• 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 2015 |OT2| Pls print

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Iolo

Member
adamsappel said:
There's a post in the Confessember thread of someone admitting they aren't really as gung-ho for Bernie as they claim in PoliGAF but are stuck playing the character. I think you just overplayed your hand.
Click to expand...

No, there are not enough commas in the confessor post. I think Daniel B is on the level.
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
So I missed it during the debate and I guess it's a phrasing nuance thing, but this climate change => ISIL/Syrian war thing is really as wtf as the 9/11 => Wall St donations thing.
 
M

Makai

Member
That debate thread is something else. Is there normally this much in-fighting?

Ctrl + F "fuck"

p. 38 -18 matches
p. 39 - 25 matches
p. 40 - 18 matches
 
U

User 463088

Banned
shinra-bansho said:
So I missed it during the debate and I guess it's a phrasing nuance thing, but this climate change => ISIL/Syrian war thing is really as wtf as the 9/11 => Wall St donations thing.
Click to expand...

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who caught that. I had to listen to it again to make sure that I heard him correctly.

As to the 9/11 thing, I think I get what Hillary was going for. Her argument is that, as a Senator from New York, she had to represent all of her large, fairly diverse state. She may receive donations from those who work on Wall Street because they respect the way she helped them rebuild after 9/11. It's not a great argument. It's kinda circular and a bit too reliant on "Noun, verb, 9/11" but there could be a point in there. Maybe. But you gotta squint REAL hard.

I'd simplify it and just say "Yes, some people who work on Wall Street make donations to my campaign. As do nurses. And teachers. And farmers. They understand that I am committed to strengthening the middle class. They may not agree with me on everything, including how I want to crack down on the abuses of Wall Street, but they know I'll fight for what I believe in." I also would have gotten a dig in by telling Sen Sanders "Those who support me realize that I don't just have one issue at the heart of my campaign. I have many, and reigning in Wall Street is just one of them" But then, I'm a total bitch.
 
B

brainchild

Banned
shinra-bansho said:
So I missed it during the debate and I guess it's a phrasing nuance thing, but this climate change => ISIL/Syrian war thing is really as wtf as the 9/11 => Wall St donations thing.
Click to expand...


It was a big picture answer. To clarify, catastrophic natural disasters tend to lead to international conflict over the economics of natural resources, and international conflict over the economics of natural resources tend to cultivate hostile factions that have influence over said natural resources, which could eventually come to resemble something like ISIS.

I think the problem with his answer is that it made him seem like he was saying that climate change is what gave birth to ISIS, when what he's really saying is that climate change will ultimately increase international conflict, and that such conflict will be the precursor to even more groups like ISIS in the distant future.

Bernie is a long range thinker, as evidenced by his prescient speeches about the consequences that follow the decision to go to war in Iraq. He's certainly right in the grand scheme of things, but he gave the wrong answer at the debate.
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
Scarcity of resources leading to conflict for said resources isn't some grand prescience or novel insight. Making this relatively basic link isn't really the issue.

But global warming isn't a major antecedent of current radical religious ideological extremists. If it even is an antecedent at all. And it still won't be going forward. In the dystopian future it will present in a very different, and more traditional, type of conflict to the issues currently being faced.

The attempted linkage in response to questions about current non-traditional conflicts that haven't arisen from scarcity, but are ideologically driven and not fought along national bounds, just doesn't work. It comes across as somewhat tone-deaf and an attempt veer questions towards a wheelhouse he's familiar, which in turn doesn't instill confidence that he can handle issues outside it.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
To be fair to Bernie, the Syrian War did start in large part because of extreme drought:

CTzqqtVXIAAU4Hl.jpg


It transformed into a spiritual conflict later.
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
There's a basis as an input into the Syrian civil war, but it's in concert with and/or an exacerbation of a host of other factors. You have the backdrop of things like the Arab spring, already severe inequality and a monstrous corrupt despot in Bashar al-Assad. The authors of the study essentially describe the extreme weather conditions as a catalyst for already percolating civil unrest, rather than necessarily causal to the current situation.

I should repeat, I'm not saying that climate change and/or extreme weather conditions aren't a potential source of conflict, but that I don't think current or past terrorist activity can necessarily be traced back simply, if at all, to such causes. On a related aside, it sometimes feels like there's a reluctance to accept or acknowledge that there is religious ideology underpinning these acts of extremism.
 
D

Diablos

Member
If there's only three candidates we really don't need more debates.

One thing that is really shocking despite Hillary's inevitable nomination is how few viable candidates Democrats have for the Presidency. Other Democrats should be getting their names and faces out there other than the first batch of five that we saw during the first debate.

