EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6388
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
Now you start to see why Trump said the things he said during the campaign  . | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 09 2016 07:50 Liquid`Drone wrote: Like, you're trying to defend a guy whose campaign slogan partially consisted of (paraphrased) 'we will kill 100000 criminals and dump their bodies in manilla bay to fatten our fish'. I get that you're a fan of strong leadership and anti-globalist sentiments, but is this really a worthy bedmate for a lawyer? I don't really like the guy at all. He reminds me of Hugo Chavez in many ways. But my point is this: he very clearly was elected to do what he's doing now. I don't really grasp the full scope of the problems in the Philippines, but I suspect that they're quite large. Unless we're prepared to step in and clean everything up in the Philippines (which we're clearly not), we should be keeping our mouths shut. And Trump is smart to give some support to Duterte for this reason. There's nothing to be gained for the US by antagonizing him. This is particularly important if we want to form alliances to contain China, which is why Obama's pissing off of Duterte is just one more way that Obama screwed the pooch with his foreign policy. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
Standards are lower in other regions of the world. And I can accept this to some degree. Leaders of developing countries can be more authoritarian or corrupt than western leaders and it's like, I can accept that. But this guy literally pledges to kill 100000 people - he brags about what a cold-blooded murderer he is going do be. At the very least, he should be made a fucking pariah. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 09 2016 08:05 Liquid`Drone wrote: My wife interned in Malaysia last year. I remember there were stories coming out about how the economy of the country was tanking due to presidential embezzlements (guy took somewhere between one and two billion dollars from a fund meant to be used for the economic development of the country). And I remember her telling me stories about how people 'still thought he was doing a good job' (compared to predecessors) - with the Malay part of the population he was still enjoying positive approval ratings even when they knew this about him. Standards are lower in other regions of the world. And I can accept this to some degree. Leaders of developing countries can be more authoritarian or corrupt than western leaders and it's like, I can accept that. But this guy literally pledges to kill 100000 people - he brags about what a cold-blooded murderer he is going do be. At the very least, he should be made a fucking pariah. Why does it matter if we, the enlightened Western nations, make these guys pariahs with empty statements? What good does it do other than give an excuse to pat ourselves on the back and pretend that we're doing good in the world? Take a look at your statement that I bolded and underlined above. Until that's fixed -- and that's a fix that can only come internally with the domestic development of civic virtues -- idealistic liberal moralizing will accomplish nothing. It's far better for state actors to take a practical approach and work with the sovereigns of other states (even the shitty ones) for their own benefit. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
100,000 criminals and set out to do just that, I would indeed consider it to be fulfilling electoral promises (or a version tempered by reality), even if they are horrifying. I don't see the problem here. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
On December 09 2016 08:04 xDaunt wrote: I don't really like the guy at all. He reminds me of Hugo Chavez in many ways. But my point is this: he very clearly was elected to do what he's doing now. I don't really grasp the full scope of the problems in the Philippines, but I suspect that they're quite large. Unless we're prepared to step in and clean everything up in the Philippines (which we're clearly not), we should be keeping our mouths shut. And Trump is smart to give some support to Duterte for this reason. There's nothing to be gained for the US by antagonizing him. This is particularly important if we want to form alliances to contain China, which is why Obama's pissing off of Duterte is just one more way that Obama screwed the pooch with his foreign policy. I think if you swap junkies and petty criminals for rich people and the yankees then there are a lot of parallels between Chavez and Duterte, I'll give you that. But my point is that a) approval ratings are a poor metric for how well a leader of state is doing and b) whether western countries should support a leader should hinge on far more than 'he supports us' - and Duterte steps way over the line of what is even remotely acceptable for a leader of state. There's quite some historical precedent for how 'he's just delivering on his campaign promises' can overlap with 'guy is a bloodthirsty tyrant who should not rule anything, ever', and this correlates heavily with authoritarian populism. (No Trump-stab intended.  ) | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 09 2016 08:17 Doodsmack wrote: Hamas was also democratically elected... And? Are you saying someone should save the Palestinians from themselves because they make the wrong choices? Or what are you saying? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 09 2016 08:19 Nebuchad wrote: It matters because if we don't criticize it when it doesn't really matter to us, then we are being dishonest when we criticize others. We don't really criticize them for what they did, we criticize them because it suits us to do so. And yet the latter is basically what happens. Any number of bad elements can be buried if they are in contradiction to our alliances. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 09 2016 08:20 LegalLord wrote: And? Are you saying someone should save the Palestinians from themselves because they make the wrong choices? Or what are you saying? He's showing why it's stupid to believe populism is the best way to select leaders. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
