EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2009
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
RenSC2
United States1058 Posts
On January 09 2020 07:57 IgnE wrote: is GH a 9/11 truther? that doesnt seem right He has expressed those views in the past. Not sure what his current stance is. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On January 09 2020 02:10 franzji wrote: This isn't television, if a bad guy who has more bad things planned to kill Americans is dead... why should he not be happy. The world isn't that simple... Things aren't just black or white, they are much more complex. This guy is bad + bad guy dies = my life is better. In the world context, our country isn't to be trusted anymore. We make a deal with someone, now they can never trust we won't just elect some asshole and back out of the deal. They can't even trust that if we fight along side each other in war, that in a year or two we won't just abandon them. I'm not big on military control, but we succeeded our foothold with the Kurds and have essentially given up the right to do much of anything in that region, now someone else will come in there like Russia. All for what? Nothing was happening in Iran... it was all political bullshit. We backed out of the deal for no reason, and almost started a war for no reason. If you had to trade some random general dying vs. all the things I've mentioned, eroded our trust, almost started another major war... you think the life of that general was worth it? | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On January 09 2020 02:27 Mohdoo wrote: American can be the 100% bad guys, as a whole, of the situation, while Sol dying is also a good thing for the US military. I don't think I follow your logic. 1. USA does a bunch of bad shit to Iran that makes Iran and the whole region way worse 2. Iran and USA end up as huge enemies because of USA interference, basically the US makes things even worse 3. Iran and USA fight and stuff, where Soleimani ends up being a big name and a very well regarded part of Iran's military 4. USA kills Sol, a huge enemy, so it is a USA win 5. Iran blows up some sand and accidentally shoots down a plane, zero American lives lost 6. This specific spat seems to have been a net positive for USA military Note: Bad for the world, good for USA military. Yes, the entire situation is their making. But looking at the situation for what it currently is, killing a big name general and not losing a single soldier is a fantastic result for USA military. What do you think would have happened if they decided to have the missiles hit live targets and kill US soldiers? We would have been in a full out war... trump put the ball in their court, which imo is stupid, he succeeded control of the situation. If they decided to escalate this into an all out war would you have been happy? | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On January 09 2020 06:37 Elroi wrote: Completely unrelated, but I love how the Iranian state controlled media outlet is called Fars (farce...). Also, someone should really re-invite xDaunt and that other guy back to this thread. As a frequent lurker here, I have to say that it has gone stale ever since GH is the only extremist here. And it's generally good to get the "other side's" point of view presented in an intelligent way. I disagree... even though it gets a little heated at times, it feels like people have conversations in here now. Before there was no conversation, I never felt like talking to daunt was a conversation, just a waste of time. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On January 09 2020 06:52 Belisarius wrote: Now the dust has settled, this really was textbook Trump. 1. Start a fire 2. Stoke the fire 3. Blame someone else 4. Allow it to die down 5. Claim to have put it out. We can expect a lot more of this leading up to the election, and that is a huge issue. The world is extremely lucky Iran was proportionate in their response, but the next party Trump gaslights may not be. 1,000% agree with this. US put the ball completely in their court, and gave away control. Also, nothing is done and over. This could flare back up in an instant for nothing, and we could be in a full out war. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On January 09 2020 07:07 KwarK wrote: I can do a fair simulacrum of xDaunt. Would you like me to be pointlessly obtuse and then insist you’re not understanding my point or insist you’re not understanding first, then follow it with being obtuse? Don't forget to repeat that pattern approximately 6-8 times before finally revealing that your opinion on what you are arguing about isn't actually based on anything at all. And make sure this argument stretches over 3-4 days too while completely derailing all other discussion. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On January 09 2020 07:23 ShambhalaWar wrote: + Show Spoiler + On January 08 2020 23:51 Aquanim wrote: I find it very difficult to believe Sanders would defeat Trump easily; in practice a left-wing candidate probably needs significantly more than 50% to win and I doubt even half the American voting public is politically closer than Sanders than Trump (which is not to say that Sanders cannot be carried over the line by sheer personal distaste for Trump). It's possible he's the strongest candidate but that is more a condemnation of the others than a compliment to Sanders. trump won riding Sanders coat tails in 2016. Nobody wanted the status quo to continue, Sanders and trump both represented the non-status quo. Since Sanders was forced out by the dem party, we lost... Also with tons of cheating by republicans, and so many other factors... it was a perfect storm of so many things for trump to get into office. But things haven't really changed, people still don't want to go back to the way things were... they want meaningful and large change in regard to the climate, healthcare, etc... The ideas Sanders supports are quite popular even amongst republicans. Literally the only appeal Joe has is that he's a "strong male" and can out bulldog trump. Besides getting trump out of office, does anyone really want a Biden presidency? Sanders can appeal to the people who voted trump because they wanted something truly different, but then realized they got scammed and grifted by the man. Hell amazon only increased their wages to 15 per hour because Sanders went around the country talking to people and holding gathering to apply pressure and it worked. Helping people working at amazon increase their wages is something that appeals to all the working class, not