Support NeoGAF

[AntoneM]

This sent Republicans in AZ into a shit-fit when they actually redrew the districts fair.

The Independent Redistricting Commission's mission is to redraw Arizona’s congressional and legislative districts to reflect the results of the most recent census. The concept of one-person, one-vote dictates that districts should be roughly equal in population. Other factors to be considered are the federal Voting Rights Act, district shape, geographical features, respect for communities of interest and potential competitiveness. The state Constitution requires the commissioners – two Republicans, two Democrats and an independent chairwoman – to start from scratch rather than redraw existing districts. - See more at: http://azredistricting.org/#sthash.4htlW9jl.dpuf

Attorneys for the House and Senate contend a panel of three federal judges erred two months ago in declaring that the voters of Arizona had the right to take that power from lawmakers and instead give it to a five-member Independent Redistricting Commission.

I'd say it's done its job.

 

[thepotatoman]

What we should do is just have computers draw the maps. Then again, the two sides would fight to have their own programmers design the computer program. But if we created a computer program that had some mutually agreed upon algorithm that would be fed with a random seed for initial starting points, we could easily create nice districts without much human input at all.

But will we do this? Or will we just remain stuck with the current crappy system?

We could also up the number of representatives so that we start getting some more accurate representation. That would help fix a ton of problems.

 

[benjipwns]

Other factors to be considered are the federal Voting Rights Act, district shape, geographical features, respect for communities of interest and potential competitiveness.

None of these should be considered, especially the last two. The lines should be drawn starting from a completely randomly selected single point along the state's borders. With population being the only variable used and all of them geographically contiguous. I might allow for no county splitting like Iowa, but that's about it.

The state Constitution requires the commissioners – two Republicans, two Democrats and an independent chairwoman

This is how the two parties are insidious. They've written themselves into the Constitution as a permanent feature.

 

[Metaphoreus]

What we should do is just have computers draw the maps. Then again, the two sides would fight to have their own programmers design the computer program. But if we created a computer program that had some mutually agreed upon algorithm that would be fed with a random seed for initial starting points, we could easily create nice districts without much human input at all.

But will we do this? Or will we just remain stuck with the current crappy system?

The program--and the information fed into the program--should be completely open to inspection by anyone. The program should be available to download and should spit out identical results for users as it does for legislators, so long as the same information is input by each. The program should be open source so that its calculations are transparent and can be double-checked by hand. Ideally, the only demographic information input would be the number of voters in a given geographical area.

 

[thepotatoman]

Washington Post: Unlike previous midterm election years, no dominant theme has emerged for 2014

Ask voters in North Carolina’s Research Triangle what November’s midterm elections are about and one will tell you drones. A second will say closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Yet another, the middle-class squeeze.

At a Sunday school classroom in Ypsilanti, Mich., voters are concerned about deteriorating roads, teen sex parties, truancy in schools and violent crime. Six hundred miles west at a Republican campaign office in Urbandale, Iowa, people fear that America is on an irreversible decline — like Germany after World War I, as one man predicted.

Across Colorado, voters are thinking about a whole other set of concerns — veterans’ care, driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants, the soaring cost of housing, the erosion of Christian conservative values, Russia’s rise, and fracking.

This is an election about nothing — and everything. Unlike in previous midterm election years, no dominant national theme has emerged for the 2014 campaign, according to public opinion surveys as well as interviews last week with scores of voters in five key states and with dozens of politicians and party strategists.

(...)

As long as it has been polling, Gallup has asked voters to state their “most important problem.” For the first midterm cycle since 1998, no single issue registers with more than 20 percent of voters. Immigration was the top concern for 17 percent of those Gallup surveyed in July, while 16 percent said government dissatisfaction and 15 percent the economy.

The result could be an especially unpredictable final 12 weeks of the campaign. With voter turnout expected to be low and several big races virtually tied, campaigns everywhere are searching for pressure points — by taking advantage of news events or colorful and, at times, highly parochial issues — to motivate their base voters to go to the polls.

