|
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 12 2016 23:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 22:02 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 21:11 farvacola wrote:On October 12 2016 20:23 a_flayer wrote: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. What I was trying to illustrate with the last paragraph is that it is perhaps a little foolish to condemn someone for not being willing to vote for "a lesser of two evils" in a system that forces such a choice if you are essentially unwilling to do anything at all to help dismantle that system (despite agreeing that the system is not a good way of handling democracy). People here have said nice words about "working within the system to change it" but you're not doing anything regarding that problem if all you do is cast a single vote for someone who is operating within that system and is effectively working to keep it the same. I don't think you can condemn someone for voicing his or her opinion on this through a vote or even a lack of vote if you agree with the general idea but disagree with their approach and then refuse to take any sort of action yourself. I would again like to emphasize, though, that the democratic system that is in place is largely irrelevant when it comes to obtaining my vote or support. On October 12 2016 17:54 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote: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. This I refuse to accept as truth. If only 10% would be willing to vote, then any sort of half-decent person in a leadership position must realize that something needs to change and should work towards that. It cannot be, even if it is written as law in golden ink on silver paper, that a democratically-minded person would be willing to make decisions on behalf of millions with only 10% of the people feeling that the system in place is sufficiently adequate for them to participate. Pardon for intruding on this discussion--but I hate the lie that people supposedly vote for the lesser of 2 evils. Americans have full control over the entirety of their State and Federal Government. You get to vote for who teaches your kids, you guards your streets, who cleans your trash, who collects your taxes, who enforces your laws, who your city, state, municipal, leaders are, who your state AND federal representatives are, you get to elect someone to argue for you in the senate, and argue for you in the house, you get to choose who the local judges will be in your area, and if that judge does awesome enough he gets to be in the running for the higher courts--and sometimes even the supreme court. You get to decide not only who your government leader is, but you also get to build the establishment that creates that supports that leader. Anyone who is believes they are "forced" to only have one of two choices in America is only because they don't give a damn about politics outside of waxing poetic on online forums to feel better about themselves. Do you know how many representatives I have talked to complaining that only 10%-20% of people show up to local elections? How the establishment is decided simply because 1-2 churches decides to tell its members to show up that election cycle? The Democratic AND Republican party can be ANYTHING the people want it to be, they can mold and construct it from the ground up with literally no resistance. Change the party base by focusing on local elections and you end up with an establishment that supports your ideals. Put your eggs only on the presidential basket and you'll simply reap what you actually sow. Hilary is one of the better politicians we have. A politician that cares more about the people she works with than simply wanting to put her own personal biases as the core of her policies. She's willing to change her stance if the people want her to because she, above anything else, wants to represent her constituents. She is not some sacrificial lamb trying to find some moral feel good to martyr herself on. The more her "scandalous" emails and speeches are revealed the more we learn that she is literally just someone trying to make the world she lives in work. Someone who is doing what she can to create policies that help people by figuring out how to make those policies passable to the ones in power who could stop it. There's a reason I stopped liking Bernie Sanders after the first debate. Because it turned out Bernie was no different than Trump. Willing to say anything that made him feel good and showing a lack of desire to actually do the work of empathizing and finding common ground with the enemy. He was someone willing to vilify any and all things his opposition said or did. And there was Hilary, showing us experts, testimonials, plans, links to her ideas, links to her policies. The same strategies shes doing against Trump. The more leaks happen the more we see that she's a normal human being living in a political world. And people feel forced to vote for her thinking she's the only choice when in reality--she's simply embodying the "established" DEM base that democrats should have been voting for but haven't for the past sixteen years. We get to vote for who the establishment is almost every two years. The mayors, Governors, Senators, Congressmen, Judges, and Officials who all make up the establishment, who make up the precedents that eventually generate federal laws, the ones who pass federal laws, the ones who defend federal and state laws--we get to choose who those people are MORE often than we get to choose the person who gets to veto the ideas. I disagree 100% that people only have 2 bad choices. People only have 2 choices for this 1 specific office. They also have choices for the hundreds of thousands of other offices that also highly impact this country. Being blind to the political process is not the same as being stuck with only 2 choices. Choosing not to engage in the options available is not you being prevented from having those choices.
+ Show Spoiler +
Thanks, nice post
|
On October 15 2016 21:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 21:08 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:02 JinDesu wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 20:08 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 19:59 ImFromPortugal wrote:... This is the third time that video (or equivalent) has been posted in this thread as far as I know, and it's also the third time I have pointed out that Clinton was laughing at the coincidence, not getting her jollies out of killing foreign heads of state.
I am willing to make allowances because this thread is long and it's not practical to read all of it... nevertheless it is quite frusturating. Even without having seen that, it's not as though you could not have worked it out for yourself, instead of jumping to conclusions. if you are ok with a head of state laughing at the death of another that's your thing, i wouldn't want a president like that. Clinton was not laughing at Gaddafi being dead, she was laughing at the juxtaposition of Gaddafi being dead with her recent visit. I feel really weird saying this, this is not normally my side of this kind of conversation but... It was a joke. Are we not allowed to tell jokes any more? Taking into consideration she played a big role in the Libya debacle i don't find it funny at all and would never vote for someone that makes that kind of comments about important situations like that. That's good to hear, because I'm never voting for a guy who asks nuclear advisors why we can't just use nukes. I'm sure many other presidents made that same question, even before using them on the Japanese. Um......we didn't have nukes prior to WW2. Like what?
