US Politics Mega-thread - Page 182

On May 10 2018 09:20 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Firstly, my apologies if my understanding of the deal and surrounding events is lacking. I haven't really had time to read up on it and mostly joined the argument due to generic opposition towards the might makes right justification for foreign policy. (The way I see it, people's belief in or acceptance of this principle is the chief explanation for most worldly atrocities that happen, not just on a country to country basis but on an individual to individual basis too. I feel it is my moral obligation to inspire people to critically examine the way they relate to this issue.)

It's very questionable whether the US has any moral high ground over Iran when examining their relationship with each other or their general support of terrorist groups in other countries or their tendency to destabilize other countries or their tendency to invade other countries. To me, it would seem Iran requiring the US to halt support of Saudi Arabia (specifically in light of the ongoing conflict in Yemen) before they are willing to denuclearize is a comparable request to the US requiring Iran to stop support of Hamas or Hezbollah before lifting / not implementing sanctions. The chief difference being that the US is more powerful thus more able to dictate the weaker countries -> thus the only reason I see for supporting the US claim without also supporting a similar Iranian claim (which the US would obviously never accept) would have to be the belief that the US is entitled to make claims from others that they would not be willing to agree to themselves because they are mightier. I can't agree with this. Then I would argue that current american actions work to limit future american power because you are in serious danger of extinguishing the remaining good will you have from your most historically important allies. So even from a completely amoral realpolitik-perspective, I don't see how american actions make any sense.

In terms of Iran supporting Hezbollah or Hamas, I don't want to justify that. I also don't know nearly enough about intricacies of the generic middle east conflict to make a coherent and factual post on how Iran benefits. I assume from an Iranian perspective however, there is something to be gained from it - or they would stop. That said, I think hindering nuclear proliferation seems significantly more important than stopping Iranian support of Hezbollah or Hamas. Humanity has survived countless wars - and even genocides. Although nukes so far can certainly be credited with keeping the peace between major powers, they also represent an actual threat to the future of humanity.

On May 10 2018 10:51 Plansix wrote:
Trumps view of foreign policy as binary. There are winners and losers, and any deal that doesn’t favor the US directly needs to end or be reworked. This transactional thinking works in business world. But the foreigner policy goals of modern nations is co-existence first, national gain second. Because putting national gain first is what leads to wars.

On May 10 2018 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:


If the glad handing she was doing after the questions was any indication she's definitely getting in. All the CIA folks on MSNBC have been caping for her and she's got bipartisan support throughout the intelligence community. Democrats could stop this if they wanted, but if they were we'd already know. They aren't/we don't, so she's getting in.

Democrats are going to give Donald Trump a known torturer to lead his CIA and they already gave him a CIA ran state department by a guy who thinks he's in a holy war. Democrats need to stop punching left and start putting more pressure on the right flank of their party.

On May 10 2018 12:39 GreenHorizons wrote:


Avid torture advocate President Trump has locked in his first Democrat vote to put former torture supervisor Gina Haspel in charge of the CIA

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/994293434713161728

On May 10 2018 13:27 Plansix wrote:
McCain opposes her and a bunch of republicans are undecided. Manchin is a peice of shit, but West Virginia is not known for its quality Democratic challenges.

On May 10 2018 07:58 Mohdoo wrote:


I think you are making silly comparisons. Germany conquering Europe is very different from our current situation. The war of dominance was won a long time ago. Political and military dynamics are super different now anyway. Major wars don't happen anymore because of mutually assured destruction. None of these comparisons make sense. WW3 will never happen. Influence and military dominance work differently now.

The fact of the matter is: Hamas and Hezbollah have a 0% chance of ever accomplishing their major goals. Iran funds them because of bullshit religious reasons, not because they would gamble their rent money on an eventual victory.

I'll phrase it this way: What long term benefits do you see resulting from Iran's support for Hezbollah and Hamas?

On May 10 2018 14:00 GreenHorizons wrote:


I'm not sure by what measure Manchin is supposed to be better than Paula Swearengin?

On May 10 2018 15:08 Mohdoo wrote:

Right and she lost terribly because West Virginia is... West Virginia.

On May 10 2018 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:


She lost but she got more votes than any of the Republicans (given their votes were more split) with the entire Democratic machine behind her opponent and starting with 0 name recognition. Worth noting Bernie Sanders beat Hillary in WV by more than 15%.

The whole "It's West Virginia, so it's either someone who supports Trump most of the time or someone who suppoorts Trump all of the time" doesn't mean Manchin should be welcome in the party. If he actually cares about the things Dems want his vote on, changing the letter after his name wouldn't change his votes anyway.

So let him run as the Republican-lite/Centrist he is and have the Democrat be a Democrat. But this whole "we need him" stuff just isn't an acceptable argument to me.

I don't buy this "WV is WV so we have to settle for Manchin" argument in the slightest. If that was the case Bernie wouldn't have beat Hillary there.

EDIT: Also let's not pretend Democrats think primaries are supposed to be real democratic exercises, they've made abundantly clear they are publicity stunts.

On May 10 2018 15:27 Mohdoo wrote:



I would say Clinton had more of a systematic advantage than Manchin. Having complete control of the party is a lot more intense than being heavily backed. I really think West Virginia just likes Manchin. Bernie winning West Virginia should have boded poorly for Manchin, right?

On May 10 2018 15:27 Mohdoo wrote:



I would say Clinton had more of a systematic advantage than Manchin. Having complete control of the party is a lot more intense than being heavily backed. I really think West Virginia just likes Manchin. Bernie winning West Virginia should have boded poorly for Manchin, right?

On May 10 2018 19:24 Womwomwom wrote:


West Virginia from everything I've read is no different from any mining town in Queensland or Western Australia. For them, then Labor PM Julia Gillard was the actual devil for even suggesting a resources tax. Mining jobs were extremely lucrative during the mining boom and no one wanted the gravy train to end.

Its important people remember that Clinton was getting hit really, really hard for this exact quote: "we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business." Certainly misrepresented in its proper context but its one that both Bernie and Trump took advantage of as an example she was against working class Americans who work in primary and secondary industries.

So while Bernie won the state by 15%, the state also saw 12.7% of people voting for alternative candidates. Not just that, around 33% of people who voted for Bernie would have voted for Trump if Bernie was the Democratic Party's Presidential nominee. There was a huge backlash against Clinton for not only her image during the campaign but also her role in the Obama Administration where they saw her as an extension of - this is shown in both the Bernie and small candidate vote.

West Virginia just likes Manchin for whatever reason. I dunno what he actually does for his state, like a lot of bad state representatives, but I doubt what candidate he votes for really rings in their mind. He could help vote in a war criminal and I suspect the general population would still be more concerned if their existing coal mining jobs were going to be maintained.

On May 10 2018 19:36 GreenHorizons wrote:


So 30%+ of Hillary's primary voters would have voted Trump if Bernie was the nominee?

But presuming the argument is that WV does like Joe Manchin, then fine, let them vote for him as a Republican or Independent. I don't see the benefit of him being welcomed in the Democratic party as he proudly proclaims to support a war criminal for head of CIA?