I think that article sums up the midterms perfectly. It's not that people don't care, it's that everyone cares about something totally different. It's really an extremely weird election season where it seems like absolutely anything can happen based on how events line up with election day.

 

[Joe Molotov]

Washington Post: Unlike previous midterm election years, no dominant theme has emerged for 2014

I think that article sums up the midterms perfectly. It's not that people don't care, it's that everyone cares about something totally different. It's really an extremely weird election season where it seems like absolutely anything can happen based on how events line up with election day.

I think the GOP should go with "You didn't build that" again, it seemed to work pretty good..

 

[BertramCooper]

Washington Post: Unlike previous midterm election years, no dominant theme has emerged for 2014

It's a shame Benghazicare has been such a success.

Fucked up the whole election, what with helping tons of people get health insurance.

Really sucks.

 

[metalslimer]

teen sex parties

wat

 

[cooljeanius]

John McCain going around tomorrow on Sunday shows talking about Obama not doing enough when last year he was talking about supporting the same Syrian rebels that turned into these ISIS motherfuckers.

John McCain was pushing supporting the Free Syrian Army, which has also been fighting against ISIS. They may both be "Syrian rebels", but they are not the same people at all.

 

[VanMardigan]

So...Obama hates the Iraqis and doesn't hate White people, apparently:



http://www.mediaite.com/online/mark-levin-attacks-obama-for-vacationing-at-whitest-place-on-earth/

Um...yeah.

Joe Biden is the one that vacations here in the us virgin islands. Joe knows best.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Washington Post: Unlike previous midterm election years, no dominant theme has emerged for 2014

I think that article sums up the midterms perfectly. It's not that people don't care, it's that everyone cares about something totally different. It's really an extremely weird election season where it seems like absolutely anything can happen based on how events line up with election day.

Its because literally nothing has happened politically these past 4 years and nothing will happen these next 2

 

[Joe Molotov]

Joe Biden is the one that vacations here in the us virgin islands. Joe knows best.

After he leaves, they just call them the Islands.

 

[thepotatoman]

wat

That's so Ypsilanti, Michigan... apparently.

Its because literally nothing has happened politically these past 4 years and nothing will happen these next 2

Too bad republican gridlock can't be the pressing issue, but unfortunately that's just not happening.

 

[benjipwns]

Washington Post: Unlike previous midterm election years, no dominant theme has emerged for 2014

Washington Post leaves DC bubble, discovers the entire history of Congressional midterm elections. Checks Gallup back to 1998*, considers research done, when the first real nationalized midterm campaign was the Contract for America.

*Leaving a sample size of three: 2002, 2006, 2010.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Washington Post leaves DC bubble, discovers the entire history of Congressional midterm elections. Checks Gallup back to 1998*, considers research done, when the first real nationalized midterm campaign was the Contract for America.

*Leaving a sample size of three: 2002, 2006, 2010.

This is a stupid criticism

Who cares what midterms were like in the 70s. We have had three with nationalized issues. This year, that's missing.

 

[Plinko]

Washington Post: Unlike previous midterm election years, no dominant theme has emerged for 2014

I think that article sums up the midterms perfectly. It's not that people don't care, it's that everyone cares about something totally different. It's really an extremely weird election season where it seems like absolutely anything can happen based on how events line up with election day.

Six hundred miles west at a Republican campaign office in Urbandale, Iowa, people fear that America is on an irreversible decline — like Germany after World War I, as one man predicted.

Uhhhhhhh...what?

 

[B-Dubs]

Uhhhhhhh...what?

I don't think they understand why Germany was having problems after the first World War.

 

[benjipwns]

This is a stupid criticism

Who cares what midterms were like in the 70s. We have had three with nationalized issues. This year, that's missing.

We have had three of the last four with an issue over 20%. We have had four of the last eight with an issue over 20%. The latter percentage is the same as under Obama 50/50.

