• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 21:50
CEST 03:50
KST 10:50
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall12HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed13Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll4Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension3Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed Who will win EWC 2025? RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll
Tourneys
FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome
Brood War
General
Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL ASL20 Preliminary Maps BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Starcraft in widescreen
Tourneys
Cosmonarchy Pro Showmatches [Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Segway man no more. Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Men Take Risks, Women Win Ga…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 652 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5519

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 5517 5518 5519 5520 5521 10093 Next
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.
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42591 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-10-12 08:02:42
October 12 2016 07:59 GMT
#110361
On October 12 2016 16:52 a_flayer wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 12 2016 16:42 KwarK wrote:
a_flayer, voting isn't that simple. It depends on the way the game is set up. There are different voting systems. In some systems it's as simple as voting for your favourite and that'll get the optimal outcome. In constituency based simple plurality, which is what is being used here, voting is tactical.


I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible.

You can support one more than the other. Your attitude works fine in PR but in FPTP you can insist as much as you like that not supporting one doesn't mean you support the other but that's unfortunately not how it works. If you have a preference you should express it. And I struggle to believe that anyone really can't have a preference this year. Trying to keep it simple is fine but the unfortunate reality of American democracy is that you don't get to vote for the person you'd like to support always, you only get to vote for the person of the two that you support most (or against the person you support least). That's just the system. That's how it's set up. You're trying to make it as simple as possible for yourself to play a different game than the game in question.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
TheYango
Profile Joined September 2008
United States47024 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-10-12 08:03:59
October 12 2016 08:02 GMT
#110362
On October 12 2016 16:52 a_flayer wrote:
I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible.

The system is completely fucked, we've been through this before. But the only way to un-fuck the system is to participate in it. You don't un-fuck the system by sitting out. As bad as it sounds, the only way to make the game less shit is to play it.

The problem is getting over the activation energy of getting enough people who care to participate in the system and enact change. When they all don't participate because they think the system is bad, the system stays bad.
Moderator
a_flayer
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Netherlands2826 Posts
October 12 2016 08:27 GMT
#110363
On October 12 2016 16:59 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 12 2016 16:52 a_flayer wrote:
On October 12 2016 16:42 KwarK wrote:
a_flayer, voting isn't that simple. It depends on the way the game is set up. There are different voting systems. In some systems it's as simple as voting for your favourite and that'll get the optimal outcome. In constituency based simple plurality, which is what is being used here, voting is tactical.


I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible.

You can support one more than the other. Your attitude works fine in PR but in FPTP you can insist as much as you like that not supporting one doesn't mean you support the other but that's unfortunately not how it works. If you have a preference you should express it. And I struggle to believe that anyone really can't have a preference this year. Trying to keep it simple is fine but the unfortunate reality of American democracy is that you don't get to vote for the person you'd like to support always, you only get to vote for the person of the two that you support most (or against the person you support least). That's just the system. That's how it's set up. You're trying to make it as simple as possible for yourself to play a different game than the game in question.


You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"?

Anyways, when it really comes down to it, none of this stuff is more interesting to me than voting for someone that I can support. Not the political games, not the system, not the strategic or tactical vote, not "picking the least offensive candidate". None of it comes even close to mattering as much for me as voting for someone that I can support does. And it's not like a single issue of disagreement would be a deal breaker in terms of getting my support, but I do have to draw the line somewhere.
When you came along so righteous with a new national hate, so convincing is the ardor of war and of men, it's harder to breathe than to believe you're a friend. The wars at home, the wars abroad, all soaked in blood and lies and fraud.
TheYango
Profile Joined September 2008
United States47024 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-10-12 08:36:34
October 12 2016 08:31 GMT
#110364
On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote:
You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"?

Change via non-participation isn't an impossibility, it's actually just a hell of a lot harder than change within the system, because the number of people you have to get to sit out for things to change is a LOT higher than the number of people you have to get to vote together for a major party to care what you think. Both are hard, but some people just reject gradual change as an option and think they're on the path to faster change by protesting the system. When in fact most protests end up doing absolutely nothing so it's actually on expectation more productive to participate in the system if you want change than to protest it.