On December 09 2016 08:22 LegalLord wrote: And yet the latter is basically what happens. Any number of bad elements can be buried if they are in contradiction to our alliances. That's not an "and yet", that's just what happens. And then our criticisms are perceived as partisan and illegitimate for that reason, and these critics kind of have a point. It already triggers Danglars when we do it on a forum, imagine a country doing it to another. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
On December 09 2016 08:10 xDaunt wrote: Why does it matter if we, the enlightened Western nations, make these guys pariahs with empty statements? What good does it do other than give an excuse to pat ourselves on the back and pretend that we're doing good in the world? Take a look at your statement that I bolded and underlined above. Until that's fixed -- and that's a fix that can only come internally with the domestic development of civic virtues -- idealistic liberal moralizing will accomplish nothing. It's far better for state actors to take a practical approach and work with the sovereigns of other states (even the shitty ones) for their own benefit. I think South Africa's abandonment of apartheid would never have happened without severe international pressure - and them basically being treated like a pariah. Like, there's the USA, Russia and China's out there, that can largely act with impunity because they are so big and powerful. Norway can't enact a boycott of either of these, it doesn't make any difference. Then there's the North Korea, the Congos, whatever total shithole you feel like bringing up, where international pressure also makes very little difference, because the situation is already so terrible that international pressure won't make any difference. But for all the countries located at various stages inbetween these, international pressure can be very significant. Not that I think that Duterte himself would change anything about himself based on anything conceivable - but maybe the population would realize that being hated by the world is not in their own self-interest, and that they'd try to avoid enacting policies that lead to them being hated by the world; if there was a response. I don't just mean 'say that the guy is a bad guy', I mean 'don't allow them to participate in olympics/world cups and to some degree stop trade'. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
On December 09 2016 08:12 LegalLord wrote: If someone were elected on the promise of killing 100,000 criminals and set out to do just that, I would indeed consider it to be fulfilling electoral promises (or a version tempered by reality), even if they are horrifying. I don't see the problem here. What do you not see the problem with here? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 09 2016 08:31 Liquid`Drone wrote: What do you not see the problem with here? Do you think he shouldn't do it if he was elected to do it? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21668 Posts
On December 09 2016 08:37 LegalLord wrote: Do you think he shouldn't do it if he was elected to do it? "Fuck morality, he was elected so its all fine". If someone does something that 'we' do not consider morally right then maybe we should call them out on it and show our disapproval, maybe we shouldn't. What we sure as hell shouldn't be fine with is to have the president elect of the US invite him over and publicly comment on how great of a guy he is and how amazingly great his work is. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
On December 09 2016 08:37 LegalLord wrote: Do you think he shouldn't do it if he was elected to do it? I don't think he should campaign on it.. But anyway, the issue at hand here is not whether Duterte should fulfill his campaign promises, the issue at hand is whether western countries should be positively inclined towards him 'because he might be an ally against China' or a variant thereof. I think western countries can and should cooperate with development countries even if their internal political workings wouldn't stand up to western scrutiny - but I think there's pretty big line between 'wants to kill 100000 of their own citizens and is in the process of doing so' and 'has issues with corruption/nepotism/control over state media'. Can you describe a situation where a country's internal policies would actually make you unwilling to deal with them, even if they were 'strategically aligned' with you? (This is just as much directed towards xdaunt!) | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Sometimes tolerance is proportional to need. | ||
| ||