So let's look at the chart they produced from Gallup:
2014 - Immigration - 17%/Government - 16%
2010 - Economy - 32% (Majority P, +6 Minority S, +63 Minority H) - 78.6% Incumbents
2006 - Iraq - 28% (Majority P, +6 Minority S, +31 Minority H) - 87.6% Incumbents
2002 - Economy - 24% (Majority P, +2 Majority S, +8 Majority H) - 87.6% Incumbents
1998 - Ethics - 15%/Government - 14% (Minority P, +5 Minority H) - 90.8% Incumbents
1994 - Crime - 27% (Majority P, +8 Minority S, +54 Minority H) - 80.2% Incumbents
1990 - Deficit - 16% (Minority P, +1 Majority S, +7 Majority H) - 89.9% Incumbents
1986 - Recession - 23%/International Tension - 22% (Minority P, +8 Majority S, +5 Majority H) - 88.5% Incumbents
1982 - Unemployment - 61% (Split P, +1 Minority S, +26 Majority H) - 81.4% Incumbents
1978 - Inflation - 72% (Majority P, +3 Minority S, +15 Minority H) - 82.3% Incumbents
1974 - High Cost of Living - 73% (Minority P, +4 Majority S, +49 Majority H) - 78.9% Incumbents
1970 - Vietnam - 28% (Minority P, +2 Minority S, +12 Majority H) - 87.1% Incumbents
1966 - Vietnam - 43% (Majority P, +3 Minority S, +47 Minority H) - 83.2% Incumbents
1962 - Russia - 42% (Majority P, +3 Majority S, +1 Minority H) - 84.6% Incumbents
1958 - Russia - 43% (Minority P, +15 Majority S, +49 Majority H) - 81.0% Incumbents

What exactly are we supposed to take away from this? Mine is pretty simple: Gallup is offering more options on the "most important" issue. (Plus the diversification and democratization of media.)

If the President signs something regarding immigration, or just because it's trending that way, immigration gets up to say 21% is it suddenly a nationalized election about immigration? And are the "findings" of the Washington Post now invalid?

 

[thepotatoman]

Washington Post leaves DC bubble, discovers the entire history of Congressional midterm elections. Checks Gallup back to 1998*, considers research done, when the first real nationalized midterm campaign was the Contract for America.

*Leaving a sample size of three: 2002, 2006, 2010.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/pa...nt-issue-leading-into-midterm-elections/1243/

And before you cite 1998 and 1990 as counterexamples, let me remind you that it was at least always clear that Lewinsky was clearly always the biggest issue in 1998, and the budget the main issue in 1990. Immigration, on the other hand, wasn't even an issue until a couple weeks ago, and it'll probably stop being an issue in a few more weeks once something else comes up.
EDIT:

We have had three of the last four with an issue over 20%. We have had four of the last eight with an issue over 20%. The latter percentage is the same as under Obama 50/50.

What exactly are we supposed to take away from this? Mine is pretty simple: Gallup is offering more options on the "most important" issue. (Plus the diversification and democratization of media.)

If the President signs something regarding immigration, or just because it's trending that way, immigration gets up to say 21% is it suddenly a nationalized election about immigration? And are the "findings" of the Washington Post now invalid?

Yeah, that's a potential explanation, but it still doesn't seem like it's historically accurate to say any of those issues actually weren't clearly the biggest issue going into that election even full year before the election took place.

 

[benjipwns]

But the "biggest issue" going into the election doesn't matter if 80% of voters aren't voting based on it.

In 1974, 1978, 1982. 1986, 1990, 2002, and 2010 the economy in some form was the "most important" issue.

The voters responded by:
1974 - Expanding the majority.
1978 - Shrinking the majority.
1982 - Expanding the majority.
1986 - Expanding the majority.
1990 - Expanding the majority.
2002 - Expanding the majority.
2010 - Shrinking the majority and eliminating it in one House.

In 1958-1970, 1986 (2nd place), and 2006 it was some kind of foreign policy.
1958 - Expanding the majority.
1962 - Expanding the majority.
1966 - Shrinking the majority.
1970 - Expanding the majority.
1986 - Expanding the majority.
2006 - Shrinking the majority and flipping both Houses.