If 20% of the population didn't vote, no one would care. But if 20% of the population all voted the same way, they would be election-defining.
Moderator
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42591 Posts
October 12 2016 08:54 GMT
#110365
On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 12 2016 16:59 KwarK wrote:
On October 12 2016 16:52 a_flayer wrote:
On October 12 2016 16:42 KwarK wrote:
a_flayer, voting isn't that simple. It depends on the way the game is set up. There are different voting systems. In some systems it's as simple as voting for your favourite and that'll get the optimal outcome. In constituency based simple plurality, which is what is being used here, voting is tactical.


I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible.

You can support one more than the other. Your attitude works fine in PR but in FPTP you can insist as much as you like that not supporting one doesn't mean you support the other but that's unfortunately not how it works. If you have a preference you should express it. And I struggle to believe that anyone really can't have a preference this year. Trying to keep it simple is fine but the unfortunate reality of American democracy is that you don't get to vote for the person you'd like to support always, you only get to vote for the person of the two that you support most (or against the person you support least). That's just the system. That's how it's set up. You're trying to make it as simple as possible for yourself to play a different game than the game in question.


You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"?

If only 10% of the people show up to vote then those 10% get to decide. It's a winner takes all system, writing in a candidate does nothing, there are only two candidates who can win. You either pick which one you want to win or you refuse to pick and someone else picks for you and then you live with their pick. That's the game. So you ask yourself "do I trust the American voting public to pick the one of these two I would pick" and if not then you join the voting public and nudge it towards your guy.

All that happens when you refuse to vote for a viable candidate is you forfeit your opportunity to have a say and instead have to live with whatever the other people picked. And that's pretty disgraceful honestly. If you care at all who wins you need to vote.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
a_flayer
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Netherlands2826 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-10-12 10:19:53
October 12 2016 08:54 GMT
#110366
On October 12 2016 17:31 TheYango wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote:
You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"?

Change via non-participation isn't an impossibility, it's actually just a hell of a lot harder than change within the system, because the number of people you have to get to sit out for things to change is a LOT higher than the number of people you have to get to vote together for a major party to care what you think. Both are hard, but some people just reject gradual change as an option and think they're on the path to faster change by protesting the system. When in fact most protests end up doing absolutely nothing so it's actually on expectation more productive to participate in the system if you want change than to protest it.


It's also not really about changing the political system for me. It's really just a simple thing of voting for someone who you can support. Perhaps I can use this comparison/analogy in order to illustrate my point of view: the issue of voting for someone who can support, in terms of importance, is about the size of the sun. The issue of the political system in which I cast my vote is about the size of a planet. It just doesn't compare. Yes, I'd like to see changes to the political system, but that is not why I would or would not vote. The advocacy of a change to the political system certainly might be a reason why I would choose to support a specific candidate, but the system in and of itself does not and will not determine who I choose to support.

If there was a system where murdering your opponents was accepted and the norm, such as in the Unseen University on Discworld, I would participate not based on whether or not I think murder was OK, but whether or not I agreed with the points of view of the candidate. What I'm trying to get at with this, is that the system in which we operate is messed up, that much is obvious, but that doesn't mean you should feel obligated to support someone that you have some real fundamental issues with.

The arguments against this that you guys bring up are valid points on the other side of the fence, but for me, their combined mass doesn't add up to the weight of the fact that my vote for a specific candidate is just about all I get to say in these matters because I really don't want to be involved in any direct sort of way. So I will only ever vote for someone that I can support, which - I hope you will agree - should not be a controversial point in and of itself.
When you came along so righteous with a new national hate, so convincing is the ardor of war and of men, it's harder to breathe than to believe you're a friend. The wars at home, the wars abroad, all soaked in blood and lies and fraud.
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42591 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-10-12 09:10:14
October 12 2016 09:04 GMT
#110367
Imagine two glasses, one of piss, one of vomit. You're going to be made to drink one of them, selected by a pool of four random dudes who will vote on it (or drink both in the event of a tie). You have the chance to also cast a vote indicating your preference (bringing the voter pool up to 5). What you're doing is saying "chocolate milk should be an option, why can't I just write chocolate milk" and "well if chocolate milk isn't on the list I'll just not vote" and "well I don't really want to drink piss or vomit so I'll abstain".

