|
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. |
The problem isn't really which way they end up voting, per se, but the message that the superdelegates send by making a choice before votes are cast. They basically say who the party wants before any voter has a chance to cast a vote. The way this season started, it was basically "all these superdelegates have already declared their support for Hillary Clinton, the voting phase of this primary is a farce now" and there's no way that didn't have an effect on how people perceive the candidates.
No, I don't think that reducing superdelegates really solves that problem. It looks more like a measure to make it look like they care about what the Sandernistas want, but if they wanted to solve the problem for real then they would just scrap the superdelegate system entirely and standardize the primaries across the country. That they did not do so suggests to me that this is just another one of those efforts like "Bernie gets seats on the DNC policy committee" (but no genuine policy concessions) or "Keith Ellison doesn't win DNC chair but gets a meaningless made-up symbolic position to appease the Sandernistas." I am aware that that sounds extremely cynical but precedent supports such a viewpoint. All the symbolic gestures won't change the reality that the Clinton crony base within the party won't ever give up control of their own will.
And even if "no one gives a fuck what superdelegates think" it doesn't quite work that way in reality because people really do follow the will of the party in significant enough numbers to tip the field. Getting Jeb Bushed is something you have to really, truly, and thoroughly drop the ball to have happen to you.
|
On December 12 2017 06:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
While this may be shitty, and it could easily be argued that it was being done to suppress the black vote....The statement about every county that's over 75% black having their DMV shutdown, immediately after talking about 31 counties is a bit misleading. Doing a google search I'm seeing that only 2 of 67 counties are >75% black, seems like they're trying to make the problem appear bigger than it may be.
|
On December 12 2017 06:48 Chewbacca. wrote:While this may be shitty, and it could easily be argued that it was being done to suppress the black vote....The statement about every county that's over 75% black having their DMV shutdown, immediately after talking about 31 counties is a bit misleading. Doing a google search I'm seeing that only 2 of 67 counties are >75% black, seems like they're trying to make the problem appear bigger than it may be.
If those two counties make up a reasonable amount of the state population and the race is close, it could be the exact big deal people are making it out to be. This is exactly how voter suppression works.
Edit: Super delegates are a bad look. If a party is going to have open primaries that anyone can run under their banner, deal with the consequences. If they are not comfortable with that, make rules saying who can run under their ticket. Enough trying to have it both ways.
|
On December 12 2017 06:45 LegalLord wrote:
The problem isn't really which way they end up voting, per se, but the message that the superdelegates send by making a choice before votes are cast. They basically say who the party wants before any voter has a chance to cast a vote. The way this season started, it was basically "all these superdelegates have already declared their support for Hillary Clinton, the voting phase of this primary is a farce now" and there's no way that didn't have an effect on how people perceive the candidates.
No, I don't think that reducing superdelegates really solves that problem. It looks more like a measure to make it look like they care about what the Sandernistas want, but if they wanted to solve the problem for real then they would just scrap the superdelegate system entirely and standardize the primaries across the country. That they did not do so suggests to me that this is just another one of those efforts like "Bernie gets seats on the DNC policy committee" (but no genuine policy concessions) or "Keith Ellison doesn't win DNC chair but gets a meaningless made-up symbolic position to appease the Sandernistas." I am aware that that sounds extremely cynical but precedent supports such a viewpoint. All the symbolic gestures won't change the reality that the Clinton crony base within the party won't ever give up control of their own will.
And even if "no one gives a fuck what superdelegates think" it doesn't quite work that way in reality because people really do follow the will of the party in significant enough numbers to tip the field. Getting Jeb Bushed is something you have to really, truly, and thoroughly drop the ball to have happen to you.
it'd definitley helpd if they changed the wording to be more of a "I prefer X to Y at this point in time, but let's see how the campaign goes and what they say beore I fully make up my mind"
it's of course absurd to say that it made the voting phase a farce, but people often feel absurd things, so they have to be addressed nonetheless.
not that the superdelegate system actually hurt sanders at all in the end anyways.
|
On December 12 2017 06:45 LegalLord wrote:
The problem isn't really which way they end up voting, per se, but the message that the superdelegates send by making a choice before votes are cast. They basically say who the party wants before any voter has a chance to cast a vote. The way this season started, it was basically "all these superdelegates have already declared their support for Hillary Clinton, the voting phase of this primary is a farce now" and there's no way that didn't have an effect on how people perceive the candidates.