I'm saying even before they took the decision to use them on the Japanese there were tests and they went ahead with the strikes knowing the full power of the atomic bombs.
|
On October 15 2016 21:30 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 21:18 a_flayer wrote:On October 15 2016 20:48 farvacola wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On October 15 2016 20:36 farvacola wrote:
Well, for those that attempt to mobilize the above logic in pursuit of supporting Trump, y'all should actually look into what is said at his rallies and what not. At the one I attended, "America will not apologize" and ending ISIS in 90 days were the theme. More importantly, he has one of the biggest neocon figures as a senior adviser. Indeed, there are a host of reasons to regard Trump as the candidate more likely to do something dumb and militaristic during the next 4 years, which is not to say that Clinton won't, rather that her likelihood to do so is comparatively smaller by a fair margin. Ok, forget the idea that Trump is the better candidate for peace, then (and I'd never suggest actually picking him on the ballot). Please, realize that you are as a country are continuing to improve your ability to blow up the world with nuclear weapons and that such a thing is a stupid thing to work towards. Realize that the majority of the world does not want the US to continue to play as the world's policeman and can't be trusted to act responsibly on its own. Nuclear weapons are dangerous. Try to work with other sovereign states, stop trying to invade them or trying to overthrow their governments. Even if they are tyrannical bastards. These are not things that are difficult to understand, I hope, and every administration you elect seems to go further into the Middle East. Is it ever going to end? It's true that general opinions went up after Obama was elected, but I think there's a lot to be said for that if you look at what has been accomplished versus the praise for what essentially comes down to Obama's demeanour and not his policy. The criticism of Clinton is that she will fall exactly in line with this negative progression which I fear is going to be very destructive. But now we're getting to the point where I would say vote for a third party, or go to the streets to protest. And you don't want to because of various reasons, some of which may be (just open that pretty little mouth of yours and I'll put some words in) that you don't think the foreign policy is all that bad, or you want to work within the democratic party to solve the problem because you feel loyal to it. And then, if we keep up this conversation, I will sling some poo at you and you will throw it back. It's like we learned how to communicate by watching politicians. The people who are voting for Trump are the very same people who have voted in senators and representatives that have still, to this day, refused to admit that we made a multitude of mistakes in the Middle East.
Why didn't Jeb win the republican primary then? Surely you recall Trump and Jebs tussle over the Iraq war legacy?
Trump was the one who repeatedly said it was a disaster just to jog your memory.Maybe the majority of repub voters now agree the Iraq/Afghan (now also Syria/Libya) wars have been disasters?
BTW Clinton voted in favour of the Iraq war as senator.It has to be said at least there was a congressional vote on the Iraq war unlike the Libya situation - makes it easier to vote out the ones who supported the war as opposed to the president just ignoring congress....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/02/us-bombing-libya-isis-strongholds-vicious-cycle
Like usual in the Obama administration’s wars, there was no congressional vote on the latest airstrikes in Libya and no declaration of war, as required by the constitution. The administration is pinning the legal authority for this military incursion on the 2001 Authorization for Military Force that was meant for Afghanistan and the perpetrators of 9/11, al-Qaida. Isis, of course, didn’t exist until years later, and the two groups are now enemies, but those technicalities don’t seem to bother the Obama administration, which is continuing to expand US military presence abroad with little to no public input.
|
On October 15 2016 21:40 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 21:18 a_flayer wrote:On October 15 2016 20:48 farvacola wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On October 15 2016 20:36 farvacola wrote:
Well, for those that attempt to mobilize the above logic in pursuit of supporting Trump, y'all should actually look into what is said at his rallies and what not. At the one I attended, "America will not apologize" and ending ISIS in 90 days were the theme. More importantly, he has one of the biggest neocon figures as a senior adviser. Indeed, there are a host of reasons to regard Trump as the candidate more likely to do something dumb and militaristic during the next 4 years, which is not to say that Clinton won't, rather that her likelihood to do so is comparatively smaller by a fair margin. Ok, forget the idea that Trump is the better candidate for peace, then (and I'd never suggest actually picking him on the ballot). Please, realize that you as a country are continuing to improve your ability to blow up the world with nuclear weapons and that such a thing is a stupid thing to work towards. Realize that the majority of the world does not want the US to continue to play as the world's policeman and can't be trusted to act responsibly on its own. Nuclear weapons are dangerous. Try to work with other sovereign states, stop trying to invade them or trying to overthrow their governments. Even if they are tyrannical bastards. These are not things that are difficult to understand, I hope, and every administration you elect seems to go further into the Middle East. Is it ever going to end? It's true that general opinions went up after Obama was elected, but I think there's a lot to be said for that if you look at what has been accomplished versus the praise for what essentially comes down to Obama's demeanour and not his policy. The criticism of Clinton is that she will fall exactly in line with this negative progression which I fear is going to be very destructive. But now we're getting to the point where I would say vote for a third party, or go to the streets to protest. And you don't want to because of various reasons, some of which may be (just open that pretty little mouth of yours and I'll put some words in) that you don't think the foreign policy is all that bad, or you want to work within the democratic party to solve the problem because you feel loyal to it. And then, if we keep up this conversation, I will sling some poo at you and you will throw it back. It's like we learned how to communicate by watching politicians. Edit: And yeah, I don't know much about Jill Stein, because I haven't thoroughly investigated her and most of the media that is easily presented to me doesn't really cover her, but from what little I've seen she seems like a pretty reasonable candidate. Why do some people dislike her so much? I've seen some serious hate towards her in this thread. Maintaining the balance of power on every continent is essential for geopolitical stability. If Russia, a country that has crippled its economy for the sake of playing at being a superpower, is given free reign then they have everything they need to tyrannise eastern Europe and central Asia. After all, what does an expansionist power that has huge military might and no money do? It expands. Appeasement never, ever works.
The thing with Russia is, to quote Kennan, that it has no friends, only vassals and ennemies. That has been true since the bolshevik revolution and it still is.