just the left. Biden hasn't done anything like that. Plus we simply already tried the centrist approach... it failed, I don't think it will work this time. Sanders did a town hall on Fox News, check out the responses he gets... It could be somehow the town hall just got packed with sanders supporters, but I think that isn't extremely likely. + Show Spoiler + A lot of this reads like wishful thinking to me. Which is not to say that none of it could pan out that way, but still. But things haven't really changed, people still don't want to go back to the way things were... they want meaningful and large change in regard to the climate, healthcare, etc... The ideas Sanders supports are quite popular even amongst republicans. I have doubts that the "people" being referred to here add up to the required number of voters to win. The American voting public is, let's face it, pretty deplorable. Plus we simply already tried the centrist approach... it failed, I don't think it will work this time. It's worked in plenty of elections in the past; while one could argue that present circumstances are different, it's not an immediate slam-dunk argument. I don't have numbers at my fingertips for how often it has worked compared to how often swinging left has worked. (Perhaps the numbers just don't exist... when was the last time a "socialist" ran for President as the candidate of a major party?) Certainly as compared to Hillary and probably (to a lesser degree) Biden as well, I don't think Sanders has faced the full Republican mud-slinging blowtorch yet. I don't know what happens to his numbers when he does, but if you think Fox is going to give him much favourable coverage at that point... Unless something dramatic happens between now and then I expect the primary race to be significantly changed by the first few states. Reading the tea-leaves is probably an exercise in futility but... - If Buttigieg fades in Iowa I would guess a lot of his support goes back to Biden. If he doesn't it's easier for Sanders to potentially beat them both. Hard to say what will happen here. - Sanders has been leading in New Hampshire but Biden seems to be within striking distance, depending what happens in Iowa. - Biden seems to have Nevada and South Carolina on lock but they matter less and will probably be changed quite a bit by the preceding races. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15689 Posts
On January 09 2020 08:16 ShambhalaWar wrote: What do you think would have happened if they decided to have the missiles hit live targets and kill US soldiers? We would have been in a full out war... trump put the ball in their court, which imo is stupid, he succeeded control of the situation. If they decided to escalate this into an all out war would you have been happy? Everything would have been awful. He played a stupid game but won an awesome prize. He shouldn't have backed out of the Iran deal and none of this should have happened. However, it went really well all things considered, though it may still be awful long term due to inspiring extremism | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25334 Posts
On January 09 2020 08:10 ShambhalaWar wrote: The world isn't that simple... Things aren't just black or white, they are much more complex. This guy is bad + bad guy dies = my life is better. In the world context, our country isn't to be trusted anymore. We make a deal with someone, now they can never trust we won't just elect some asshole and back out of the deal. They can't even trust that if we fight along side each other in war, that in a year or two we won't just abandon them. I'm not big on military control, but we succeeded our foothold with the Kurds and have essentially given up the right to do much of anything in that region, now someone else will come in there like Russia. All for what? Nothing was happening in Iran... it was all political bullshit. We backed out of the deal for no reason, and almost started a war for no reason. If you had to trade some random general dying vs. all the things I've mentioned, eroded our trust, almost started another major war... you think the life of that general was worth it? Pretty much. It’s not as if things were rapidly thawing relations wise between the US and Iran, more the smallest of baby steps, but this has been a complete reversal and who knows where it leads in the medium to long term. I’m not especially fond of interventionism in the region myself, outside of actual peacekeeping efforts and fixing messes the US created. This strikes me as making it beyond remote that the US is a bit more even-handed to various actors rather than being the lapdog enforcer for Saudi Arabia, Israel et al. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23231 Posts
On January 09 2020 07:57 IgnE wrote: is GH a 9/11 truther? that doesnt seem right It isn't, but that's not going to stop him from saying it. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On January 09 2020 07:57 IgnE wrote: is GH a 9/11 truther? that doesnt seem right I suggest you read (for instance) the conversation following this post and draw your own conclusions. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15689 Posts
On January 09 2020 12:21 Aquanim wrote: I suggest you read (for instance) the conversation following this post and draw your own conclusions. I'm amazed you somehow dug that up. How in the world did you find a post from 2018? | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On January 09 2020 12:40 Mohdoo wrote: I'm amazed you somehow dug that up. How in the world did you find a post from 2018? I remembered linking the conversation sometime in 2019 and found that instead. The conversation we're having now has reoccured a few times (up to and including the question you just asked). | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23231 Posts
On January 09 2020 12:21 Aquanim wrote: I definitely didn't take the position that "9/11 was the CIA." as can be read there. To argue I did is simply dishonest.I suggest you read (for instance) the conversation following this post and draw your own conclusions. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On January 09 2020 13:13 GreenHorizons wrote: I definitely didn't take the position that "9/11 was the CIA." as can be read there. To argue I did is simply dishonest. Given that the conversation I linked was the direct followup to a conversation about the CIA on the preceding page I can see how somebody might misremember the details without intentional misrepresentation. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23231 Posts
Apology accepted. | ||
| ||