No, I don't think that reducing superdelegates really solves that problem. It looks more like a measure to make it look like they care about what the Sandernistas want, but if they wanted to solve the problem for real then they would just scrap the superdelegate system entirely and standardize the primaries across the country. That they did not do so suggests to me that this is just another one of those efforts like "Bernie gets seats on the DNC policy committee" (but no genuine policy concessions) or "Keith Ellison doesn't win DNC chair but gets a meaningless made-up symbolic position to appease the Sandernistas." I am aware that that sounds extremely cynical but precedent supports such a viewpoint. All the symbolic gestures won't change the reality that the Clinton crony base within the party won't ever give up control of their own will.
And even if "no one gives a fuck what superdelegates think" it doesn't quite work that way in reality because people really do follow the will of the party in significant enough numbers to tip the field. Getting Jeb Bushed is something you have to really, truly, and thoroughly drop the ball to have happen to you.
Without being in the negotiating room where they decided to do this, it looks like 60% is the ACA of dealing with the Superedelegate issue. Is it the ideal? Obviously not, but it's what can be done at the time.
On December 12 2017 06:57 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2017 06:45 LegalLord wrote:
The problem isn't really which way they end up voting, per se, but the message that the superdelegates send by making a choice before votes are cast. They basically say who the party wants before any voter has a chance to cast a vote. The way this season started, it was basically "all these superdelegates have already declared their support for Hillary Clinton, the voting phase of this primary is a farce now" and there's no way that didn't have an effect on how people perceive the candidates.
No, I don't think that reducing superdelegates really solves that problem. It looks more like a measure to make it look like they care about what the Sandernistas want, but if they wanted to solve the problem for real then they would just scrap the superdelegate system entirely and standardize the primaries across the country. That they did not do so suggests to me that this is just another one of those efforts like "Bernie gets seats on the DNC policy committee" (but no genuine policy concessions) or "Keith Ellison doesn't win DNC chair but gets a meaningless made-up symbolic position to appease the Sandernistas." I am aware that that sounds extremely cynical but precedent supports such a viewpoint. All the symbolic gestures won't change the reality that the Clinton crony base within the party won't ever give up control of their own will.
And even if "no one gives a fuck what superdelegates think" it doesn't quite work that way in reality because people really do follow the will of the party in significant enough numbers to tip the field. Getting Jeb Bushed is something you have to really, truly, and thoroughly drop the ball to have happen to you. it'd definitley helpd if they changed the wording to be more of a "I prefer X to Y at this point in time, but let's see how the campaign goes and what they say beore I fully make up my mind" it's of course absurd to say that it made the voting phase a farce, but people often feel absurd things, so they have to be addressed nonetheless. not that the superdelegate system actually hurt sanders at all in the end anyways.
"What's the point? I'm just going to stay home." Is how close elections flip. Superdelegates, assuming they had no influence on how/what people voted, made up over 45% of the delegate count Clinton had over Sanders.
|
I'm not seein gyour point gahlo, please clarify
as a possible preemptive counterpoint:
i've read some analyses on the topic and iirc they generally foundd he wasn' thurt by such.
and sure, people might stay home; they also might get pissed off and decided to countervote against the "elite" pick, especially since sanders' base is populists-leaning.
if they had no influence on how people voted, then they had no effect, clinton won just as she would've without them, as per my stated allegation: "sanders wasn' thurt"
|
On December 12 2017 06:45 LegalLord wrote:
The problem isn't really which way they end up voting, per se, but the message that the superdelegates send by making a choice before votes are cast. They basically say who the party wants before any voter has a chance to cast a vote. The way this season started, it was basically "all these superdelegates have already declared their support for Hillary Clinton, the voting phase of this primary is a farce now" and there's no way that didn't have an effect on how people perceive the candidates.