Tose who think that Putin wants a friendly relation with the US haven't been paying much attention about Russia FP in the last fifteen years.
|
On October 15 2016 21:51 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 21:37 Plansix wrote:On October 15 2016 21:08 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:02 JinDesu wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 20:08 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 19:59 ImFromPortugal wrote:... This is the third time that video (or equivalent) has been posted in this thread as far as I know, and it's also the third time I have pointed out that Clinton was laughing at the coincidence, not getting her jollies out of killing foreign heads of state.
I am willing to make allowances because this thread is long and it's not practical to read all of it... nevertheless it is quite frusturating. Even without having seen that, it's not as though you could not have worked it out for yourself, instead of jumping to conclusions. if you are ok with a head of state laughing at the death of another that's your thing, i wouldn't want a president like that. Clinton was not laughing at Gaddafi being dead, she was laughing at the juxtaposition of Gaddafi being dead with her recent visit. I feel really weird saying this, this is not normally my side of this kind of conversation but... It was a joke. Are we not allowed to tell jokes any more? Taking into consideration she played a big role in the Libya debacle i don't find it funny at all and would never vote for someone that makes that kind of comments about important situations like that. That's good to hear, because I'm never voting for a guy who asks nuclear advisors why we can't just use nukes. I'm sure many other presidents made that same question, even before using them on the Japanese. Um......we didn't have nukes prior to WW2. Like what? I'm saying even before they took the decision to use them on the Japanese there were tests and they went ahead with the strikes knowing the full power of the atomic bombs.
No you are not saying that.
|
Trump says everything and nothing all at once, so yeah, in a previous debate he worked that boardroom charm as he shit on an already mostly disliked panel of Republican politicians. Given that he also wants to end ISIS in 90 days, I think it's pretty clear that he doesn't seem to understand why invading Iraq was a bad idea.
|
On October 15 2016 21:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 21:40 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 21:18 a_flayer wrote:On October 15 2016 20:48 farvacola wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On October 15 2016 20:36 farvacola wrote:
Well, for those that attempt to mobilize the above logic in pursuit of supporting Trump, y'all should actually look into what is said at his rallies and what not. At the one I attended, "America will not apologize" and ending ISIS in 90 days were the theme. More importantly, he has one of the biggest neocon figures as a senior adviser. Indeed, there are a host of reasons to regard Trump as the candidate more likely to do something dumb and militaristic during the next 4 years, which is not to say that Clinton won't, rather that her likelihood to do so is comparatively smaller by a fair margin. Ok, forget the idea that Trump is the better candidate for peace, then (and I'd never suggest actually picking him on the ballot). Please, realize that you as a country are continuing to improve your ability to blow up the world with nuclear weapons and that such a thing is a stupid thing to work towards. Realize that the majority of the world does not want the US to continue to play as the world's policeman and can't be trusted to act responsibly on its own. Nuclear weapons are dangerous. Try to work with other sovereign states, stop trying to invade them or trying to overthrow their governments. Even if they are tyrannical bastards. These are not things that are difficult to understand, I hope, and every administration you elect seems to go further into the Middle East. Is it ever going to end? It's true that general opinions went up after Obama was elected, but I think there's a lot to be said for that if you look at what has been accomplished versus the praise for what essentially comes down to Obama's demeanour and not his policy. The criticism of Clinton is that she will fall exactly in line with this negative progression which I fear is going to be very destructive. But now we're getting to the point where I would say vote for a third party, or go to the streets to protest. And you don't want to because of various reasons, some of which may be (just open that pretty little mouth of yours and I'll put some words in) that you don't think the foreign policy is all that bad, or you want to work within the democratic party to solve the problem because you feel loyal to it. And then, if we keep up this conversation, I will sling some poo at you and you will throw it back. It's like we learned how to communicate by watching politicians. Edit: And yeah, I don't know much about Jill Stein, because I haven't thoroughly investigated her and most of the media that is easily presented to me doesn't really cover her, but from what little I've seen she seems like a pretty reasonable candidate. Why do some people dislike her so much? I've seen some serious hate towards her in this thread. Maintaining the balance of power on every continent is essential for geopolitical stability. If Russia, a country that has crippled its economy for the sake of playing at being a superpower, is given free reign then they have everything they need to tyrannise eastern Europe and central Asia. After all, what does an expansionist power that has huge military might and no money do? It expands. Appeasement never, ever works. The thing with Russia is, to quote Kennan, that it has no friends, only vassals and ennemies. That has been true since the bolshevik revolution and it still is. Tose who think that Putin wants a friendly relation with the US haven't been paying much attention about Russia FP in the last fifteen years.
Even then the american has been much more destructive and intrusive and has caused many more deaths around the globe. Still you are able to claim that the russians are bad and that hillary is the solution to the middle-eastern wars, she will perpetuate the same evils while supporting repressive regimes like Saudi arabia that the US shamefully calls as allies.
|
Three members of a Kansas militia group were charged Friday with plotting to bomb an apartment complex that's home to Somali immigrants in the western Kansas meatpacking town of Garden City, a thwarted attack prosecutors say was planned for the day after the November election.
The arrests were the culmination of an eight-month FBI investigation that took agents "deep into a hidden culture of hatred and violence," Acting U.S. Attorney Tom Beall said.
A complaint unsealed Friday charges Curtis Wayne Allen, 49; Patrick Eugene Stein, 47; and Gavin Wayne Wright, 49, with conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction. Their first court appearance is Monday.
Prosecutors said the men don't yet have attorneys. Publicly listed phone numbers for the men couldn't immediately be found.
The men are members of a small militia group that calls itself "the Crusaders," and whose members espouse sovereign citizen, anti-government, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant extremist beliefs, according to the complaint.