Nobody wants to drink either of those two but when it comes down to it I know I still have a preference and I certainly don't trust those other guys to get it right, not when I have to drink whichever one they pick for me. It matters, whether I like the situation or not I still need to make the choice to express my preference because nobody else is going to express it for me. All that happens if I choose to abstain is I reduce my own power to influence the outcome and increase that of everyone else.

In a PR voting system it works a little differently, each of the five people will be responsible for 20% of the contents of the glass. With PR you definitely don't select either vomit or piss, you go with mouthwash or something, even though it's not one of the main two options. But in FPTP it doesn't matter if two people vote piss, if the other three voted vomit you're drinking that glass full to the brim with nothing but vomit. In FPTP you never vote "chocolate milk" or "mouthwash" or anything else, you vote piss if you don't want to drink vomit.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Reivax
Profile Joined June 2011
Sweden214 Posts
October 12 2016 09:12 GMT
#110368
On October 12 2016 09:59 ticklishmusic wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 12 2016 09:04 Lord Tolkien wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
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. [Alright, let's start with the long-overdue critique.

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.





great post.


I said it previously. I read this thread mostly for great posts like this, Heru Tolkien is quite good at making these. Much appreciated.

a_flayer
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Netherlands2826 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-10-12 09:19:26
October 12 2016 09:19 GMT
#110369
On October 12 2016 18:04 KwarK wrote:
Imagine two glasses, one of piss, one of vomit. You're going to be made to drink one of them, selected by a pool of four random dudes who will vote on it (or drink both in the event of a tie). You have the chance to also cast a vote indicating your preference (bringing the voter pool up to 5). What you're doing is saying "chocolate milk should be an option, why can't I just write chocolate milk" and "well if chocolate milk isn't on the list I'll just not vote" and "well I don't really want to drink piss or vomit so I'll abstain".

Nobody wants to drink either of those two but when it comes down to it I know I still have a preference and I certainly don't trust those other guys to get it right, not when I have to drink whichever one they pick for me. It matters, whether I like the situation or not I still need to make the choice to express my preference because nobody else is going to express it for me. All that happens if I choose to abstain is I reduce my own power to influence the outcome and increase that of everyone else.

In a PR voting system it works a little differently, each of the five people will be responsible for 20% of the contents of the glass. With PR you definitely don't select either vomit or piss, you go with mouthwash or something, even though it's not one of the main two options. But in FPTP it doesn't matter if two people vote piss, if the other three voted vomit you're drinking that glass full to the brim with nothing but vomit. In FPTP you never vote "chocolate milk" or "mouthwash" or anything else, you vote piss if you don't want to drink vomit.


You (or maybe someone else) has used this very argument before. It doesn't really add up for me, though. You could say that what you're doing by voting for either vomit or piss is signing an agreement that you consented to drink piss or vomit instead of having either of them forced down your throat against your will.

Besides, I would object more to the shit that's mixed in with both of them. I've tried all three and believe me shit is by far the worst thing to have stuffed down your throat.
When you came along so righteous with a new national hate, so convincing is the ardor of war and of men, it's harder to breathe than to believe you're a friend. The wars at home, the wars abroad, all soaked in blood and lies and fraud.
iPlaY.NettleS
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
Australia4329 Posts
October 12 2016 09:22 GMT
#110370
On October 12 2016 14:51 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 12 2016 14:41 Chris1 wrote:
On October 12 2016 14:27 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Chris1, no, shut up, you're completely wrong, and it's obvious you have no clue what's going on in Yemen.


1) It is entirely possible and even probable individuals within Qatar or Saudi Arabia are funding ISIS, but, just like the whole 9/11 debacle of a bill that was passed, absolutely nothing to suggest the state governments are involved in funding ISIS, when they pose an existential threat to them. ISIS is claiming to be a new caliphate ffs (along with other millenarian apocalyptic beliefs), that means conquering all other Muslim countries and almost certainly wresting control of Mecca and Medina.

2) Yes, Iran is currently funding the Houthi rebels in Yemen. We are well aware they still sponsor "terrorism", Hezbollah etc, and we know the links between the Houthi and Iran.