No, I don't think that reducing superdelegates really solves that problem. It looks more like a measure to make it look like they care about what the Sandernistas want, but if they wanted to solve the problem for real then they would just scrap the superdelegate system entirely and standardize the primaries across the country. That they did not do so suggests to me that this is just another one of those efforts like "Bernie gets seats on the DNC policy committee" (but no genuine policy concessions) or "Keith Ellison doesn't win DNC chair but gets a meaningless made-up symbolic position to appease the Sandernistas." I am aware that that sounds extremely cynical but precedent supports such a viewpoint. All the symbolic gestures won't change the reality that the Clinton crony base within the party won't ever give up control of their own will.
And even if "no one gives a fuck what superdelegates think" it doesn't quite work that way in reality because people really do follow the will of the party in significant enough numbers to tip the field. Getting Jeb Bushed is something you have to really, truly, and thoroughly drop the ball to have happen to you.
The idea is that the party gets some say so that voters don’t turn completely stupid and get someone like, you know, Trump.
I have no opinion on the matter, sincerely, but I can see what the point of the SD is.
|
On December 12 2017 06:45 LegalLord wrote:
The problem isn't really which way they end up voting, per se, but the message that the superdelegates send by making a choice before votes are cast. They basically say who the party wants before any voter has a chance to cast a vote. The way this season started, it was basically "all these superdelegates have already declared their support for Hillary Clinton, the voting phase of this primary is a farce now" and there's no way that didn't have an effect on how people perceive the candidates.
No, I don't think that reducing superdelegates really solves that problem. It looks more like a measure to make it look like they care about what the Sandernistas want, but if they wanted to solve the problem for real then they would just scrap the superdelegate system entirely and standardize the primaries across the country. That they did not do so suggests to me that this is just another one of those efforts like "Bernie gets seats on the DNC policy committee" (but no genuine policy concessions) or "Keith Ellison doesn't win DNC chair but gets a meaningless made-up symbolic position to appease the Sandernistas." I am aware that that sounds extremely cynical but precedent supports such a viewpoint. All the symbolic gestures won't change the reality that the Clinton crony base within the party won't ever give up control of their own will.
And even if "no one gives a fuck what superdelegates think" it doesn't quite work that way in reality because people really do follow the will of the party in significant enough numbers to tip the field. Getting Jeb Bushed is something you have to really, truly, and thoroughly drop the ball to have happen to you.
I think you're focusing too much on the ideal outcome. This is a pretty clear improvement. I'm not saying "yay we got a super cool DNC now!". I still wish supers were eliminated altogether. But this is clearly an improvement. Are you saying this isn't an improvement? Any incremental thing like this that weakens the establishment is good. This being a joint committee to decide all this also sets good precedent for a diminishing influence.
|
On December 12 2017 07:54 zlefin wrote:
I'm not seein gyour point gahlo, please clarify
as a possible preemptive counterpoint:
i've read some analyses on the topic and iirc they generally foundd he wasn' thurt by such.
and sure, people might stay home; they also might get pissed off and decided to countervote against the "elite" pick, especially since sanders' base is populists-leaning.
if they had no influence on how people voted, then they had no effect, clinton won just as she would've without them, as per my stated allegation: "sanders wasn' thurt"
This is one of those things where I don't think it's possible to know after the fact without perfect knowledge. You can't ask people how/if they would have voted if superdelegates weren't a thing because a) they already are and b) people know how the presidential election turned out. The cat's already out of the bag on that.
We see people say "fuck it, it's not worth it." and stay home year after year after year. If more people wanted to counter vote, we'd see more 3rd party votes in the presidential.
My point of "if they had no effect" was to show that the margin of victory was had a very healthy serving of Super Delegate pie. If that was chopped out at the start, you're potentially looking at a much more competitive race.
|
On December 12 2017 07:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2017 06:45 LegalLord wrote:
The problem isn't really which way they end up voting, per se, but the message that the superdelegates send by making a choice before votes are cast. They basically say who the party wants before any voter has a chance to cast a vote. The way this season started, it was basically "all these superdelegates have already declared their support for Hillary Clinton, the voting phase of this primary is a farce now" and there's no way that didn't have an effect on how people perceive the candidates.
