• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Samk

Member
12d chess strategy:

Obama gets told no in congress. He doesn't take action. Syria escalates. France then has to take responsibility and spearheads intervention. Thus, international norms are still preserved and Obama has limited presidential power, thus preserving the republic. Furthermore, it forces the international community to rely less on the United States for military support. Leading from behind indeed.

Seriously though, he better not take action if he gets told no. The benefits are too great: the dems can now say the isolationist tea partiers are anti Israel (Israel is pro intervention) and Obama can be painted as a defender of the constitution
 
S

Sibylus

Banned
Samk said:
12d chess strategy:

Obama gets told no in congress. He doesn't take action. Syria escalates. France then has to take responsibility and spearheads intervention. Thus, international norms are still preserved and Obama has limited presidential power, thus preserving the republic. Furthermore, it forces the international community to rely less on the United States for military support. Leading from behind indeed.

Seriously though, he better not take action if he gets told no. The benefits are too great: the dems can now say the isolationist tea partiers are anti Israel (Israel is pro intervention) and Obama can be painted as a defender of the constitution
Click to expand...
Alternatively, a constitutional crisis could be better for the country in the longer run. All sorts of status quo questions thrust into the limelight.

'Bams would have to sacrifice his third term, tho
 
V

Videoneon

Member
TacticalFox88 said:
You must not have been around for the Healthcare Debate....or his Jobs plan....or the Stimulus....or his first 100 Days...
Click to expand...

I agree that he tried (somewhat) to sell those things, but he's in his second term now and the those issues are a lot more...proximate, to Americans. Obama also enjoyed more public support earlier on in his Presidency.

gutter_trash said:
http://globalnews.ca/news/826316/al...w-control-syrian-christian-village-activists/


These rebel groups linked to terrorists are the reasons why I am OPPOSED to US intervention in Syria.

Yeah yeah yeah, I heard Kerry say ''no boots on the ground'' but isn't Al-Qaida enemy #1? Why aid them?
Click to expand...

Washington doesn't like Al-Qaida all that much but if there's a chance for institutional power that is to some degree representative of U.S. interests, that's ultimately what they want. The word chance is key here. If you attack Al-Qaida enough they become "dead-enders" like Rumsfeld thought so the focus becomes more long-term (institutional.)

It's bitterly hilarious how many times I've seen congresspeople comment on whether or not it's in the U.S.'s interests to intervene. I've seen the comments on things like "what is the purpose and the expected result of the apparently limited Tomahawk cruise missile launches from the ships" and I more or less agree, which is why I am opposed to intervention in Syria. Lack of hard evidence linking Assad to the recent use of chemical weapons notwithstanding (though not debating that Assad is a scumbag), it's not enough to ostensibly slap someone on the wrist because of moral reasons. We easily look inconsistent for taking this stand now if it's about human rights concerns (Syria's been like this for a while.)

What is this supposed to accomplish? There's no good answer, and I think the administration has been given more than enough time to make a case. I see humanitarian concerns, and I'm not familiar much with how they might work but I'd definitely support some aid missions or something somewhere down the line. I say that because that'd not be so great to do during a time of civil war.

Also, I read this and it made my day - US loses the will to lead

Bo said:
Alternatively, a constitutional crisis could be better for the country in the longer run. All sorts of status quo questions thrust into the limelight.

'Bams would have to sacrifice his third term, tho
Click to expand...

I find it stunning that the word "constitution" has such positive affect in some of our voting base anyway. Primarily, my distaste for it comes from people like Scalia.

I saw a couple minutes of Rand Paul's tiff with John Kerry, and I got tired quickly of the history lesson (re: who has powers to declare war, intention of the authors). My problem is it's not the major issue at hand---it's already decided that Congress will make the call. The hell do we need to talk about the constitution for.

Of course, I do think it was for the better that Congress was asked to vote on it, and am unsure of what Obama will do if he is unsuccessful.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
So Ann Coulter wrote a column the other day, aptly titled [url="When a Community Organizer Goes to War] When a community organizer goes to war."[/url]

As expected, lots of amusing things to chew on in that piece, but this one caught my eye:

Soon after Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, Libya's Moammar Gadhafi was so terrified of an attack on his own country, he voluntarily relinquished his WMDs -- which turned out to be far more extensive than previously imagined.
Click to expand...

I'm not that familiar with Middle East history, but was this ever really an issue? Was Gadhafi ever on anyone's radar? At least, in the sense that he was ever a serious potential threat? I suppose you could say this it's nice that he relinquished whatever WMDs he had (what kind were they, anyway?), but I feel it's also important to point out that Bush invading Iraq certainly didn't seem to stop North Korea or Iran's attempts at starting their own nuclear programs.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Oblivion said:
At least, in the sense that he was ever a serious potential threat? I suppose you could say this it's nice that he relinquished whatever WMDs he had (what kind were they, anyway?),
Click to expand...