Granted, it shouldn't be a clown car (GOP) either, but a good 7-8 Democratic candidates would have made more sense. Democrats that are not Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee btw.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Diablos said:
If there's only three candidates we really don't need more debates.

One thing that is really shocking despite Hillary's inevitable nomination is how few viable candidates Democrats have for the Presidency. Other Democrats should be getting their names and faces out there other than the first batch of five that we saw during the first debate.

Granted, it shouldn't be a clown car (GOP) either, but a good 7-8 Democratic candidates would have made more sense. Democrats that are not Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee btw.
Click to expand...

Why, though? I assume most Democrats who could run think that Clinton's too formidable to run against. (I would agree with this.) Why run and risk alienating Clinton supporters? If you think she'll win, you know you won't run for your party's nomination in 2020. So, a run this time basically means you have to hope that people will remember you in 2024. That's definitely playing the very long game. I would think that those who may be interested would be better positioned to try and build their own resume outside "I ran for President, and all I got was beaten by Hillary Clinton!"

There's an argument to be made for positioning yourself for a Veep slot, but I have a feeling, should Hillary win, she already knows who she wants to be on the ticket with her.
 
D

Diablos

Member
adam387 said:
Why, though? I assume most Democrats who could run think that Clinton's too formidable to run against. (I would agree with this.) Why run and risk alienating Clinton supporters? If you think she'll win, you know you won't run for your party's nomination in 2020. So, a run this time basically means you have to hope that people will remember you in 2024. That's definitely playing the very long game. I would think that those who may be interested would be better positioned to try and build their own resume outside "I ran for President, and all I got was beaten by Hillary Clinton!"

There's an argument to be made for positioning yourself for a Veep slot, but I have a feeling, should Hillary win, she already knows who she wants to be on the ticket with her.
Click to expand...
Well besides the obvious (hoping for a VP nom), it looks really cheap... like the party isn't even trying. The GOP on the other hand, crazy as they may be, generate a lot of views and press because they had a big group of candidates, even if the vast majority of them are not electable. I'm not saying Dems should be that extreme, but they need to put themselves out there a little more to make it look like they actually give a shit.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Diablos said:
Well besides the obvious (hoping for a VP nom), it looks really cheap... like the party isn't even trying. The GOP on the other hand, crazy as they may be, generate a lot of views and press because they had a big group of candidates, even if the vast majority of them are not electable. I'm not saying Dems should be that extreme, but they need to put themselves out there a little more to make it look like they actually give a shit.
Click to expand...

It's not the same. Hillary basically scared any otherwise viable candidates to not run. If she weren't in the race, you'd have another 5-10 candidates in this race. That's a testament to how strong she is, not how weak the Dem bench is.
 
B

Butts-a-plenty

Banned
Diablos said:
Well besides the obvious (hoping for a VP nom), it looks really cheap... like the party isn't even trying. The GOP on the other hand, crazy as they may be, generate a lot of views and press because they had a big group of candidates, even if the vast majority of them are not electable. I'm not saying Dems should be that extreme, but they need to put themselves out there a little more to make it look like they actually give a shit.
Click to expand...

Donald Trump is generating at least half of those views.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
CT5akNXUYAAZe2M.png


Teddy, you ugly, miserable fuck, you literally just campaigned with a Christian pastor who said we should kill all the gays. Go fuck a blowup doll made at Three Mile Island and go away.
 
B

Bam Bam Baklava

Member
The last GOP debate was only 13mil and I wouldn't be surprised if it keeps dwindling as all those curious bystanders that wanted to see Trump do something crazy were disappointed that it was the same shit it's always been.

Do people really expect debates for primaries that hardly anyone votes in to be so popular?
 
C

Cerium

Member
Cruz is too anti-immigrant, among other things. Way too far right. I don't see him as a serious general election threat.

The only one that worries me at all is Rubio. The more Trump hammers him on the Gang of Eight stuff, the stronger Rubio will be if he wins the nom.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
CT5akNXUYAAZe2M.png


Teddy, you ugly, miserable fuck, you literally just campaigned with a Christian pastor who said we should kill all the gays. Go fuck a blowup doll made at Three Mile Island and go away.
Click to expand...

You really don't like Ted Cruz. The dude is crazy, but crazy don't win general elections not the last few ones at least .
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
CT5akNXUYAAZe2M.png


Teddy, you ugly, miserable fuck, you literally just campaigned with a Christian pastor who said we should kill all the gays. Go fuck a blowup doll made at Three Mile Island and go away.
Click to expand...

...Haven't there been abortion doctors that were murdered by people with pro-life beliefs who are supposedly Christians?

Aren't there people parts of Africa murdering gay and lesbians who are supposedly of Christian faith?

There's no "if" to it you chucklefuck.
 