So are a bad economy and foreign policy problems good things for the majority party in Congress? Or are 2006 and 2010 the "new normal"?

 

[thepotatoman]

I don't even know what you're trying to argue anymore benji. The only point being made is that it's unusual that an obvious defining issue hasn't solidified itself yet.

 

[benjipwns]

And I don't think it is, because the idea of there being an "obvious defining issue" in an election and it thus having some kind of inherent power to suss out is the fallacy of composition. Especially when we have 468 races and ~80-85 million voters.

Or maybe even better the modo hoc fallacy.

 

[benjipwns]

Assume an electorate that's 33/33/33 R/D/I.

Also assume we get a poll that says these are the most important issues:
25% - Economy
19% - Immigration
18% - Benghazi
10% - Impeachment
8% - Obama's Birth Certificate
5% - Supreme Court
5% - Rand Paul Running Away
4% - Abortion
3% - Health Care
3% - Medicare

What's the win% for the R's this election cycle?

Same thing but a poll reports:
30% - Puntland
25% - Ukraine
20% - Iraq
15% - Immigration
10% - Israel

Now what's the win%?

 

[benjipwns]

Hawai'i's internecine battle is coming down the pike:

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie was soundly defeated in Saturday's Democratic primary by state Sen. David Ige, becoming the first incumbent governor to lose his party's nomination since 2010.

The Associated Press called the race with Ige leading Abercrombie, 67 percent to 32 percent, in early returns.

Despite Hawaii's Democratic lean, the general election is expected to be a competitive contest between Ige, former GOP Lt. Gov. Duke Aiona and independent Mufi Hannemann, the former Democratic mayor of Honolulu.

With a little more than 86,000 votes counted in the special Democratic Senate primary, Rep. Colleen Hanabusa had a narrow, two-point lead over appointed Sen. Brian Schatz. That race is still too close to call.

 

[thepotatoman]

And I don't think it is, because the idea of there being an "obvious defining issue" in an election and it thus having some kind of inherent power to suss out is the fallacy of composition. Especially when we have 468 races and ~80-85 million voters.

Or maybe even better the modo hoc fallacy.

Well sure, I don't think anyone is thinking that every election only had one issue that could be used to perfectly predict the upcoming results. I guess I'm just looking at things being so close right now that a 2 percent shift in opinion either way can wrap up the entire election for either party, so what the dominating story is on election day will be extremely important, and right now that's an extremely unpredictable wild card.

As for whether or not the lack of a dominant story is unusual, I think it is, with that gallup chart pretty much lining up with my understanding of the history of people's major concerns. But if it's not enough to convince you, that's fine. It's really not that important of a distinction anyhow.

 

[benjipwns]

I bolded the 1974, 1994 and 2002 races because the conventional narrative on those are Watergate, Hillarycare and 9/11. (And in GOP circles, 2010 was about ObamaCare.)

The 2006 narrative at the time really seemed like GOP corruption, DeLay, Mark Foley, earmarks, etc. to me.

 

[Metaphoreus]

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/pa...nt-issue-leading-into-midterm-elections/1243/

I'd like to see the results of polls taken in July of each of the past years. Comparing results from July (4 months from the election) of 2014 with results from September and October (2 months and 1 month from the election, respectively) of prior years seems like poor methodology. In fact, it seems like a great way to manufacture the same story for re-use every four years.

 

[benjipwns]

Plus that's just Gallup:

CBS News Poll. July 29-Aug. 4, 2014. N=1,344 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" Open-ended
%

Economy/Jobs 22

Immigration/Illegal immigrants 13

Health care/Health insurance 5

Partisan politics 4

Barack Obama/The president 4

Misc. government issues 4

Other 43

Unsure/No answer 5

Kaiser Family Foundation Health Tracking Poll. May 13-19, 2014. N=1,279 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

"Thinking about the campaigns for the U.S. House and Senate this fall, what two issues would you most like to hear your congressional candidates talk about?" If respondent gives one issue, probe: "Is there another issue you'd like to hear about?" Open-ended. Up to two responses.
%

Economy/Jobs 34

Health care 25

Education 8

Energy/Environment 8

Debt/Deficit/Gov't spending 8

Immigration/Border security 7

Gov't/Congress/Politics 6

Defense/War 5

Taxes/Tax reform 5

Foreign policy 3

Other 30

Unsure/Refused 20

So Other is the dominant issue of this campaign.

