EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 711
| 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 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
On September 19 2018 23:43 JimmiC wrote: More talk of Military intervention in Venezuela. Canada has said that they are not willing to sign a pact that says they won't intervene but they are still strongly against it. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-venezuela-military-intervention-1.4829074 Venezuelan army went to a Colombian Island and kidnapped 3 people, Maduro says it is Venezuelan but it has been under Colombian control since 1931. Columbia is considering its options and discussing with the international community on how to respond. I have no idea what the Americans will do, they seem very split. Maduro also hurt his image within Venezuela as his people starve, it is now up to 30% of the people eating only one meal a day with 4 Million leaving the country. He filmed a video with a famous Turkish chef eating tons and smoking cigars https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/viral-video-of-venezuelan-president-with-turkish-celebrity-chef-sparks-outrage/ar-BBNvDGM?li=AAggFp5 Maduro is also claiming that the migration is "normal", while everyone else in the world is calling it a Syria level crisis. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45407617 I'm not sure what can be done, people can't rise up because they are too hungry and hundreds if not thousands have been shot and killed for protesting with thousands more jailed for disagreeing. Also many more that would have have the ability to stand up have fled the country. I don't believe an armed response would fix, in the past it has not worked out well for countries. The power vacuum created is usually filled but someone just as bad just with different political ideals. They are trying to get help from China to get their oil production up but China is skeptical about it with Venezuela missing so many payments. They have put another 5 billion in and gained a 49% ownership of some of the oil fields. There is also a lot of talk from the opposition (which has all fled to either Spain, Columbia or other countries) that it is now a Narco dictatorship with the strings being pulled by mafia and cartels. I'm not sure how this ends but it likely will become a bigger and bigger problem. With the USA reducing it's number of refugees it allows down to 30k and the countries around Venezuela not having the money or space to deal with the millions fleeing, this story is not going away and is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. So let's say we actually do intervene militarily. Then what? We basically just build them a voting/political system, give them some billions of dollars a year, then they just kind of figure it out? I hear talk of military action but I don't actually know what this looks like for the US in a more "complete" sense. What somewhat interests me is the US going well beyond that and making Venezuela somewhat of a colony. I think we could extract a lot of value out of Venezuela and they are kinda shitting the bed without us right now. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
On September 20 2018 00:09 JimmiC wrote: I don't think that would work unless a TON of money was pumped in right away to make it better the people right away. You have to remember this is now a totalitarian dictatorship that has been spouting propaganda for decades about how evil the US is. If you then show up with the army they will believe it even more. I think the better tact would be to attack Maduro's credibility. Show his incredible wealth and his families wealth. It is hard to claim to be a true socialist while living like billionaire as your people starve. More videos like the one that came out could erode support. I also think that legalizing MJ and maybe even more drugs would also hurt the Mafia and traffickers which would in turn hurt Maduro. The strange thing is that many of the people who hate Maduro have left the country and many of those left behind, despite starving, have bought into the propaganda. And anyone who publicly says otherwise is arrested or worse. I think information and education will be more powerful tools to stopping him than guns. Yeah, that makes sense. If we were to point our intelligence agencies at Maduro, and give them the simple directive of "expose anything and everything to make people riot against him", it would probably work. Make the people still living in Venezuela into your own little army. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9108 Posts
On September 19 2018 23:52 Mohdoo wrote: So let's say we actually do intervene militarily. Then what? We basically just build them a voting/political system, give them some billions of dollars a year, then they just kind of figure it out? I hear talk of military action but I don't actually know what this looks like for the US in a more "complete" sense. What somewhat interests me is the US going well beyond that and making Venezuela somewhat of a colony. I think we could extract a lot of value out of Venezuela and they are kinda shitting the bed without us right now. Those few who support the intervention would probably be content with just leaving a friendly junta in power instead of wasting billions of dollars in an attempt to build a functioning democracy. Protectorates are cheaper to maintain than colonies. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On September 19 2018 15:31 Introvert wrote: I've seen this passed around. First, some have speculated that since they were federal employees on federal grounds in the workplace that the FBI had a place there. I don't know if that's how it works. Also, they literally questioned, questioned him, and attached it to his file. That's not an "investigation" in the sense we mean, certainly not in the sense the Democrats mean. I will leave you here with what the DOJ put out. Maddeningly, I can't find a link to the actual statements, so I assume this is all or most of it? "The FBI does not make any judgment about the credibility or significance of any allegation," the statement reads. "The purpose of a background investigation is to determine whether the nominee could pose a risk to the national security of the United States. The allegation does not involve any potential federal crime. The FBI's role in such matters is to provide information for the use of the decision makers." https://www.npr.org/2018/09/18/649085712/democrats-want-fbi-to-investigate-kavanaugh-allegations-it-likely-wont Just from a few hours ago: As a bonus: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/factors-dont-favor-criminal-charges-against-kavanaugh/2018/09/19/0356ba7c-bbc4-11e8-adb8-01125416c102_story.html? So if all we want is for the FBI to sit down with these two, take their accounts, and then add it to the file... well ok. And her letter already is part of the file. That could be done between now and Monday, but obviously isn't what any Democrat wants. And moreover, no one ever answered my question... with all this prep time, why does an investigation need to happen before they sit before the committee? No, it's prob beyond the SoL for the state, and the FBI doesn't handle these matters. And there are no facts to follow, because we don't know exactly when or where this even happened, and now all but one other person who was supposedly there denies. The last person still hasn't said anything either way. The bottom line is that a hearing on Monday does not provide "all this prep time." The FBI can do interviews, add those to the file, do any follow up interviews needed. These hearings and interviews take time to prepare for. So we need more time for the FBI to gather all the facts, otherwise we're pressing ahead without having made sure that all the facts are gathered. Which I think is what Grassley wants to pull off. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11340 Posts
| ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19158 Posts
On September 20 2018 00:43 Simberto wrote: Also, it is not like the US has any reasonable trackrecord of successfully military intervening in a country, nationbuilding, and that country turning out better afterwards in recent times. I think WW2 might have been the last time that happened. Possibly Korea? That's the whole premise behind the Star Trek Federation. To quote "Captain Jean-Luc Picard: Beverly, the Prime Directive is not just a set of rules. It is a philosophy, and a very correct one. History has proved again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well-intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous." It's a hard point to argue too. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4692 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Just to make it clear, I love Star Trek. Even the bad Trek where Crusher has sex with a ghost. It’s all good for its own reasons, like comics. A rich, fun world to tackle a lot of different stories in. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
Apparently, it is up to the White House whether the FBI looks into any particular matter as part of its background check of a nominee. Meaning, it is very much Trump's choice for that not to happen. Have a feeling this isn't going to go well for Republicans if more people like this come forward. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/accusers-schoolmate-says-she-recalls-hearing-of-alleged-kavanaugh-incident/ar-BBNzgE5?ocid=spartanntp | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Twelve years ago, Amber Wyatt reported her rape. Few believed her. Her hometown turned against her. The authorities failed her. The piece really highlights how quickly the community turned on this girl. The investigation didn't even start. It never got off the ground before her classmates and their parents started to circle the wagons around the status quo. There seems to be evidence that she was raped. But she was never called before the grand jury to testify. Neither was the detective who investigated the case. And now all the physical evidence was destroyed. I like to think that we have collectively gotten better about this, but really wonder if we haven't been kidding ourselves. The first response to the allegations against Kavanaugh was a public shaming session before the Senate akin to Anita Hill back in the early 1990s. Ford has refused, pushing back against the status quo response and demanding a real investigation. Maybe she might get it? Edit: fair warning - that article is brutal. | ||
KwarK
United States42008 Posts
On September 19 2018 21:58 BisuDagger wrote: Just curious if anyone else feels the same way. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that all we are doing at this point is discussing an allegation that may or may not be true instead of determining whether Brett Kavanaugh is the right man for the job? Suddenly the story went from his qualifications and rulings to he will be elected based on whether or not people believe he did something to that woman when he was younger. It feels like no one can risk saying, "Let's put this behind us and judge the man before us" without being flamed for insensitivity. edit: To add, I'm not sure Kavanaugh would be my pick for the job and don't feel I have enough information to determine that. I don’t know that it would disqualify him for the job but surely there is an equally abhorrent candidate they can nominate without the baggage. Just as I thought Franken was capable of being a Senator, but so were a bunch of other people who didn’t grope women. I don’t believe the difference within the top 100 or so legal minds in the country is so vast that only nine people could do the job. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42008 Posts
On September 20 2018 00:37 JimmiC wrote: The optics alone are horrible. No matter how altruistic the motives could be, the international community would see it as colonial america after oil riches again. If there is going to be military intervention it will likely be from Columbia who does not get along with them and has a strong military. The issue will be that it would not be good for the average Venezuelan who would be drawn into the conflict. This is the Zimbabwe problem. Mugabe blamed everything on colonial British enemies within trying to bring him down which tied the hands of the Commonwealth to help the people. Sometimes you can’t win. And even at the best of times the US is not good at nation building. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
PeTraSoHot
0 Posts
On September 19 2018 21:40 Ryzel wrote: Petra, I understand your perceived logic of whataboutisms. It’s not that we don’t get it. It’s this... Person A is outraged about thing X for reason Z. —> Person A is not outraged about thing Y. —> X and Y are functionally equivalent in the context of reason Z. —> Person A is inconsistent in his outrage for reason Z. —> Person A does not actually care about reason Z and is lying (either intentionally or unintentionally) when he says he does. This train of logic isn’t that horrible, assuming all premises are true. But there are still huge issues with this line of thinking. 1. A lot of these premises are impossible for you to prove true. How are you going to prove that person A wasn’t outraged at Y? Because they didn’t post about it in the thread? Have you posted every single thing you’ve been outraged about? How are you going to prove X and Y are functionally equivalent to reason Z? Is reason Z defined in a way that both of you agree with? Etc. 2. The argument has nothing to actually do with reason Z and everything to do with defaming person A. These kinds of personal attacks very rarely result in meaningful discourse, because you come off as attacking your conversation partner. 3. Tying in to #2 and what others have touched on, the argument stops being about reason Z. If the argument is about reason Z being good or bad, then whether or not person A is a hypocrite or a liar should have no bearing on it; you can be both and still be correct. That’s why it’s viewed as a deflection, because it changes the topic to person A. I hope this helps clarify why people are giving you a hard time. Let's see if I can get anywhere with this.. 1) When person A says: On September 19 2018 17:04 Simberto wrote: Question the dear leader, be ready to get beat up by the brownshirts. Say anything implying that women may possibly have a right to their own body, and watch the scum come out of the caves. ...it is not unreasonable for me to deduce that person A is a left-winger who believes that Trump is the reincarnation of Hitler and Republican voters are genocidal racists who enslave women, whereas person A and those who share his political beliefs are virtuous. While I indeed can't know that his scorn for people he thinks are nazis has been the same as his scorn for people he thinks are otherwise virtuous if they've both committed the same offense, there are legitimate and obvious reasons to suspect disparate treatment. 2) The argument is not about defaming person A and I request a citation of alleged personal attacks on person A. As you've outlined, it was about demonstrating that person A does not care actually care about reason Z. 3) For person A to consider the consider the comparison of thing Y to thing X, which both share reason Z, to be a deflection would be incorrect and achieve my aim of demonstrating that person A is the hypocrite I think him to be, no? | ||
| ||