B

brainchild

Banned
shinra-bansho said:
Scarcity of resources leading to conflict for said resources isn't some grand prescience or novel insight. Making this relatively basic link isn't really the issue.

But global warming isn't a major antecedent of current radical religious ideological extremists. If it even is an antecedent at all. And it still won't be going forward. In the dystopian future it will present in a very different, and more traditional, type of conflict to the issues currently being faced.

The attempted linkage in response to questions about current non-traditional conflicts that haven't arisen from scarcity, but are ideologically driven and not fought along national bounds, just doesn't work. It comes across as somewhat tone-deaf and an attempt veer questions towards a wheelhouse he's familiar, which in turn doesn't instill confidence that he can handle issues outside it.
Click to expand...

I think some context is in order.

First of all, I never said his response at the debate was prescient. I was referring to his predictions about the long term effects of the war in Iraq. And that was prescient by definition, as those predictions came true.

Anyway, Bernie was questioned about his claim that global warming is the biggest threat to national security by comparing its severity to ISIS/Syria. Bernie then decided to tie it all together in one fell swoop while still sticking to his claim.

If grilled on foreign policy, I can assure you that Bernie wouldn't be blabbering on about global warming. He only did it because it happened to be relevant to the question, not because he believes that addressing global warming will resolve international conflict.
 
D

disastermouse

Banned
Cerium said:
Cruz is too anti-immigrant, among other things. Way too far right. I don't see him as a serious general election threat.

The only one that worries me at all is Rubio. The more Trump hammers him on the Gang of Eight stuff, the stronger Rubio will be if he wins the nom.
Click to expand...
Rubio is trouble. He's charismatic enough to fool a lot of people, especially if they're not paying attention. He's smarter and more articulate than W. was. Thing is - he's young and young looking and the recent ISIS attacks put that in stark relief, IMHO. It's part of the reason he's doing the Sunday show rounds trying to sound smart and decisive regarding foreign policy.
 
B

Bam Bam Baklava

Member
Just saw Lindsey Graham, the hawk of all hawks, is only proposing 10k soldiers be sent to Iraq. Either he's intentionally low-balling the number or he's dreaming if he thinks that's enough to change everything on the ground.
 
D

disastermouse

Banned
Bam Bam Baklava said:
Just saw Lindsey Graham, the hawk of all hawks, is only proposing 10k soldiers be sent to Iraq. Either he's intentionally low-balling the number or he's dreaming if he thinks that's enough to change everything on the ground.
Click to expand...
I think anyone who thinks boots on the ground of any number will fix this threat, they're dreaming.
 
U

User 406

Banned
Bam Bam Baklava said:
Just saw Lindsey Graham, the hawk of all hawks, is only proposing 10k soldiers be sent to Iraq. Either he's intentionally low-balling the number or he's dreaming if he thinks that's enough to change everything on the ground.
Click to expand...

That's just the teaser rate, to get you in. Once you're in, the fees start to go up and additional charges get added. And you've already put that much in, would be a waste to stop part way...
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Nothing's gonna change until the borders are redrawn by the Middle-eastern countries. Which is never.

European imperialist dipshits are responsible for the mess they made over there. Frankly the least they can do is accept the refugees that resulted over their civilizing adventures there.

Side note: did you know that honor killings came from the French Napoleanic code?
The Napoleonic Code of 1804, established under Napoleon Bonaparte, is one of the origins of the legal leniency in regard to adultery related killings in a variety of legal systems in several countries around the world. Under this code, a man who killed his wife whom he caught in the act of adultery could not be charged with premeditated murder – although he could be charged with other lesser offenses. This defense was available only for a husband, not for a wife. The Napoleonic Code has been very influential, and many countries, inspired by it, provided for lesser penalties or even acquittal for such crimes. This can be seen in the criminal codes of many former French colonies.[82][83]
Click to expand...
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
It's time for Obama to make a choice: Lead us or resign
In any time and place, war is fiendishly simple. It is the ultimate zero-sum contest — you win or you lose.

That eternal truth is so obvious that it should not need to be said. Yet even after the horrific slaughter in Paris, there remains a distressing doubt about whether America’s commander in chief gets it.

President Obama has spent the last seven years trying to avoid the world as it is. He has put his intellect and rhetorical skills into the dishonorable service of assigning blame and fudging failure. If nuances were bombs, Islamic State would have been destroyed years ago.

He refuses to say “Islamic terrorism,” as if that would offend the peaceful Muslims who make up the vast bulk of victims. He rejects the word “war,” even as jihadists carry out bloodthirsty attacks against Americans and innocent peoples around the world.

He shuns the mantle of global leadership that comes with the Oval Office, with an aide advancing the preposterous concept that Obama is “leading from behind.” He snubs important partners like Egypt, showers concessions on the apocalyptic mullahs of Iran, and called the Islamic State the “jayvee team” even as it was beginning to create a caliphate.