And back in 2010, though not "open ended":

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). June 17-21, 2010. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"Let me list some issues that have been proposed for the federal government to address. Please tell me which one of these items you think should be the top priority for the federal government. Job creation and economic growth. The Gulf Coast oil spill and energy. The deficit and government spending. National security and terrorism. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Health care. Social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage." If more than one: "Well, if you had to choose just one, which do you think should be the top priority?" Options rotated
%

Job creation and economic growth 33

Gulf Coast oil spill and energy 22

Deficit and government spending 15

National security and terrorism 9

Iraq and Afghanistan 9

Health care 7

Social issues 2

All equally (vol.) 3

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. June 29-30, 2010. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Which ONE of the following do you think is most important for the president to be working on right now? The economy and jobs. The oil spill in the Gulf. The deficit and government spending. Health care. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Immigration. Terrorism and national security. Taxes." Options rotated
%

Economy and jobs 32

Gulf oil spill 14

Deficit and government spending 12

Health care 6

Iraq and Afghanistan 6

Immigration 4

Terrorism and national security 4

Taxes 1

All (vol.) 20

None/Other (vol.) 1

Unsure 1

Whatever happened to that oil spill?

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Sept. 9-10, 2003. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

.

"What do you think is the most important issue for the federal government to address today?"

%
Economy/Jobs/Unemployment 38
Terrorism, other than Iraq 14
Defense/Military/Homeland security 8
Education 7
Health care/Prescription drugs 7
War/Iraq/Saddam Hussein 6
Domestic issues/Take care of U.S. 3
Balanced budget/Deficit 3
Taxes 2
Social Security/Medicare 2
Other 5
Don't know 5

heh

 

[Metaphoreus]

If you're going to combine "the economy" and "jobs" as a single problem, then it's the most important problem according to Gallup, as well, at 29% as of July 7-10.

 

[benjipwns]

If you look at the trendline it probably is just a fraction of conservatives/Republicans turning their opinion from Health Care to BORDER CRISIS.

EDIT: Also, Gallups historical trendlines are behind their Analytics service paywall unlike the Presidential Approval Rating one, and I wasn't going to dig through their press releases.

EDIT2: That Kaiser one is more fascinating I wonder for how many people when they're asked most important problem they pick the 8/10 one that matters the most when they may have like four other 8/10's right behind it.

 

[PhoenixDark]

These issues are never clear cut. Sometimes things work and sometimes they don't. Sometimes there is an initial victory, then a sliding back, and then better situation. We helped this one country gain independence from a dictator but then they later had a really bloody civil war . . . however, it ultimately it worked out very well.

Spoiler

That country would be the USA of course.

So you can't just throw up your arms and refuse to do anything.

I think the intervention in Libya was and continues to be a good thing. We eliminated a dictator and have given the people of Libya a chance to build their own state. Did it work out great? Well, the dictator is gone, it seemed OK for a while, it is falling into sectarian fighting now . . . but the ultimate fate? Well it is up to them. Tunisia overthrew its autocratic ruler and has become a pretty good success. Egypt is still a big question mark . . . I think it is still in transition.

We have a massive powerful military with unmatched capabilities. We pay a lot of money for it whether we use it or not. And when we can use it to help some thousands of people that may be exterminated in a genocide then we should do it. Will the end result be good? I don't know but at least those people will get a chance as opposed to a certain death. By using air power in conjunction with the Kurds on the ground, I think we can certainly smack ISIS pretty hard. But can we completely defeat them from the air? No. But like in Libya, if the locals want to defeat the local evil and just need our help in the air, then I say "bombs away".