Yemen in general is an ugly situation, since it's a proxy war between Iran (backing the Houthi) and Saudi Arabia/Sunni Arab states (backing the current government, with US support), with a major Al Qaeda movement forming a third element. Right now, our support of Saudi Arabia is preconditioned on our current alliance with them (and remaining tensions with Iran/Iranian-backed terrorist groups), as well as a need to see Yemen stabilized and not fall into the hands of Al Qaeda, whom hold sizable land, and also because ISIL is beginning to set up operations in Yemen (though irrelevant atm). As much as it pains me to say, since the current government of Yemen isn't...ah, nice (shall we say), and I don't at all envy the position of the Houthi, but here we don't have any other options in intervening here besides supporting the Saudis, as we do not have (yet) the option of supporting the Iranian-backed Houthis rebels, unless we want to antagonize the major Arab coalition that's bearing down on Yemen, and we are quite interested in making sure AQ or ISIL don't remain in control or exert any more influence in Yemen, period.

I also have no idea what this has to do with Hillary Clinton, since the escalation of Yemen into civil war was after her term in office as SecState.

3) ...what was that video suppose to show again?


I can't even take you serious when you open up like that. But, I will respond to the video part, it's a video about Hillary laughing about the brutal murder of someone. Perhaps you'd laugh about it too?

That weird moment when the American right mourns Gaddafi.

You'll find plenty of support on the right for a non-interventionist foreign policy.
Heck Libya was the richest per capita country in North Africa with Gaddafi in charge.
Not saying he was good but life there was a hell of a lot better than it is now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7PvoI6gvQs
riotjune
Profile Blog Joined January 2008
United States3392 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-10-12 09:46:34
October 12 2016 09:23 GMT
#110371
That's too bad.
iPlaY.NettleS
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
Australia4329 Posts
October 12 2016 09:26 GMT
#110372
Bush v Gore debate 2000
Too bad the guy was a lying psychopath controlled by the military industrial complex.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7PvoI6gvQs
Grumbels
Profile Blog Joined May 2009
Netherlands7031 Posts
October 12 2016 10:48 GMT
#110373
I don't understand this "in good conscience" concept. You are not endorsing Hillary, you are not justifying her actions, you are not retroactively whitewashing her every crime, you don't have to become her new best friend and staunch supporter. You are just tactically choosing to prefer Hillary over Trump as the next president. This idea that one's vague principles are more important than actually making a difference in the world by a making a sound tactical choice is honestly immature.
Well, now I tell you, I never seen good come o' goodness yet. Him as strikes first is my fancy; dead men don't bite; them's my views--amen, so be it.
Wolfstan
Profile Joined March 2011
Canada605 Posts
October 12 2016 11:01 GMT
#110374
On October 12 2016 15:26 Falling wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 12 2016 04:22 KwarK wrote:
I feel like the Christians are having a lot of fun trying to incorporate Trumpianity into their dogma. He's literally everything Jesus was telling people reject. This is a good year.

I think it's a pretty good indicator of how many still believe they can make Christians by the law- a sort of top down approach of the old Moral Majority variety, despite Trump representing the opposite of what the Moral Majority hoped in their politicians. There still seems to be many still wedded to the idea that if only the law of land can be more Christian, America can be fixed... never mind that the younger generations are walking away, which would be a problem with the bottom that no top down law can fix. The prosperity gospel guys make sense to me, but I have a hard time understanding the rest lining up for Trump, except that political allegiances seems to be inherited as much as anything else. I think there have been some very consistent pastors of the Calvinist variety that have said Nope and Noper to Trump and Clinton and are either not voting or else voting third party, but not nearly enough.

That empathy with Muslims when their religion is hijacked by groups like ISIS. In the US, perhaps Christianity has been hijacked by the Republican party.
EG - ROOT - Gambit Gaming
a_flayer
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Netherlands2826 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-10-12 12:13:23
October 12 2016 11:23 GMT
#110375
On October 12 2016 19:48 Grumbels wrote:
I don't understand this "in good conscience" concept. You are not endorsing Hillary, you are not justifying her actions, you are not retroactively whitewashing her every crime, you don't have to become her new best friend and staunch supporter. You are just tactically choosing to prefer Hillary over Trump as the next president. This idea that one's vague principles are more important than actually making a difference in the world by a making a sound tactical choice is honestly immature.