Yahoo
I trust Trump supporters will call for databases and monitoring of these terrorist groups in America. Oh but wait, there won't be a peep....after all, these are just bad apples.
|
On October 15 2016 21:51 Derity wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 23:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 12 2016 22:02 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 21:11 farvacola wrote:On October 12 2016 20:23 a_flayer wrote: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. What I was trying to illustrate with the last paragraph is that it is perhaps a little foolish to condemn someone for not being willing to vote for "a lesser of two evils" in a system that forces such a choice if you are essentially unwilling to do anything at all to help dismantle that system (despite agreeing that the system is not a good way of handling democracy). People here have said nice words about "working within the system to change it" but you're not doing anything regarding that problem if all you do is cast a single vote for someone who is operating within that system and is effectively working to keep it the same. I don't think you can condemn someone for voicing his or her opinion on this through a vote or even a lack of vote if you agree with the general idea but disagree with their approach and then refuse to take any sort of action yourself. I would again like to emphasize, though, that the democratic system that is in place is largely irrelevant when it comes to obtaining my vote or support. On October 12 2016 17:54 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote: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. This I refuse to accept as truth. If only 10% would be willing to vote, then any sort of half-decent person in a leadership position must realize that something needs to change and should work towards that. It cannot be, even if it is written as law in golden ink on silver paper, that a democratically-minded person would be willing to make decisions on behalf of millions with only 10% of the people feeling that the system in place is sufficiently adequate for them to participate. Pardon for intruding on this discussion--but I hate the lie that people supposedly vote for the lesser of 2 evils. Americans have full control over the entirety of their State and Federal Government. You get to vote for who teaches your kids, you guards your streets, who cleans your trash, who collects your taxes, who enforces your laws, who your city, state, municipal, leaders are, who your state AND federal representatives are, you get to elect someone to argue for you in the senate, and argue for you in the house, you get to choose who the local judges will be in your area, and if that judge does awesome enough he gets to be in the running for the higher courts--and sometimes even the supreme court. You get to decide not only who your government leader is, but you also get to build the establishment that creates that supports that leader. Anyone who is believes they are "forced" to only have one of two choices in America is only because they don't give a damn about politics outside of waxing poetic on online forums to feel better about themselves. Do you know how many representatives I have talked to complaining that only 10%-20% of people show up to local elections? How the establishment is decided simply because 1-2 churches decides to tell its members to show up that election cycle? The Democratic AND Republican party can be ANYTHING the people want it to be, they can mold and construct it from the ground up with literally no resistance. Change the party base by focusing on local elections and you end up with an establishment that supports your ideals. Put your eggs only on the presidential basket and you'll simply reap what you actually sow. Hilary is one of the better politicians we have. A politician that cares more about the people she works with than simply wanting to put her own personal biases as the core of her policies. She's willing to change her stance if the people want her to because she, above anything else, wants to represent her constituents. She is not some sacrificial lamb trying to find some moral feel good to martyr herself on. The more her "scandalous" emails and speeches are revealed the more we learn that she is literally just someone trying to make the world she lives in work. Someone who is doing what she can to create policies that help people by figuring out how to make those policies passable to the ones in power who could stop it. There's a reason I stopped liking Bernie Sanders after the first debate. Because it turned out Bernie was no different than Trump. Willing to say anything that made him feel good and showing a lack of desire to actually do the work of empathizing and finding common ground with the enemy. He was someone willing to vilify any and all things his opposition said or did. And there was Hilary, showing us experts, testimonials, plans, links to her ideas, links to her policies. The same strategies shes doing against Trump. The more leaks happen the more we see that she's a normal human being living in a political world. And people feel forced to vote for her thinking she's the only choice when in reality--she's simply embodying the "established" DEM base that democrats should have been voting for but haven't for the past sixteen years. We get to vote for who the establishment is almost every two years. The mayors, Governors, Senators, Congressmen, Judges, and Officials who all make up the establishment, who make up the precedents that eventually generate federal laws, the ones who pass federal laws, the ones who defend federal and state laws--we get to choose who those people are MORE often than we get to choose the person who gets to veto the ideas. I disagree 100% that people only have 2 bad choices. People only have 2 choices for this 1 specific office. They also have choices for the hundreds of thousands of other offices that also highly impact this country. Being blind to the political process is not the same as being stuck with only 2 choices. Choosing not to engage in the options available is not you being prevented from having those choices. Thanks, nice post
Missed it, but I agree entirely too.
|
On October 15 2016 21:57 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 21:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 21:40 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 21:18 a_flayer wrote:On October 15 2016 20:48 farvacola wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On October 15 2016 20:36 farvacola wrote:
Well, for those that attempt to mobilize the above logic in pursuit of supporting Trump, y'all should actually look into what is said at his rallies and what not. At the one I attended, "America will not apologize" and ending ISIS in 90 days were the theme. More importantly, he has one of the biggest neocon figures as a senior adviser. Indeed, there are a host of reasons to regard Trump as the candidate more likely to do something dumb and militaristic during the next 4 years, which is not to say that Clinton won't, rather that her likelihood to do so is comparatively smaller by a fair margin. Ok, forget the idea that Trump is the better candidate for peace, then (and I'd never suggest actually picking him on the ballot). Please, realize that you as a country are continuing to improve your ability to blow up the world with nuclear weapons and that such a thing is a stupid thing to work towards. Realize that the majority of the world does not want the US to continue to play as the world's policeman and can't be trusted to act responsibly on its own. Nuclear weapons are dangerous. Try to work with other sovereign states, stop trying to invade them or trying to overthrow their governments. Even if they are tyrannical bastards. These are not things that are difficult to understand, I hope, and every administration you elect seems to go further into the Middle East. Is it ever going to end? It's true that general opinions went up after Obama was elected, but I think there's a lot to be said for that if you look at what has been accomplished versus the praise for what essentially comes down to Obama's demeanour and not his policy. The criticism of Clinton is that she will fall exactly in line with this negative progression which I fear is going to be very destructive. But now we're getting to the point where I would say vote for a third party, or go to the streets to protest. And you don't want to because of various reasons, some of which may be (just open that pretty little mouth of yours and I'll put some words in) that you don't think the foreign policy is all that bad, or you want to work within the democratic party to solve the problem because you feel loyal to it. And then, if we keep up this conversation, I will sling some poo at you and you will throw it back. It's like we learned how to communicate by watching politicians. Edit: And yeah, I don't know much about Jill Stein, because I haven't thoroughly investigated her and most of the media that is easily presented to me doesn't really cover her, but from what little I've seen she seems like a pretty reasonable candidate. Why do some people dislike her so much? I've seen some serious hate towards her in this thread. Maintaining the balance of power on every continent is essential for geopolitical stability. If Russia, a country that has crippled its economy for the sake of playing at being a superpower, is given free reign then they have everything they need to tyrannise eastern Europe and central Asia. After all, what does an expansionist power that has huge military might and no money do? It expands. Appeasement never, ever works. The thing with Russia is, to quote Kennan, that it has no friends, only vassals and ennemies. That has been true since the bolshevik revolution and it still is. Tose who think that Putin wants a friendly relation with the US haven't been paying much attention about Russia FP in the last fifteen years. Even then the american has been much more destructive and intrusive and has caused many more deaths around the globe. Still you are able to claim that the russians are bad and that hillary is the solution to the middle-eastern wars, she will perpetuate the same evils while supporting repressive regimes like Saudi arabia that the US shamefully calls as allies.