I also find your lack of faith in any middle-east government being successful a bit racist. Do these attempts at democracy always go smoothly? No, almost never. I think they'll all go through a lot of growing pains including local political violence. It has ever been. Heck, we STILL have spasms of fringe political violence in the USA and Europe every year so I don't see how you can expect the middle-east to quickly become peaceful Jeffersonian democracies, especially coming from a long past of dictatorship.

What an ignorant and offensive charge. A lot of the strife in the Middle East can be traced back to ridiculous borders being drawn by the British and interventions from the UK and US. It's not racist to say democracy doesn't work everywhere, or that we have more than a century of Middle East intervention to look back on and see nothing but failure. Let them settle their own affairs and protect (or not protect) their own people, it's not our concern.

Libya is not better off. Iraq is certainly not better off now than it was under Saddam. Afghanistan is Afghanistan.

With respect to Dr. Pangloss, where is the middle ground here when the only way to defeat ISIL is to arm the Kurds or Iraqis (both of which either won't work at all or will have middling impact), or to use US troops? Airstrikes aren't going to solve this, and within weeks or months we'll have another humanitarian "crisis" that we feel obligated to prevent, as the media beats the war drums.

 

[benjipwns]

We helped this one country gain independence from a dictator but then they later had a really bloody civil war . . . however, it ultimately it worked out very well.

Spoiler

That country would be the USA of course.

So you can't just throw up your arms and refuse to do anything.

The Parliament of Great Britain was as a democratically elected body as Congress would be initially.

The Stamp Act and Townshend Acts were legislation passed by Parliament. The North Ministry initially came to power in part because of the outcry and repealed Townshend before passing the Intolerable Acts in response to the Tea Party.

Indeed, North lost a motion of no confidence after Yorktown and resigned as PM.

 

[benjipwns]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/09/w...-drove-white-house-to-airstrikes-in-iraq.html

Looming over that discussion, and the decision to return the United States to a war Mr. Obama had built his political career disparaging, was the specter of an earlier tragedy: the September 2012 attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, which killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, and has become a potent symbol of weakness for critics of the president.

...

“We have an embassy in Baghdad, we have a consulate in Erbil, and we have to make sure that they are not threatened,” Mr. Obama said in an interview on Friday with Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times. “Part of the rationale for the announcement yesterday was an encroachment close enough to Erbil that it would justify us taking shots.”

So he finally admits it. Looks like this Presidency is over.

 

[Amir0x]

oh benji

 

[Owzers]

McCain really is going to be on every sunday show, already on CNN now.

 

[Tamanon]

I don't even know why they invite McCain any more. Can just replay footage from any of his past appearances. His opinion of President Obama's handling of Iraq is pretty well-known.

 

[Owzers]

I don't even know why they invite McCain any more. Can just replay footage from any of his past appearances. His opinion of President Obama's handling of Iraq is pretty well-known.

Candy Crowley on CNN at the end of the interview, just now, ran through reasons she invites McCain on since she said viewers ask her about it.

 

[Joe Molotov]

Candy Crowley on CNN at the end of the interview, just now, ran through reasons she invites McCain on since she said viewers ask her about it.

And what were they?

 

[Owzers]

And what were they?

Only thing i remember was always answered her questions.

Apparently the latest airstrikes helped the Kurds open a road off the north side of the mountain to get people out. McCain's answer about the effectiveness of the airstrikes, since before he said it was worse than nothing, was essentially that he didn't know what the latest airstrikes did.

 

[Diablos]

Regarding Ige winning: eh, who cares? Abercrombie is a dinosaur when it comes to state politics and HI will still have a Democrat for a Governor, no chance in hell his seat is up for grabs for any other party.

That said, I do have a lot of respect for Abercrombie's positions over the years, both as a Congressman and Governor. He was way, way ahead of the curve. Props.

 

[Joe Molotov]

Only thing i remember was always answered her questions.