I think you are being unnecessarily dismissive of my opinion regarding the voting process by referring to my opinion as "voting on vague principles" and I am offended by that. My "vague principles", as you call them, are based on and encompass what I think would be a sound tactical choice in terms of world affairs. It by and large does not match with HRC or Trump think is best, hence I would not vote for them. While I don't think the ridiculously preposterous notion that voting for her would mean being her best friend or even being a staunch supporter is true, I do believe that by voting for her you are to some extent endorsing the actions she is likely to take while in office (e.g. continue to sell weapons to the Saudis and Israel, continue to use drone strikes against vaguely defined "enemy combatants", and so forth). I don't think that it is an unreasonable viewpoint to say that by voting for a specific person, you are supporting their views on the issues. I think it unfounded (and a little offensive) to describe this kind of an attitude as "immature".

In my case, as someone who doesn't want to be involved in day-to-day politics, activism or protesting because I need to work my job and that is the limit of what I can do in the world, my vote would be the only say I have in these kinds of things. So if I were then to use that single vote in order to support someone who is advocating things that I fundamentally disagree with, then yeah, that would go against my good conscience. I'll add that I honestly feel somewhat relieved that I don't have the burden of being able to vote in the US.

Also, based on what I'm hearing here, I'm assuming all of you Americans who are complaining about the two-party system -- while simultaneously proclaiming it is a good reason to vote for one of the two douche bags running in it -- are actively working to overthrow this system from within? Or do you also just vote once every four years and that is the extent of your involvement aside from the occasional discussion amongst friends or a few strangers?
When you came along so righteous with a new national hate, so convincing is the ardor of war and of men, it's harder to breathe than to believe you're a friend. The wars at home, the wars abroad, all soaked in blood and lies and fraud.
Aquanim
Profile Joined November 2012
Australia2849 Posts
October 12 2016 11:35 GMT
#110376
Real question: why does Trump want to increase military spending, if he doesn't intend foreign intervention and it is not at the behest of the military industrial complex?
a_flayer
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Netherlands2826 Posts
October 12 2016 11:36 GMT
#110377
On October 12 2016 20:35 Aquanim wrote:
Real question: why does Trump want to increase military spending, if he doesn't intend foreign intervention and it is not at the behest of the military industrial complex?


Because it gets cheers at his rallies.
When you came along so righteous with a new national hate, so convincing is the ardor of war and of men, it's harder to breathe than to believe you're a friend. The wars at home, the wars abroad, all soaked in blood and lies and fraud.
DarkPlasmaBall
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States44254 Posts
October 12 2016 12:05 GMT
#110378
On October 12 2016 20:36 a_flayer wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 12 2016 20:35 Aquanim wrote:
Real question: why does Trump want to increase military spending, if he doesn't intend foreign intervention and it is not at the behest of the military industrial complex?


Because it gets cheers at his rallies.


Primarily that, and also I suppose that strategically having an overwhelming force might be a deterrent for those who think about starting wars. Carrying around a big, intimidating stick in public might make it less likely for you to ever need to use that stick.

But then again, that would imply that Trump has any sort of strategy whatsoever, or that our force isn't already absurdly large and powerful lol.
"There is nothing more satisfying than looking at a crowd of people and helping them get what I love." ~Day[9] Daily #100
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18825 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-10-12 12:12:09
October 12 2016 12:11 GMT
#110379
On October 12 2016 20:23 a_flayer wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 12 2016 19:48 Grumbels wrote:
I don't understand this "in good conscience" concept. You are not endorsing Hillary, you are not justifying her actions, you are not retroactively whitewashing her every crime, you don't have to become her new best friend and staunch supporter. You are just tactically choosing to prefer Hillary over Trump as the next president. This idea that one's vague principles are more important than actually making a difference in the world by a making a sound tactical choice is honestly immature.