No, I don't think that reducing superdelegates really solves that problem. It looks more like a measure to make it look like they care about what the Sandernistas want, but if they wanted to solve the problem for real then they would just scrap the superdelegate system entirely and standardize the primaries across the country. That they did not do so suggests to me that this is just another one of those efforts like "Bernie gets seats on the DNC policy committee" (but no genuine policy concessions) or "Keith Ellison doesn't win DNC chair but gets a meaningless made-up symbolic position to appease the Sandernistas." I am aware that that sounds extremely cynical but precedent supports such a viewpoint. All the symbolic gestures won't change the reality that the Clinton crony base within the party won't ever give up control of their own will.
And even if "no one gives a fuck what superdelegates think" it doesn't quite work that way in reality because people really do follow the will of the party in significant enough numbers to tip the field. Getting Jeb Bushed is something you have to really, truly, and thoroughly drop the ball to have happen to you. I think you're focusing too much on the ideal outcome. This is a pretty clear improvement. I'm not saying "yay we got a super cool DNC now!". I still wish supers were eliminated altogether. But this is clearly an improvement. Are you saying this isn't an improvement? Any incremental thing like this that weakens the establishment is good. This being a joint committee to decide all this also sets good precedent for a diminishing influence.
I’m saying the issue isn’t superdelegates in particular but a DNC with a tendency to play favorites in a blatant manner in general. Yes, that’s cynical as fuck, but can you say that the DNC didn’t earn an approach like that by, in every instance, when push comes to shove showing that they’re going to give zero shits about the populist wing of their party? As if superdelegates are that one and only force by which to influence results.
They’ve earned their reputation for requiring ideological purity by demanding it at every turn. The only way they can change that view is by actually accepting more diverse viewpoints among candidates with a D mark, rather than just making symbolic gestures that won’t ever translate into genuine results. Once “he’s not a democrat” and “we can’t support a candidate who doesn’t believe in abortion” leave the common vocabulary of the DNC, we can talk about “change.”
In a vacuum I’d see it as positive. But trust is close to zero so I don’t see it that way right now.
|
On December 12 2017 01:28 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2017 01:21 Logo wrote:On December 12 2017 01:19 zlefin wrote:On December 12 2017 01:03 Logo wrote:On December 12 2017 01:00 zlefin wrote:On December 12 2017 00:57 Kickboxer wrote:
On the other hand Syria was quite ok before the US decided to "freedom (tm)" there. US had very little to do with the syrian mess; it's largely a local matter, plus a fair amount of regional players. that you decide to blame US without knowin the facts though says a lot. Is that true? Cursory research: https://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0418/Cables-reveal-covert-US-support-for-Syria-s-opposition
Newly released WikiLeaks cables reveal that the US State Department has been secretly financing Syrian opposition groups and other opposition projects for at least five years [2006-2011], The Washington Post reports.
That aid continued going into the hands of the Syrian government opposition even after the US began its reengagement policy with Syria under President Barack Obama in 2009, the Post reports. In January, the US posted its first ambassador to the country since the Bush administration withdrew the US ambassador in 2005 over concerns about Syria's involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.
it's true lsat I checked. there's a difference between some minor covert support and being a serious player and instigator of it. nothing I see in that link points to major US involvement. It comes down to what you consider very little. Funding opposition groups then having a revolution where opposition groups wage a civil war doesn't seem like a major instigator (from what we know), but it certainly doesn't seem like "very little" either. it depends whether the oppositions groups that formed the war relied much on your specific funding. from what I see it IS very little; most of their funding/effort came from other sources, and most of the impetus came from other sources. and most of the major successful opposition groups weren't that US aligned anyways.
unless you consider this
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/middleeast/cia-syria-rebel-arm-train-trump.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Train_and_Equip_Program
https://medium.com/@badly_xeroxed/bmg-71-tow-atgm-syrian-opposition-groups-in-the-syrian-civil-war-2636c6d08d68
https://www.occrp.org/en/makingakilling/the-pentagon-is-spending-2-billion-on-soviet-style-arms-for-syrian-rebels
taking into consideration that many of this weapons went on to be used in assistance to alqaeda \ al-nusra it becomes pretty ironic.