Lockerbie? German night club bombing? He had quite a history of arming people who attacked the west.
 
S

Sibylus

Banned
Videoneon said:
I agree that he tried (somewhat) to sell those things, but he's in his second term now and the those issues are a lot more...proximate, to Americans. Obama also enjoyed more public support earlier on in his Presidency.



Washington doesn't like Al-Qaida all that much but if there's a chance for institutional power that is to some degree representative of U.S. interests, that's ultimately what they want. The word chance is key here. If you attack Al-Qaida enough they become "dead-enders" like Rumsfeld thought so the focus becomes more long-term (institutional.)

It's bitterly hilarious how many times I've seen congresspeople comment on whether or not it's in the U.S.'s interests to intervene. I've seen the comments on things like "what is the purpose and the expected result of the apparently limited Tomahawk cruise missile launches from the ships" and I more or less agree, which is why I am opposed to intervention in Syria. Lack of hard evidence linking Assad to the recent use of chemical weapons notwithstanding (though not debating that Assad is a scumbag), it's not enough to ostensibly slap someone on the wrist because of moral reasons. We easily look inconsistent for taking this stand now if it's about human rights concerns (Syria's been like this for a while.)

What is this supposed to accomplish? There's no good answer, and I think the administration has been given more than enough time to make a case. I see humanitarian concerns, and I'm not familiar much with how they might work but I'd definitely support some aid missions or something somewhere down the line. I say that because that'd not be so great to do during a time of civil war.

Also, I read this and it made my day - US loses the will to lead



I find it stunning that the word "constitution" has such positive affect in some of our voting base anyway. Primarily, my distaste for it comes from people like Scalia.

I saw a couple minutes of Rand Paul's tiff with John Kerry, and I got tired quickly of the history lesson (re: who has powers to declare war, intention of the authors). My problem is it's not the major issue at hand---it's already decided that Congress will make the call. The hell do we need to talk about the constitution for.

Of course, I do think it was for the better that Congress was asked to vote on it, and am unsure of what Obama will do if he is unsuccessful.
Click to expand...
My problem is you're not thinking about future precedent: will simply acceding to the Congressional vote set one, or would it take something more to prevent things from going back to business as usual (Congress not deigning to exert their responsibility and passing the buck to the President)? In the longer term, I think it would be better if Obama put on the bad guy cap and forced Congress to try to wrangle that power back, if for no other reason than to save some face.
 
V

Videoneon

Member
Bo said:
My problem is you're not thinking about future precedent: will simply acceding to the Congressional vote set one, or would it take something more to prevent things from going back to business as usual (Congress not deigning to exert their responsibility and passing the buck to the President)? In the longer term, I think it would be better if Obama put on the bad guy cap and forced Congress to try to wrangle that power back, if for no other reason than to save some face.
Click to expand...

I thought that Congress was generally the last word on war resolutions anyway? And isn't it generally the case that wars start with Presidential prodding? Ultimately I don't think Obama will do something foolish like authorize the strike if the vote fails, even if he has stated he may do so otherwise. It will be way too much ill will for his presidency.

Are you thinking we're going to have a Nixon-like scenario where Nixon continues the fighting in Vietnam? I more or less expect we're going to constantly and occasionally ignore our rules over the course of this nation's history, not that I necessarily condone it. For the purposes of the discussion I do support the War Powers Resolution/Congress has word more than Presidential unilateral action, but I don't know if splitting hairs about "war" means anything in this discussion either
 
S

Sibylus

Banned
Videoneon said:
I thought that Congress was generally the last word on war resolutions anyway? And isn't it generally the case that wars start with Presidential prodding? Ultimately I don't think Obama will do something foolish like authorize the strike if the vote fails, even if he has stated he may do so otherwise. It will be way too much ill will for his presidency.

Are you thinking we're going to have a Nixon-like scenario where Nixon continues the fighting in Vietnam? I more or less expect we're going to constantly and occasionally ignore our rules over the course of this nation's history, not that I necessarily condone it. For the purposes of the discussion I do support the War Powers Resolution/Congress has word more than Presidential unilateral action, but I don't know if splitting hairs about "war" means anything in this discussion either
Click to expand...
That's the designed intention, but it doesn't work if Congress is of mood to abdicate responsibility and just rubber stamp whatever it is that the President wants (as it has done so for a long-ass time now, great for dodging blame but little else). The President should not have the de facto power to start wars alone, period. Separation of powers becomes symbolic and hollow if one guy can end the country with one ill-considered armed conflict.