Where has anyone claimed that Hillary is the solution to the middle-east?
|
On October 15 2016 21:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 21:51 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:37 Plansix wrote:On October 15 2016 21:08 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:02 JinDesu wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 20:08 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 19:59 ImFromPortugal wrote:... This is the third time that video (or equivalent) has been posted in this thread as far as I know, and it's also the third time I have pointed out that Clinton was laughing at the coincidence, not getting her jollies out of killing foreign heads of state.
I am willing to make allowances because this thread is long and it's not practical to read all of it... nevertheless it is quite frusturating. Even without having seen that, it's not as though you could not have worked it out for yourself, instead of jumping to conclusions. if you are ok with a head of state laughing at the death of another that's your thing, i wouldn't want a president like that. Clinton was not laughing at Gaddafi being dead, she was laughing at the juxtaposition of Gaddafi being dead with her recent visit. I feel really weird saying this, this is not normally my side of this kind of conversation but... It was a joke. Are we not allowed to tell jokes any more? Taking into consideration she played a big role in the Libya debacle i don't find it funny at all and would never vote for someone that makes that kind of comments about important situations like that. That's good to hear, because I'm never voting for a guy who asks nuclear advisors why we can't just use nukes. I'm sure many other presidents made that same question, even before using them on the Japanese. Um......we didn't have nukes prior to WW2. Like what? I'm saying even before they took the decision to use them on the Japanese there were tests and they went ahead with the strikes knowing the full power of the atomic bombs. No you are not saying that.
Ofc i was i was but thanks for your input.
|
On October 15 2016 21:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 21:57 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 21:40 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 21:18 a_flayer wrote:On October 15 2016 20:48 farvacola wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On October 15 2016 20:36 farvacola wrote:
Well, for those that attempt to mobilize the above logic in pursuit of supporting Trump, y'all should actually look into what is said at his rallies and what not. At the one I attended, "America will not apologize" and ending ISIS in 90 days were the theme. More importantly, he has one of the biggest neocon figures as a senior adviser. Indeed, there are a host of reasons to regard Trump as the candidate more likely to do something dumb and militaristic during the next 4 years, which is not to say that Clinton won't, rather that her likelihood to do so is comparatively smaller by a fair margin. Ok, forget the idea that Trump is the better candidate for peace, then (and I'd never suggest actually picking him on the ballot). Please, realize that you as a country are continuing to improve your ability to blow up the world with nuclear weapons and that such a thing is a stupid thing to work towards. Realize that the majority of the world does not want the US to continue to play as the world's policeman and can't be trusted to act responsibly on its own. Nuclear weapons are dangerous. Try to work with other sovereign states, stop trying to invade them or trying to overthrow their governments. Even if they are tyrannical bastards. These are not things that are difficult to understand, I hope, and every administration you elect seems to go further into the Middle East. Is it ever going to end? It's true that general opinions went up after Obama was elected, but I think there's a lot to be said for that if you look at what has been accomplished versus the praise for what essentially comes down to Obama's demeanour and not his policy. The criticism of Clinton is that she will fall exactly in line with this negative progression which I fear is going to be very destructive. But now we're getting to the point where I would say vote for a third party, or go to the streets to protest. And you don't want to because of various reasons, some of which may be (just open that pretty little mouth of yours and I'll put some words in) that you don't think the foreign policy is all that bad, or you want to work within the democratic party to solve the problem because you feel loyal to it. And then, if we keep up this conversation, I will sling some poo at you and you will throw it back. It's like we learned how to communicate by watching politicians. Edit: And yeah, I don't know much about Jill Stein, because I haven't thoroughly investigated her and most of the media that is easily presented to me doesn't really cover her, but from what little I've seen she seems like a pretty reasonable candidate. Why do some people dislike her so much? I've seen some serious hate towards her in this thread. Maintaining the balance of power on every continent is essential for geopolitical stability. If Russia, a country that has crippled its economy for the sake of playing at being a superpower, is given free reign then they have everything they need to tyrannise eastern Europe and central Asia. After all, what does an expansionist power that has huge military might and no money do? It expands. Appeasement never, ever works. The thing with Russia is, to quote Kennan, that it has no friends, only vassals and ennemies. That has been true since the bolshevik revolution and it still is. Tose who think that Putin wants a friendly relation with the US haven't been paying much attention about Russia FP in the last fifteen years. Even then the american has been much more destructive and intrusive and has caused many more deaths around the globe. Still you are able to claim that the russians are bad and that hillary is the solution to the middle-eastern wars, she will perpetuate the same evils while supporting repressive regimes like Saudi arabia that the US shamefully calls as allies. Where has anyone claimed that Hillary is the solution to the middle-east?