|
On December 12 2017 08:05 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2017 07:54 zlefin wrote:
I'm not seein gyour point gahlo, please clarify
as a possible preemptive counterpoint:
i've read some analyses on the topic and iirc they generally foundd he wasn' thurt by such.
and sure, people might stay home; they also might get pissed off and decided to countervote against the "elite" pick, especially since sanders' base is populists-leaning.
if they had no influence on how people voted, then they had no effect, clinton won just as she would've without them, as per my stated allegation: "sanders wasn' thurt" This is one of those things where I don't think it's possible to know after the fact without perfect knowledge. You can't ask people how/if they would have voted if superdelegates weren't a thing because a) they already are and b) people know how the presidential election turned out. The cat's already out of the bag on that. We see people say "fuck it, it's not worth it." and stay home year after year after year. If more people wanted to counter vote, we'd see more 3rd party votes in the presidential. My point of "if they had no effect" was to show that the margin of victory was had a very healthy serving of Super Delegate pie. If that was chopped out at the start, you're potentially looking at a much more competitive race.
it was already a very competitive race; so i'm no tseein ga difference, only an unsubstantiated claim that there could have been.
it was also KNOWN from the start, that no matter what the super delegates said, they were going to go with whoever won the most regular delegates. they weren't truly fixed to hillary, they just preferred her.
there's a big difference between 3rd party cases (where it's clear most have no chance at winning), and this case. also, most 3rd parties do bad because the 3rd parties ARE bad don't represent most people at all.
perfect knowledge is indeed impossible, but the evidence we have tends to indicate it didn' cause a problem this time iirc. we can still have imperfect knowledge.
|
On December 12 2017 08:34 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2017 01:28 zlefin wrote:On December 12 2017 01:21 Logo wrote:On December 12 2017 01:19 zlefin wrote:On December 12 2017 01:03 Logo wrote:On December 12 2017 01:00 zlefin wrote:On December 12 2017 00:57 Kickboxer wrote:
On the other hand Syria was quite ok before the US decided to "freedom (tm)" there. US had very little to do with the syrian mess; it's largely a local matter, plus a fair amount of regional players. that you decide to blame US without knowin the facts though says a lot. Is that true? Cursory research: https://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0418/Cables-reveal-covert-US-support-for-Syria-s-opposition
Newly released WikiLeaks cables reveal that the US State Department has been secretly financing Syrian opposition groups and other opposition projects for at least five years [2006-2011], The Washington Post reports.
That aid continued going into the hands of the Syrian government opposition even after the US began its reengagement policy with Syria under President Barack Obama in 2009, the Post reports. In January, the US posted its first ambassador to the country since the Bush administration withdrew the US ambassador in 2005 over concerns about Syria's involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.
it's true lsat I checked. there's a difference between some minor covert support and being a serious player and instigator of it. nothing I see in that link points to major US involvement. It comes down to what you consider very little. Funding opposition groups then having a revolution where opposition groups wage a civil war doesn't seem like a major instigator (from what we know), but it certainly doesn't seem like "very little" either. it depends whether the oppositions groups that formed the war relied much on your specific funding. from what I see it IS very little; most of their funding/effort came from other sources, and most of the impetus came from other sources. and most of the major successful opposition groups weren't that US aligned anyways. unless you consider this https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/middleeast/cia-syria-rebel-arm-train-trump.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Train_and_Equip_Programhttps://medium.com/@badly_xeroxed/bmg-71-tow-atgm-syrian-opposition-groups-in-the-syrian-civil-war-2636c6d08d68https://www.occrp.org/en/makingakilling/the-pentagon-is-spending-2-billion-on-soviet-style-arms-for-syrian-rebelstaking into consideration that many of this weapons went on to be used in assistance to alqaeda \ al-nusra it becomes pretty ironic.