Though being realistic, I don't expect Obama or any future Democrat or Republican President to give that power up without fighting tooth and nail to retain it.
 
Z

zero shift

Banned
So I am almost done with my article but I can't find this specific study. I remember a thread, or a post, on GAF detailing how a fair share of white people were for welfare and/or similar programs until it was shown the the recipients were going to be black.

Anybody know where I can find this?
 
S

Samk

Member
Oblivion said:
I'm sure you guys are gonna love the hip, new, scandal all the conservatives kids these days are hyping up: PRONOUN-GATE
Click to expand...

It's masterful how Obama critics can dodge any form of substantive critism. We're getting to the point where the use of the Oxford comma will surely show that Obama's weakness in terms of foreign policy.
 
V

Videoneon

Member
Oblivion said:
I'm sure you guys are gonna love the hip, new, scandal all the conservatives kids these days are hyping up: PRONOUN-GATE
Click to expand...

hahaha...the "world's military?" nice choice of words dude (edit: re: the first twee

It's just shocking how these people can get riled up over thinking this is a legitimate thing. This is not even close to "Harper Government."

Notrollious said:
Can we talk about this for a second...



http://news.yahoo.com/iowa-grants-gun-permits-to-the-blind-174507640.html
Click to expand...

preface: no offense to blind or those with blind friends/family

I saw that this morning. Gun permits for blind people. I want our gun permits curtailed anyway, I don't see why this is a good idea. Bad enough we have kids who get killed accidentally and the whole Starbucks incidents.

It makes even less sense, for the purpose of "self defense", to give blind people guns than the mass public. Their ability to react and correct a situation is unquestionably handicapped. We can accept that blind people can't manually drive cars (we don't have massively available driving technology for blind people yet, etc.)...why should they be allowed to have guns?
 
U

User 406

Banned
The idea of blind people with the kind of guns currently available is troubling, we should make sure that they have access to far more powerful firearms to help compensate for their disability.
 
M

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
Videoneon said:
We can accept that blind people can't manually drive cars (we don't have massively available driving technology for blind people yet, etc.)...why should they be allowed to have guns?
Click to expand...

The answer is obviously "something something constitution".
 
A

AntoneM

Member
The right to bear arms, compared to being issued a drivers license, is much more clearly stated in the constitution. I don't know how one can be for restricting the right of the blind to own any and all guns, but also be in favor of right to own assault weapons. If you are in favor of restrictions for gun ownership for the blind, you can't cry about an assault weapon ban.
 
V

Videoneon

Member
An article for you, excuse if already posted.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20130904,0,2277460.column
Five ways to think of the debt limit/key points to remember

1. There's no real reason even to have a debt limit.
2. The consequences of reaching the limit are dire.
3. Social insurance programs are still on the bargaining table, and that's wrong.
4. Recent debt-limit deals involved trickery; will this one too?
5. Even if the debt limit is raised, U.S. fiscal policy is a mess.
Click to expand...

AntoneM said:
The right to bear arms, compared to being issued a drivers license, is much more clearly stated in the constitution. I don't know how one can be for restricting the right of the blind to own any and all guns, but also be in favor of right to own assault weapons. If you are in favor of restrictions for gun ownership for the blind, you can't cry about an assault weapon ban.
Click to expand...

I thought that was the plan at one point, when Congress was talking about gun control? Ostensibly one of the things that was easiest to pass politically (though it never did)?

Mario said:
The answer is obviously "something something constitution".
Click to expand...

Touche. =P Well, that was awfully fast.

I'll say I was surprised to see the ADAAA used to justify this. I wasn't expecting it. Whether it can actually be applied to this, and whether it should is another thing (I have no idea; I don't think so)
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Videoneon said:
An article for you, excuse if already posted.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20130904,0,2277460.column



I thought that was the plan at one point, when Congress was talking about gun control? Ostensibly one of the things that was easiest to pass politically (though it never did)?



Touche. =P Well, that was awfully fast.

I'll say I was surprised to see the ADAAA used to justify this. I wasn't expecting it. Whether it can actually be applied to this, and whether it should is another thing (I have no idea; I don't think so)
Click to expand...

I absolutely love that first point in the article because it is so true. No one else has to deal with this shit but us and we only do it because people wanted to be able to vote against it (while making sure it still passed) to help their chances in an election.
 
M

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
Samarecarm said:
Yep. The "debt limit" is a bit of political theater that is neither constitutional nor moral.
Click to expand...

Is the ability for the GOP to create voter fear/uncertainty/anger around the debt limit increasingly limited anyway seeing as the debt limit was raised after all their protests and not only did the sky not fall, but the economy has continued to improve (albeit in a meandering way)?