If she is not the solution why perpetuate politics that don't work and only create more misery ? The french guy has been bombed several times this year and doesn't seem to care much about the fact that it happened because of western mainly american meddling in the middle-east. She accepts money from the saudis and gulf states, wants to arm Alqaeda in Syria, sounds like a great plan.
|
On October 15 2016 21:56 farvacola wrote:
Trump says everything and nothing all at once, so yeah, in a previous debate he worked that boardroom charm as he shit on an already mostly disliked panel of Republican politicians. Given that he also wants to end ISIS in 90 days, I think it's pretty clear that he doesn't seem to understand why invading Iraq was a bad idea.
He also says Iraq probably would have been fine if we had just gone and plundered their oil.
|
On October 15 2016 22:02 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 21:59 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 21:57 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 21:40 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 21:18 a_flayer wrote:On October 15 2016 20:48 farvacola wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On October 15 2016 20:36 farvacola wrote:
Well, for those that attempt to mobilize the above logic in pursuit of supporting Trump, y'all should actually look into what is said at his rallies and what not. At the one I attended, "America will not apologize" and ending ISIS in 90 days were the theme. More importantly, he has one of the biggest neocon figures as a senior adviser. Indeed, there are a host of reasons to regard Trump as the candidate more likely to do something dumb and militaristic during the next 4 years, which is not to say that Clinton won't, rather that her likelihood to do so is comparatively smaller by a fair margin. Ok, forget the idea that Trump is the better candidate for peace, then (and I'd never suggest actually picking him on the ballot). Please, realize that you as a country are continuing to improve your ability to blow up the world with nuclear weapons and that such a thing is a stupid thing to work towards. Realize that the majority of the world does not want the US to continue to play as the world's policeman and can't be trusted to act responsibly on its own. Nuclear weapons are dangerous. Try to work with other sovereign states, stop trying to invade them or trying to overthrow their governments. Even if they are tyrannical bastards. These are not things that are difficult to understand, I hope, and every administration you elect seems to go further into the Middle East. Is it ever going to end? It's true that general opinions went up after Obama was elected, but I think there's a lot to be said for that if you look at what has been accomplished versus the praise for what essentially comes down to Obama's demeanour and not his policy. The criticism of Clinton is that she will fall exactly in line with this negative progression which I fear is going to be very destructive. But now we're getting to the point where I would say vote for a third party, or go to the streets to protest. And you don't want to because of various reasons, some of which may be (just open that pretty little mouth of yours and I'll put some words in) that you don't think the foreign policy is all that bad, or you want to work within the democratic party to solve the problem because you feel loyal to it. And then, if we keep up this conversation, I will sling some poo at you and you will throw it back. It's like we learned how to communicate by watching politicians. Edit: And yeah, I don't know much about Jill Stein, because I haven't thoroughly investigated her and most of the media that is easily presented to me doesn't really cover her, but from what little I've seen she seems like a pretty reasonable candidate. Why do some people dislike her so much? I've seen some serious hate towards her in this thread. Maintaining the balance of power on every continent is essential for geopolitical stability. If Russia, a country that has crippled its economy for the sake of playing at being a superpower, is given free reign then they have everything they need to tyrannise eastern Europe and central Asia. After all, what does an expansionist power that has huge military might and no money do? It expands. Appeasement never, ever works. The thing with Russia is, to quote Kennan, that it has no friends, only vassals and ennemies. That has been true since the bolshevik revolution and it still is. Tose who think that Putin wants a friendly relation with the US haven't been paying much attention about Russia FP in the last fifteen years. Even then the american has been much more destructive and intrusive and has caused many more deaths around the globe. Still you are able to claim that the russians are bad and that hillary is the solution to the middle-eastern wars, she will perpetuate the same evils while supporting repressive regimes like Saudi arabia that the US shamefully calls as allies. Where has anyone claimed that Hillary is the solution to the middle-east? If she is not the solution why perpetuate politics that don't work and only create more misery ? The french guy has been bombed several times this year and doesn't seem to care much about the fact that it happened because of western mainly american meddling in the middle-east. She accepts money from the saudis and gulf states, wants to arm Alqaeda in Syria, sounds like a great plan.
Let's hear your solution, then. Abandon those fighting Assad, watch genocide from a distance and teach Russia that they can get whatever they want if they just bomb the shit out of stuff?
|
On October 15 2016 21:58 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +Three members of a Kansas militia group were charged Friday with plotting to bomb an apartment complex that's home to Somali immigrants in the western Kansas meatpacking town of Garden City, a thwarted attack prosecutors say was planned for the day after the November election.
The arrests were the culmination of an eight-month FBI investigation that took agents "deep into a hidden culture of hatred and violence," Acting U.S. Attorney Tom Beall said.
A complaint unsealed Friday charges Curtis Wayne Allen, 49; Patrick Eugene Stein, 47; and Gavin Wayne Wright, 49, with conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction. Their first court appearance is Monday.
Prosecutors said the men don't yet have attorneys. Publicly listed phone numbers for the men couldn't immediately be found.
The men are members of a small militia group that calls itself "the Crusaders," and whose members espouse sovereign citizen, anti-government, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant extremist beliefs, according to the complaint. YahooI trust Trump supporters will call for databases and monitoring of these terrorist groups in America. Oh but wait, there won't be a peep....after all, these are just bad apples.
SPLC already monitors over 100 white nationalist groups in the USA.