I was already aware of those things;
most of what you're citing proves my point; the actual effect of americans was fairly weak on the ground. they didn' t accomplish much with what they did do (which was often fairyl weak anyways). and they really didn' tdo that much.
especially compared to the other actors involved.
you're also citin some things without citing ANYTHING which would address the actual point: the RELATIVE importance of US actions in the context of the conflict.
especially since it's well proven by now that the US sometimes throws money ineffectually at problems.
|
|
|
On December 12 2017 09:00 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2017 08:34 ImFromPortugal wrote:On December 12 2017 01:28 zlefin wrote:On December 12 2017 01:21 Logo wrote:On December 12 2017 01:19 zlefin wrote:On December 12 2017 01:03 Logo wrote:On December 12 2017 01:00 zlefin wrote:On December 12 2017 00:57 Kickboxer wrote:
On the other hand Syria was quite ok before the US decided to "freedom (tm)" there. US had very little to do with the syrian mess; it's largely a local matter, plus a fair amount of regional players. that you decide to blame US without knowin the facts though says a lot. Is that true? Cursory research: https://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0418/Cables-reveal-covert-US-support-for-Syria-s-opposition
Newly released WikiLeaks cables reveal that the US State Department has been secretly financing Syrian opposition groups and other opposition projects for at least five years [2006-2011], The Washington Post reports.
That aid continued going into the hands of the Syrian government opposition even after the US began its reengagement policy with Syria under President Barack Obama in 2009, the Post reports. In January, the US posted its first ambassador to the country since the Bush administration withdrew the US ambassador in 2005 over concerns about Syria's involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.
it's true lsat I checked. there's a difference between some minor covert support and being a serious player and instigator of it. nothing I see in that link points to major US involvement. It comes down to what you consider very little. Funding opposition groups then having a revolution where opposition groups wage a civil war doesn't seem like a major instigator (from what we know), but it certainly doesn't seem like "very little" either. it depends whether the oppositions groups that formed the war relied much on your specific funding. from what I see it IS very little; most of their funding/effort came from other sources, and most of the impetus came from other sources. and most of the major successful opposition groups weren't that US aligned anyways. unless you consider this https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/middleeast/cia-syria-rebel-arm-train-trump.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Train_and_Equip_Programhttps://medium.com/@badly_xeroxed/bmg-71-tow-atgm-syrian-opposition-groups-in-the-syrian-civil-war-2636c6d08d68https://www.occrp.org/en/makingakilling/the-pentagon-is-spending-2-billion-on-soviet-style-arms-for-syrian-rebelstaking into consideration that many of this weapons went on to be used in assistance to alqaeda \ al-nusra it becomes pretty ironic. I was already aware of those things; most of what you're citing proves my point; the actual effect of americans was fairly weak on the ground. they didn' t accomplish much with what they did do (which was often fairyl weak anyways). and they really didn' tdo that much. especially compared to the other actors involved. you're also citin some things without citing ANYTHING which would address the actual point: the RELATIVE importance of US actions in the context of the conflict. especially since it's well proven by now that the US sometimes throws money ineffectually at problems.
well i have been following this conflict since its inception and i have to say that the Tow program was very effective in many ways, the US idea was to bring the conflict into a stalemate or to make Assad step down, they almost achieved this in 2013 and until the 2015 russian intervention things looked very bleak for the Syrian regime.. the US choose not to escalate things further amid of the possibility of direct conflict with the russians. The US has this modus operandi of using proxies, it worked in the past, now it almost did until the russian intervention , i wouldn't call it a small thing, it was just short of direct intervention.
|
|
|
On December 12 2017 10:12 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2017 09:00 zlefin wrote:On December 12 2017 08:34 ImFromPortugal wrote:On December 12 2017 01:28 zlefin wrote:On December 12 2017 01:21 Logo wrote:On December 12 2017 01:19 zlefin wrote:On December 12 2017 01:03 Logo wrote:On December 12 2017 01:00 zlefin wrote:On December 12 2017 00:57 Kickboxer wrote:
On the other hand Syria was quite ok before the US decided to "freedom (tm)" there. US had very little to do with the syrian mess; it's largely a local matter, plus a fair amount of regional players. that you decide to blame US without knowin the facts though says a lot. Is that true? Cursory research: https://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0418/Cables-reveal-covert-US-support-for-Syria-s-opposition
Newly released WikiLeaks cables reveal that the US State Department has been secretly financing Syrian opposition groups and other opposition projects for at least five years [2006-2011], The Washington Post reports.