Seems like another horse they beat into the ground along the Benghazi lines. So much noise and effort for nothing.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Videoneon said:
An article for you, excuse if already posted.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20130904,0,2277460.column

Five ways to think of the debt limit/key points to remember

1. There's no real reason even to have a debt limit.
2. The consequences of reaching the limit are dire.
3. Social insurance programs are still on the bargaining table, and that's wrong.
4. Recent debt-limit deals involved trickery; will this one too?
5. Even if the debt limit is raised, U.S. fiscal policy is a mess.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This article doesn't really present the best way to think about the debt limit, because it treats the government's debt as a real constraint based on the amount of money currently in existence. In short, it doesn't understand that money--US dollars--is an abstract social construct controlled by the US government.

Frankly, I like the tea party's stupid attempt to make the government default. The further it goes, the more likely the true nature of government money will be exposed to the public. I see it as an educational opportunity.
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
empty vessel said:
This article doesn't really present the best way to think about the debt limit, because it treats the government's debt as a real constraint based on the amount of money currently in existence. In short, it doesn't understand that money--US dollars--is an abstract social construct controlled by the US government.

Frankly, I like the tea party's stupid attempt to make the government default. The further it goes, the more likely the true nature of government money will be exposed to the public. I see it as an educational opportunity.
Click to expand...

Or, on the flip side, more people will continue to depressingly think you can compare a House Budget to the Budget of a sovereign government.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
empty vessel said:
Frankly, I like the tea party's stupid attempt to make the government default. The further it goes, the more likely the true nature of government money will be exposed to the public. I see it as an educational opportunity.
Click to expand...

Right, cause the American people are great at learning things. :p
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Oblivion said:
Right, cause the American people are great at learning things. P
Click to expand...

They have to. It's actually not about teaching ALL of America about something, but about teaching those somewhat sympathetic to you something. The population as a whole doesn't shift much ideologically. But the percentage of the population that gets politically engaged does. So the trick is to focus on engagement. Tea partiers going the distance will help engage the left. Through education of the left.

If you ever try to sway the hard right, you're doing it wrong. The trick is to engage those who are unengaged. Confrontation of the hard right is not to persuade the hard right, but to persuade the politically curious.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
zero shift said:
It LIVES!!!
Click to expand...

NL18kgN.gif


Edit: You inspired me to write a post about Syria. I understand that almost all of neogaf is against the intervention :p
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
TacticalFox88 said:
At what point in time do you think him voicing whatever he was going to say would've changed the outcome? What we got was doomed to happened regardless. The power of hindsight and all that.

He had to get his party on board (which need I remind you, aren't even close to being half-way as hiveminded as the GOP) AND deal with the stupidity of the right. Yet shit still got passed. Is it SP? Not even fucking close. But is it a step in the right direction that can be improved with subsequent Democratic administrations? You'd have to make extreme mental gymnastics to not think so.
Click to expand...
I'm clearly not talking about the bill being passed, or how future administrations handle it. I'm talking about the horrible communication problem the WH continues to have selling it, to this day. You have to get ahead of a story/movement, especially in a 24 hour news cycle. Instead the WH waited until it was too late.

Likewise with Syria, Obama has virtually waited until the last minute to talk directly to the American people about why we allegedly need to strike; Kerry has been forcefully making the case for a couple weeks by himself. If this is so important, why didn't he call an emergency joint session of congress, or do the WH speech earlier - like a week or two ago.

This isn't 12d chess, it's just a pattern of bad communication. Obviously I'm not mad about it in this case, it has helped Americans turn against this military action. But if I was a supporter of a US attack I'd be wondering about the lacksidasical approach.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Obama and Kerry are looking really dumb right now. I think they just need to realize this is a non-starter in Congress. Kerry going to the UN won't go over well either.

It sucks, because when things get worse Republicans will blame Obama, of course, citing that he did not have an appropriate response. It is his fault either way. Fuck the GOP.

This isn't 12d chess, it's just a pattern of bad communication. Obviously I'm not mad about it in this case, it has helped Americans turn against this military action. But if I was a supporter of a US attack I'd be wondering about the lacksidasical approach.
Click to expand...
Well he did have that press conf... but like I said I am not sure what the real intent there was...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

X (twitter) is now worth 9.4 billion
Business 2
96
4K
Trogdor1123 replied
Jensen Huang's net worth passes Intel's market cap
Business
34
1K
Hawking Radiation replied
Any deals on LG OLED 77" C1 vs C2?
6
675
The Infectious Paradox replied
LTTP: Dead Space 3 (2013) via PS3 Ultra Slim
17
535
WoJ replied
"Gonna be worth tuning into the Xbox Tokyo game show stream next week" says Tom Warren
Rumor 2 3 4
163
7K
Tiago Rodrigues replied
Top Bottom