If they monitor those groups then there is surely no issue with them monitoring extremist muslim groups?
|
This discussion of FP is the most basic we have had in a while.
|
On October 15 2016 22:06 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:02 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:59 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 21:57 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 21:40 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 21:18 a_flayer wrote:On October 15 2016 20:48 farvacola wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On October 15 2016 20:36 farvacola wrote:
Well, for those that attempt to mobilize the above logic in pursuit of supporting Trump, y'all should actually look into what is said at his rallies and what not. At the one I attended, "America will not apologize" and ending ISIS in 90 days were the theme. More importantly, he has one of the biggest neocon figures as a senior adviser. Indeed, there are a host of reasons to regard Trump as the candidate more likely to do something dumb and militaristic during the next 4 years, which is not to say that Clinton won't, rather that her likelihood to do so is comparatively smaller by a fair margin. Ok, forget the idea that Trump is the better candidate for peace, then (and I'd never suggest actually picking him on the ballot). Please, realize that you as a country are continuing to improve your ability to blow up the world with nuclear weapons and that such a thing is a stupid thing to work towards. Realize that the majority of the world does not want the US to continue to play as the world's policeman and can't be trusted to act responsibly on its own. Nuclear weapons are dangerous. Try to work with other sovereign states, stop trying to invade them or trying to overthrow their governments. Even if they are tyrannical bastards. These are not things that are difficult to understand, I hope, and every administration you elect seems to go further into the Middle East. Is it ever going to end? It's true that general opinions went up after Obama was elected, but I think there's a lot to be said for that if you look at what has been accomplished versus the praise for what essentially comes down to Obama's demeanour and not his policy. The criticism of Clinton is that she will fall exactly in line with this negative progression which I fear is going to be very destructive. But now we're getting to the point where I would say vote for a third party, or go to the streets to protest. And you don't want to because of various reasons, some of which may be (just open that pretty little mouth of yours and I'll put some words in) that you don't think the foreign policy is all that bad, or you want to work within the democratic party to solve the problem because you feel loyal to it. And then, if we keep up this conversation, I will sling some poo at you and you will throw it back. It's like we learned how to communicate by watching politicians. Edit: And yeah, I don't know much about Jill Stein, because I haven't thoroughly investigated her and most of the media that is easily presented to me doesn't really cover her, but from what little I've seen she seems like a pretty reasonable candidate. Why do some people dislike her so much? I've seen some serious hate towards her in this thread. Maintaining the balance of power on every continent is essential for geopolitical stability. If Russia, a country that has crippled its economy for the sake of playing at being a superpower, is given free reign then they have everything they need to tyrannise eastern Europe and central Asia. After all, what does an expansionist power that has huge military might and no money do? It expands. Appeasement never, ever works. The thing with Russia is, to quote Kennan, that it has no friends, only vassals and ennemies. That has been true since the bolshevik revolution and it still is. Tose who think that Putin wants a friendly relation with the US haven't been paying much attention about Russia FP in the last fifteen years. Even then the american has been much more destructive and intrusive and has caused many more deaths around the globe. Still you are able to claim that the russians are bad and that hillary is the solution to the middle-eastern wars, she will perpetuate the same evils while supporting repressive regimes like Saudi arabia that the US shamefully calls as allies. Where has anyone claimed that Hillary is the solution to the middle-east? If she is not the solution why perpetuate politics that don't work and only create more misery ? The french guy has been bombed several times this year and doesn't seem to care much about the fact that it happened because of western mainly american meddling in the middle-east. She accepts money from the saudis and gulf states, wants to arm Alqaeda in Syria, sounds like a great plan. teach Russia that they can get whatever they want if they just bomb the shit out of stuff?
Oh the irony....
|
On October 15 2016 22:06 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:02 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:59 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 21:57 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 21:40 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 21:18 a_flayer wrote:On October 15 2016 20:48 farvacola wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On October 15 2016 20:36 farvacola wrote:
Well, for those that attempt to mobilize the above logic in pursuit of supporting Trump, y'all should actually look into what is said at his rallies and what not. At the one I attended, "America will not apologize" and ending ISIS in 90 days were the theme. More importantly, he has one of the biggest neocon figures as a senior adviser. Indeed, there are a host of reasons to regard Trump as the candidate more likely to do something dumb and militaristic during the next 4 years, which is not to say that Clinton won't, rather that her likelihood to do so is comparatively smaller by a fair margin. Ok, forget the idea that Trump is the better candidate for peace, then (and I'd never suggest actually picking him on the ballot). Please, realize that you as a country are continuing to improve your ability to blow up the world with nuclear weapons and that such a thing is a stupid thing to work towards. Realize that the majority of the world does not want the US to continue to play as the world's policeman and can't be trusted to act responsibly on its own. Nuclear weapons are dangerous. Try to work with other sovereign states, stop trying to invade them or trying to overthrow their governments. Even if they are tyrannical bastards. These are not things that are difficult to understand, I hope, and every administration you elect seems to go further into the Middle East. Is it ever going to end? It's true that general opinions went up after Obama was elected, but I think there's a lot to be said for that if you look at what has been accomplished versus the praise for what essentially comes down to Obama's demeanour and not his policy. The criticism of Clinton is that she will fall exactly in line with this negative progression which I fear is going to be very destructive. But now we're getting to the point where I would say vote for a third party, or go to the streets to protest. And you don't want to because of various reasons, some of which may be (just open that pretty little mouth of yours and I'll put some words in) that you don't think the foreign policy is all that bad, or you want to work within the democratic party to solve the problem because you feel loyal to it. And then, if we keep up this conversation, I will sling some poo at you and you will throw it back. It's like we learned how to communicate by watching politicians. Edit: And yeah, I don't know much about Jill Stein, because I haven't thoroughly investigated her and most of the media that is easily presented to me doesn't really cover her, but from what little I've seen she seems like a pretty reasonable candidate. Why do some people dislike her so much? I've seen some serious hate towards her in this thread. Maintaining the balance of power on every continent is essential for geopolitical stability. If Russia, a country that has crippled its economy for the sake of playing at being a superpower, is given free reign then they have everything they need to tyrannise eastern Europe and central Asia. After all, what does an expansionist power that has huge military might and no money do? It expands. Appeasement never, ever works. The thing with Russia is, to quote Kennan, that it has no friends, only vassals and ennemies. That has been true since the bolshevik revolution and it still is. Tose who think that Putin wants a friendly relation with the US haven't been paying much attention about Russia FP in the last fifteen years. Even then the american has been much more destructive and intrusive and has caused many more deaths around the globe. Still you are able to claim that the russians are bad and that hillary is the solution to the middle-eastern wars, she will perpetuate the same evils while supporting repressive regimes like Saudi arabia that the US shamefully calls as allies. Where has anyone claimed that Hillary is the solution to the middle-east? If she is not the solution why perpetuate politics that don't work and only create more misery ? The french guy has been bombed several times this year and doesn't seem to care much about the fact that it happened because of western mainly american meddling in the middle-east. She accepts money from the saudis and gulf states, wants to arm Alqaeda in Syria, sounds like a great plan. Let's hear your solution, then. Abandon those fighting Assad, watch genocide from a distance and teach Russia that they can get whatever they want if they just bomb the shit out of stuff?