That aid continued going into the hands of the Syrian government opposition even after the US began its reengagement policy with Syria under President Barack Obama in 2009, the Post reports. In January, the US posted its first ambassador to the country since the Bush administration withdrew the US ambassador in 2005 over concerns about Syria's involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.
it's true lsat I checked. there's a difference between some minor covert support and being a serious player and instigator of it. nothing I see in that link points to major US involvement. It comes down to what you consider very little. Funding opposition groups then having a revolution where opposition groups wage a civil war doesn't seem like a major instigator (from what we know), but it certainly doesn't seem like "very little" either. it depends whether the oppositions groups that formed the war relied much on your specific funding. from what I see it IS very little; most of their funding/effort came from other sources, and most of the impetus came from other sources. and most of the major successful opposition groups weren't that US aligned anyways. unless you consider this https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/middleeast/cia-syria-rebel-arm-train-trump.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Train_and_Equip_Programhttps://medium.com/@badly_xeroxed/bmg-71-tow-atgm-syrian-opposition-groups-in-the-syrian-civil-war-2636c6d08d68https://www.occrp.org/en/makingakilling/the-pentagon-is-spending-2-billion-on-soviet-style-arms-for-syrian-rebelstaking into consideration that many of this weapons went on to be used in assistance to alqaeda \ al-nusra it becomes pretty ironic. I was already aware of those things; most of what you're citing proves my point; the actual effect of americans was fairly weak on the ground. they didn' t accomplish much with what they did do (which was often fairyl weak anyways). and they really didn' tdo that much. especially compared to the other actors involved. you're also citin some things without citing ANYTHING which would address the actual point: the RELATIVE importance of US actions in the context of the conflict. especially since it's well proven by now that the US sometimes throws money ineffectually at problems. well i have been following this conflict since its inception and i have to say that the Tow program was very effective in many ways, the US idea was to bring the conflict into a stalemate or to make Assad step down, they almost achieved this in 2013 and until the 2015 russian intervention things looked very bleak for the Syrian regime.. the US choose not to escalate things further amid of the possibility of direct conflict with the russians. The US has this modus operandi of using proxies, it worked in the past, now it almost did until the russian intervention , i wouldn't call it a small thing, it was just short of direct intervention.
i've been following it too; and there's a lot of other actors in the area doing a lot of other stuff, all of which also had effects, which seemeed stronger on the whole to me, and mos timportantly, the effects of various local groups in syria doing their own stuff.
I don't deny taht it's theoretically possible for the US to have a large influence, i'm just not seeing it in this case.
just because what the US wanted to have happen nearly ahppened (setting aside whether it actually nearly happened), that doesn't mean it's because of the US actions; it could have been somethin that would have simply happened anyways.
remember the point of the argument here: when I call it a "smll thing" i'm talking in comparison to the overall totality of the conflict, and in praticular to kickboxers nonsense claim.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 12 2017 06:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2017 06:48 Chewbacca. wrote:While this may be shitty, and it could easily be argued that it was being done to suppress the black vote....The statement about every county that's over 75% black having their DMV shutdown, immediately after talking about 31 counties is a bit misleading. Doing a google search I'm seeing that only 2 of 67 counties are >75% black, seems like they're trying to make the problem appear bigger than it may be. If those two counties make up a reasonable amount of the state population and the race is close, it could be the exact big deal people are making it out to be. This is exactly how voter suppression works. Edit: Super delegates are a bad look. If a party is going to have open primaries that anyone can run under their banner, deal with the consequences. If they are not comfortable with that, make rules saying who can run under their ticket. Enough trying to have it both ways.
If it's really only 2 states where the black population is > 75%, and they closed 31 DMVs overall, then using "every" instead of "both" seems pretty disingenous to me.
That is completely unrelated to whether there's merit to the overall story, just that particular word choice is pretty weasely (if 2 is the correct number).
|
|
|
Steve Bannon Super genius?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