I figure the real reason is that the octogenarians that make up the core Sunday morning demographic find that hot young stud irresistible.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Hawai'i's internecine battle is coming down the pike:

Interesting that Obama didn't help a family friend he's known since he was a child.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/

PDs girl says Obama doesn't have a foreign policy

 

[Diablos]

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/

PDs girl says Obama doesn't have a foreign policy

She's gonna have to distance herself from Obama especially if his approval continues to tank.

That said,

“I think Israel did what it had to do to respond to the rockets,” she told me. “Israel has a right to defend itself. The steps Hamas has taken to embed rockets and command-and-control facilities and tunnel entrances in civilian areas, this makes a response by Israel difficult.”

I asked her if she believed that Israel had done enough to prevent the deaths of children and other innocent people.

“[J]ust as we try to do in the United States and be as careful as possible in going after targets to avoid civilians,” mistakes are made, she said. “We’ve made them. I don’t know a nation, no matter what its values are—and I think that democratic nations have demonstrably better values in a conflict position—that hasn’t made errors, but ultimately the responsibility rests with Hamas.”

smdh

 

[PhoenixDark]

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/

PDs girl says Obama doesn't have a foreign policy

Does he?

Although I will say that we actually did arm Syrian rebels, and if anything helped create ISIS it was that. I'd love to see Rand Paul get the GOP nomination just so we can see two vastly different foreign policy visions on the table for once. Sadly I think it would highlight that the US people don't really give a shit about peace or avoiding conflicts - the appeal of "strength" always wins out, even after a fucking decade of that strategy not working.

 

[Owzers]

Does he?

Although I will say that we actually did arm Syrian rebels, and if anything helped create ISIS it was that. I'd love to see Rand Paul get the GOP nomination just so we can see two vastly different foreign policy visions on the table for once. Sadly I think it would highlight that the US people don't really give a shit about peace or avoiding conflicts - the appeal of "strength" always wins out, even after a fucking decade of that strategy not working.

by the time the GOP primaries get here Rand Paul will be for invading Iraq again. :/

 

[Particle Physicist]

Its because literally nothing has happened politically these past 4 years and nothing will happen these next 2

Republicans have also manufactured a billion fake scandals and no one knows which fake scandal they should be fake upset about the most.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Let them settle their own affairs and protect (or not protect) their own people, it's not our concern.

This begs the question of how you do you feel about how Rwanda was handled?

Libya is not better off. Iraq is certainly not better off now than it was under Saddam. Afghanistan is Afghanistan.

This comes off as very patronizing and is easy to say from your armchair in the US. You clearly are ignorant about why this is all happening. If people where so better off before in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc., then why have the green revolution at all? Clearly the people who live there did not like what they had and wanted reforms. I guess it's their fault they had autocratic regimes. For all your talk of the West meddling, Assad was not backed by the West and neither was Gaddafi.

With respect to Dr. Pangloss, where is the middle ground here when the only way to defeat ISIL is to arm the Kurds or Iraqis (both of which either won't work at all or will have middling impact), or to use US troops? Airstrikes aren't going to solve this, and within weeks or months we'll have another humanitarian "crisis" that we feel obligated to prevent, as the media beats the war drums.

Who is talking about a complete solution? Why should that define our objectives? Please spell out for me why we should sacrifice the good for the perfect.

 

[speculawyer]

I don't even know why they invite McCain any more. Can just replay footage from any of his past appearances. His opinion of President Obama's handling of Iraq is pretty well-known.

And I don't even know who is constituency any more besides Lindsay Graham. Go read the comments after news articles on John McCain and he is pretty disliked from both the left AND the right. Everyone just wants him to retire.

 

[speculawyer]

The Parliament of Great Britain was as a democratically elected body as Congress would be initially.

The Stamp Act and Townshend Acts were legislation passed by Parliament. The North Ministry initially came to power in part because of the outcry and repealed Townshend before passing the Intolerable Acts in response to the Tea Party.

Indeed, North lost a motion of no confidence after Yorktown and resigned as PM.

Someone please deport this traitor.

Spoiler

;-)