What genocide?
|
On October 15 2016 21:59 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 21:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 21:51 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:37 Plansix wrote:On October 15 2016 21:08 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:02 JinDesu wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 20:08 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 19:59 ImFromPortugal wrote:... This is the third time that video (or equivalent) has been posted in this thread as far as I know, and it's also the third time I have pointed out that Clinton was laughing at the coincidence, not getting her jollies out of killing foreign heads of state.
I am willing to make allowances because this thread is long and it's not practical to read all of it... nevertheless it is quite frusturating. Even without having seen that, it's not as though you could not have worked it out for yourself, instead of jumping to conclusions. if you are ok with a head of state laughing at the death of another that's your thing, i wouldn't want a president like that. Clinton was not laughing at Gaddafi being dead, she was laughing at the juxtaposition of Gaddafi being dead with her recent visit. I feel really weird saying this, this is not normally my side of this kind of conversation but... It was a joke. Are we not allowed to tell jokes any more? Taking into consideration she played a big role in the Libya debacle i don't find it funny at all and would never vote for someone that makes that kind of comments about important situations like that. That's good to hear, because I'm never voting for a guy who asks nuclear advisors why we can't just use nukes. I'm sure many other presidents made that same question, even before using them on the Japanese. Um......we didn't have nukes prior to WW2. Like what? I'm saying even before they took the decision to use them on the Japanese there were tests and they went ahead with the strikes knowing the full power of the atomic bombs. No you are not saying that. Ofc i was i was but thanks for your input.
No you weren't. Here is what you wrote:
On October 15 2016 21:08 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 21:02 JinDesu wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 20:08 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 19:59 ImFromPortugal wrote:... This is the third time that video (or equivalent) has been posted in this thread as far as I know, and it's also the third time I have pointed out that Clinton was laughing at the coincidence, not getting her jollies out of killing foreign heads of state.
I am willing to make allowances because this thread is long and it's not practical to read all of it... nevertheless it is quite frusturating. Even without having seen that, it's not as though you could not have worked it out for yourself, instead of jumping to conclusions. if you are ok with a head of state laughing at the death of another that's your thing, i wouldn't want a president like that. Clinton was not laughing at Gaddafi being dead, she was laughing at the juxtaposition of Gaddafi being dead with her recent visit. I feel really weird saying this, this is not normally my side of this kind of conversation but... It was a joke. Are we not allowed to tell jokes any more? Taking into consideration she played a big role in the Libya debacle i don't find it funny at all and would never vote for someone that makes that kind of comments about important situations like that. That's good to hear, because I'm never voting for a guy who asks nuclear advisors why we can't just use nukes. I'm sure many other presidents made that same question, even before using them on the Japanese.
Do tell -- which "many other presidents" before Truman asked the question "why can't we just use nukes"?
|
On October 15 2016 20:55 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 20:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 20:08 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 19:59 ImFromPortugal wrote:... This is the third time that video (or equivalent) has been posted in this thread as far as I know, and it's also the third time I have pointed out that Clinton was laughing at the coincidence, not getting her jollies out of killing foreign heads of state.
I am willing to make allowances because this thread is long and it's not practical to read all of it... nevertheless it is quite frusturating. Even without having seen that, it's not as though you could not have worked it out for yourself, instead of jumping to conclusions. if you are ok with a head of state laughing at the death of another that's your thing, i wouldn't want a president like that. Clinton was not laughing at Gaddafi being dead, she was laughing at the juxtaposition of Gaddafi being dead with her recent visit. I feel really weird saying this, this is not normally my side of this kind of conversation but... It was a joke. Are we not allowed to tell jokes any more? Taking into consideration she played a big role in the Libya debacle i don't find it funny at all and would never vote for someone that makes that kind of comments about important situations like that. Okay. I assume then, that based on the above post and this one: Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 16:03 ImFromPortugal wrote:
...
Hopefully we will have some surprises before the election is over, i'm black and i would vote for Trump if i was american, the disgust i have for hillary is enough for me to side with the alt-right on this one.
...
that you feel that the many inappropriate comments which Trump has made about important situations are significantly less damning than those that Hillary has made. Question: Does that accurately represent your opinion? + Show Spoiler +Bear in mind that this set of comments includes things such as "grab them by the pussy" et cetera, "why don't we use nukes" (that one's a paraphrase), "we're gonna go in and defeat ISIS in 90 days" (and damn the consequences)... and the list goes on, I'm sure other posters can provide us with more statements from Trump.
@Portugal: You still haven't answered this question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