I think you are being unnecessarily dismissive of my opinion regarding the voting process by referring to my opinion as "voting on vague principles" and I am offended by that. My "vague principles", as you call them, are based on and encompass what I think would be a sound tactical choice in terms of world affairs. It by and large does not match with HRC or Trump think is best, hence I would not vote for them. While I don't think the ridiculously preposterous notion that voting for her would mean being her best friend or even being a staunch supporter, I do believe that by voting for her you are to some extent endorsing the actions she is likely to take while in office (e.g. continue to sell weapons to the Saudis and Israel, continue to use drone strikes against vaguely defined "enemy combatants", and so forth). I don't think that it is an unreasonable viewpoint to say that by voting for a specific person, you are supporting their views on the issues. And I recognize that you might not think these are serious issues or you might even agree with his & her approach on these issues, but I do not. I think it unfounded (and a little offensive) to describe this kind of an attitude as "immature".

In my case, as someone who doesn't want to be involved in day-to-day politics, activism or protesting because I need to work my job and that is the limit of what I can do in the world, my vote would be the only say I have in these kinds of things. So if I were then to use that single vote in order to support someone who is advocating things that I fundamentally disagree with, then yeah, that would go against my good conscience. I'll add that I honestly feel somewhat relieved that I don't have the burden of being able to vote in the US.

Also, based on what I'm hearing here, I'm assuming all of you Americans who are complaining about the two-party system -- while simultaneously proclaiming it is a good reason to vote for one of the two douche bags running in it -- are actively working to overthrow this system from within? Or do you also just vote once every four years and that is the extent of your involvement aside from the occasional discussion amongst friends or a few strangers?

While I wouldn't classify my stance as against the two-party system per se, I have voted in every election for going on ten years (I turn 28 in a little over a month and a half). Furthermore, I've worked for both state and federal government agencies and am planning to continue to do so for the remaining future.

Though I'm not sure you meant to highlight this, it should be clear that presidential politics distract many from the much more attainable goal of influencing local and state politics.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
Nevuk
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States16280 Posts
October 12 2016 12:27 GMT
#110380
On October 12 2016 15:50 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 12 2016 13:38 Probe1 wrote:
On October 12 2016 11:26 ZeaL. wrote:
On October 12 2016 11:15 Probe1 wrote:
On October 12 2016 09:54 ZeaL. wrote:
Yeah... Unfortunately there is probably going to be violence on election night. Honestly, I'm not too sure what there is to be done about people who distrust everything and everyone except for those in their echo chambers.

We said that same thing when Obama was first elected. Turned out aside from a few super crazies the FBI caught before they ever got the ball rolling.. nothing.


Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc.

I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected.

I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke.

You for real?
what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump?
Prev 1 5517 5518 5519 5520 5521 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 8h 10m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Livibee 255
RuFF_SC2 121
Nina 104
Ketroc 18
StarCraft: Brood War
Aegong 111
Icarus 7
LuMiX 3
Dota 2
monkeys_forever1000
NeuroSwarm145
Counter-Strike
taco 326
Super Smash Bros
AZ_Axe78
Mew2King69
Other Games
summit1g15050
shahzam1334
Day[9].tv879
hungrybox803
JimRising 455
C9.Mang0251
ViBE193
Maynarde144
Trikslyr82
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick2143
BasetradeTV45
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 18 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 132
• davetesta54
• sooper7s
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
• Kozan
StarCraft: Brood War
• Azhi_Dahaki40
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota22443
League of Legends
• Doublelift4506
• Rush730
Other Games
• Scarra2128
• Day9tv879
Upcoming Events
The PondCast
8h 10m
OSC
11h 10m
WardiTV European League
14h 10m
Fjant vs Babymarine
Mixu vs HiGhDrA
Gerald vs ArT
goblin vs MaNa
Jumy vs YoungYakov
Replay Cast
22h 10m
Epic.LAN
1d 10h
CranKy Ducklings
2 days
Epic.LAN
2 days
CSO Contender
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Esports World Cup
5 days
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

JPL Season 2
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

BSL 2v2 Season 3
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Championship of Russia 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters

Upcoming

CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
K-Championship
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Disclosure: This page contains affiliate marketing links that support TLnet.

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.