EPTShould he? Shouldn't a european coalition take care of it? Or at least pay the bills?
Edit: I'm not arguing either way, just leaving up the questions for further discussion.
US Politics Mega-Blog - Page 114
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
Should he? Shouldn't a european coalition take care of it? Or at least pay the bills? Edit: I'm not arguing either way, just leaving up the questions for further discussion. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On December 23 2018 03:59 GoTuNk! wrote: Should he? Shouldn't a european coalition take care of it? Or at least pay the bills? Edit: I'm not arguing either way, just leaving up the questions for further discussion. Depends on whether you give a shit about Europe. Trump doesn't, so yeah, we'll have to. And are. That's kind of what NATO's for. But hey. It's not like a destabilised Europe could affect the US in any way. That's never been a problem in the past. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On December 23 2018 04:36 iamthedave wrote: Depends on whether you give a shit about Europe. Trump doesn't, so yeah, we'll have to. And are. That's kind of what NATO's for. But hey. It's not like a destabilised Europe could affect the US in any way. That's never been a problem in the past. Yes, just start a bunch of conflicts and stoke flames in a region, involve your "allies" (that helped establish your country and have been allies for centuries) through NATO or alliances, change president, remove all troops and disengage while it's still a hellhole, let them deal with all the setbacks, and require that they pay. No big deal, they'll love it, won't even hold grudges or be reluctant to help the next time. Aren't the other countries lackeys after all, supposed to get the trash out so we keep hegemony ? What, nobody loves us and the US is hated ? Terrorism ? Why ? I don't understand ! Diplomacy 101 was boring, it took more than 2 minutes, so I slept through the lesson, sorry. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On December 23 2018 05:39 Nouar wrote: Yes, just start a bunch of conflicts and stoke flames in a region, involve your "allies" (that helped establish your country and have been allies for centuries) through NATO or alliances, change president, remove all troops and disengage while it's still a hellhole, let them deal with all the setbacks, and require that they pay. No big deal, they'll love it, won't even hold grudges or be reluctant to help the next time. Aren't the other countries lackeys after all, supposed to get the trash out so we keep hegemony ? What, nobody loves us and the US is hated ? Terrorism ? Why ? I don't understand ! Diplomacy 101 was boring, it took more than 2 minutes, so I slept through the lesson, sorry. Unless my memory has failed me, I think the US is innocent in Syria. Didn't that start as a straight up normal rebellion until ISIS got involved? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14146 Posts
On December 23 2018 17:27 iamthedave wrote: Unless my memory has failed me, I think the US is innocent in Syria. Didn't that start as a straight up normal rebellion until ISIS got involved? It was way more complicated then a "normal rebellion" when it started to divide the population up between religious and ethnic lines. The arab spring finaly spread to a country that wasn't all on board with a new government. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24046 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
I have no clue what a veto-proof majority bill lacking funding for a wall would look like. It would have to include enough pork to pick off GOP Senators, likely to the tune of twenty times what it would cost to fund the entire wall. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
| ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On December 24 2018 05:56 ChristianS wrote: I would be very curious what looks like it would force Democrats to cave here. The wall on its own is unpopular, let alone shutting down the government to fund it, and there's little doubt in anyone's mind that's what Trump is doing. Why not just keep passing clean CR's and let him veto them? Or offer reduced wall funding for DACA or something? The Wall is not unpopular. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14146 Posts
Not to mention they have to know that they merely have to wait for the muller investigation to come down in the next month or two before evaluating their position. Trump has given them all the cover they need for a couple months and their prospects are looking great. On the flipside trump can't back down on wall funding. I'd take a 6 month ban bet that the shutdown lasts till the muller report drops. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
I mean, what game are we playing here? I think I just read 59% oppose it somewhere. I can try to chase down the poll if you want, but something tells me you're operating from "polls are biased/fabricated" territory, in which case our only way of knowing public opinion is, what? Gut feeling? | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On December 24 2018 15:17 ChristianS wrote: I mean, what game are we playing here? I think I just read 59% oppose it somewhere. I can try to chase down the poll if you want, but something tells me you're operating from "polls are biased/fabricated" territory, in which case our only way of knowing public opinion is, what? Gut feeling? I think the mindset is Border Security is an issue both sides value, and Border Security = wall in their minds. It's clearly not something they're saying just to screw with you since three different posters seem to believe that digging his heels in on the wall specifically is a winning issue for him. Democrats could be spectacularly incompetent... but looking at the situation objectively they have no reason to give anything. Time's on their side, the GOP doesn't even like the wall that much (don't they still have a majority in both houses until January? If they were in lockstep they should be able to force it), and Democrat voters are going to give them shit if they fold to Trump now, just after pretending to have a spine. Oh, and Trump publically and aggressively went out in front and took responsibility for the shutdown. Every reason not to. Personally I support the idea, provided they follow it up by building a moat all around the US, and then insist on oldee-style portcullis and drawbridges at all the crossings. If we're going retro, let's go all the way! | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24046 Posts
| ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On December 25 2018 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote: Do Democrats see this as the obvious propaganda that it is or do they accept the framing uncritically? https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1076913303526486017 Meh it seems like a clickbaity article trying to stir up drama. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24046 Posts
On December 25 2018 04:17 Mercy13 wrote: Meh it seems like a clickbaity article trying to stir up drama. "clickbaity" is pretty generous considering it's fallacious nature. It's astonishing how bad "news" media can get without being held accountable. The rhetoric is ridiculous. "Forces loyal to" and calling examining his record a "war" is some Trumpian level bullshit. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On December 25 2018 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote: "clickbaity" is pretty generous considering it's fallacious nature. It's astonishing how bad "news" media can get without being held accountable. The rhetoric is ridiculous. "Forces loyal to" and calling examining his record a "war" is some Trumpian level bullshit. It's a bad article and NBC should feel bad. This line they bury in the middle undermines their whole framing: Sanders' is an unusually decentralized political world, with a loose collection of activists and operatives who often take actions without direction or approval from any central authority. Still, I'm not sure what can be done about articles like this besides not reading them... modern media companies need clicks to survive so they put out clickbaty bs. I don't buy the narrative that this is part of a "MSM" anti-Sanders conspiracy if that's what you're getting at. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24046 Posts
On December 25 2018 05:08 Mercy13 wrote: It's a bad article and NBC should feel bad. This line they bury in the middle undermines their whole framing: Still, I'm not sure what can be done about articles like this besides not reading them... modern media companies need clicks to survive so they put out clickbaty bs. I don't buy the narrative that this is part of a "MSM" anti-Sanders conspiracy if that's what you're getting at. It's quite obviously almost wholly uncritical anti-Sanders propaganda. Whether it's a cabal or merely multifaceted self-interested misinformation pushed by those with aligned class interests is somewhat tangential. fwiw I tend toward the latter, but it's clear our system leaves itself plenty vulnerable to the former as well. We can say for sure it's not meant to inform but to persuade people to take on their framing which has little to do with reality so must be created to manipulate. It would then seem impossible to deny that these articles/takes from the CAP wing of the party are basically what they are accusing people of for looking at Beto's record. There's a class of punditry and media that is going to spend the next 6 months trying to convince people that we should focus on the wrapper around the policies rather than the policies themselves. They will also take huge differences and try to paper over them as minor variations. It's going to take a concerted effort to maintain the suspension of disbelief I think it takes to still not see an obvious agenda from corporate media that goes beyond a primitive hunger for ratings. EDIT: We'll see this with Kamala's history of incarceration, Castro's work at HUD, Biden's long history of fuckery, and anyone else they think can push Bernie out of winning the primary. They'll also tell us we should ignore their record and focus on their campaign rhetoric. This will be in strict contrast to the hyper critical reporting we'll see on anything Bernie. Most obviously captured by the article and tweet from the leading liberal TV/web news media which has already characterized basic scrutiny by people all over the political spectrum (many not even fans of Bernie) of Beto's record as "forces loyal to Sanders are waging... war" Also he's not a favorite of activists, but of donors. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On December 25 2018 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote: "clickbaity" is pretty generous considering it's fallacious nature. It's astonishing how bad "news" media can get without being held accountable. The rhetoric is ridiculous. "Forces loyal to" and calling examining his record a "war" is some Trumpian level bullshit. One of the few bipartisan things left in the U.S is distrust and flat out dislike for the press in general; and with good reason. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12470 Posts
On December 25 2018 07:56 GoTuNk! wrote: One of the few bipartisan things left in the U.S is distrust and flat out dislike for the press in general; and with good reason. That's not really true. Liberals tend to be okay with the press there (and that's not really surprising given how the press' bias work). You're just running into a few progressives/socialists here and yeah we have a few issues. I also dislike the notion that because we have some criticism of the press that I believe is fair and accurate, that is somehow equivalent to the right's war against facts. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
That’s politics folks. Oh, and Merry Christmas. | ||
| ||
