funds from corporations and individuals in a bid to “fight a rigged system” that benefits the Democrats. And Monday, at a post-debate rally in crucial Pennsylvania, Trump kept the vote rigging argument alive: “Watch other communities because we don’t want this election stolen from us,” Trump said. “We do not want this election stolen from us.” Such sustained and super-charged rhetoric, coming on the heels of a heated debate over restrictive voter ID laws across the country and the U.S. government’s Friday announcement accusing Russian hackers on orders from the Kremlin of trying to meddle with the election, has raised alarm bells in election offices nationwide. Source | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
"Well...I mean....come on people." - Barack "Are you fucking kidding me?" Obama Edit: Preach it Lindsey Graham, but you are about 6 months late. You all gunna get Paul Ryan killed. | ||
|
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
I think he condemned the mexican rapists comments and hasnt let up since | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
HomeStory Cup
BSL: ProLeague
SOOP
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