Having long ago identified American power as a problem, he continues to slash the military as the enemy expands its reach. In a globalized era, the Obama doctrine smacks of cowardly retreat and fanciful isolation.

In an accident of timing that captures his cluelessness, the president actually declared on Friday morning that Islamic State had been “contained,” practically boasting in a TV interview that, “They have not gained ground in Iraq and in Syria.”

What gall. What folly.

Paris is the final straw. Obama’s exemption from reality has expired. He must either commit to leading the free world to victory, or step aside so someone else can.

There is no more time to avoid the truth of war. America must organize the combined forces of the civilized world before Islamic State makes good on its vow to “taste” more American blood.

As a top intelligence adviser told me yesterday, “What they did in Paris means they are coming here.”

In fact, they already are here. Law-enforcement officials say the FBI has as many as 1,000 investigations open into Islamic State sympathizers inside the US.

Is America ready to stop multiple assault teams of suicide bombers? Is New York ready? Or Chicago, Los Angeles or Washington, DC?

Because Paris was a grand success to the terrorists, the propaganda value acts as an incentive for attacks on other western cities. While sparing no effort to stop them here, we must simultaneously destroy them in their foreign bases.

World War III began when Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States, though we did not grasp the significance until 9/11. The collapse of the Twin Towers, a smoking hole in the Pentagon and a downed jetliner in Pennsylvania revealed the price of our inaction.

The single greatest attack ever against America galvanized the nation and defined a new generation of policy makers and warriors.

Yet Obama always remained curiously cool about the whole endeavor, denouncing the invasion of Iraq as dumb while holding up Afghanistan as a necessary war. Once he got to the White House, though, he showed no conviction about Afghanistan either, surging troops only to demand that they return home quickly.

The pattern has never changed, and his relationship with a rotating cast of military leaders remains rocky. Robert Gates, secretary of defense under both President Bush and Obama, said in his memoir that Obama’s distrust of the military was destructive of the very mission he had given the troops.

After a heated 2011 meeting on Afghanistan, Gates concluded that Obama “doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”

Another former military leader, Gen. Jack Keane, notes that Obama never once agreed to the full request of his commanders. If they ask for 10,000 troops, Obama agrees to 5,000, 3,000 or none.

The raid that got bin Laden marked the high point of Obama’s commitment. He turned that achievement into political gold in 2012 and declared the “tide of war is receding” to justify his decision to withdraw from the field of battle.

It was a convenient figment of self-interest, as if his wish would make it true. Instead, the strategic dominos fell quickly as war metastasized. The hard-won gains in Iraq were reversed, Syria descended into hell and Islamic State was born in the vacuum.

Its ruthlessness and success in capturing territory enabled it to supplant al Qaeda as the most dangerous terrorist network. It has become the proverbial “strong horse,” with each terrifying attack bringing more recruits and more financing.

In the last two weeks, it shot down a commercial Russian airliner over Egypt and carried out bombings in Beirut. And then came Paris.

Its ability to inflict unprecedented casualties in such far-flung locations mark a growing strength and sophistication. The terrorists smell weakness and have increased the pace of their aggressive expansion. Their aim of global conquest must be taken seriously.

French President Francois Hollande understands the meaning of Friday’s slaughter. He called it an “act of war” and vowed that “France will not show any pity” against those who carried out the barbaric acts. World leaders quickly expressed their condolences and condemnation.

Yet it remains doubtful if our side is truly committed to winning. The determination and unity the free world showed after 9/11 faded as casualties, mistakes and politics eroded the mission.

So we are back to square one again, facing a stronger and more emboldened enemy. The time has run out for half measures and kicking the can down the road. The enemy must be destroyed on the battlefield before there can be any hope of peace.

If Obama cannot rise to the challenge of leadership in this historic crisis, then, for the good of humanity, he should resign. Those are the only options and it is his duty to decide.
Click to expand...
 
T

TurtleSnatcher

Member
I don't get this 60 minutes interview with Paul Ryan

His wife and him were reluctant on the Speaker role as they didn't want him in the spotlight and wanted to more of a family.

Yet....

He was a VP candidate a few years ago... I don't get it.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
TurtleSnatcher said:
I don't get this 60 minutes interview with Paul Ryan

His wife and him were reluctant on the Speaker role as they didn't want him in the spotlight and wanted to more of a family.

Yet....

He was a VP candidate a few years ago... I don't get it.
Click to expand...
That experience might be the reason for his reluctance.
 
C

Cerium

Member
TurtleSnatcher said:
I don't get this 60 minutes interview with Paul Ryan

His wife and him were reluctant on the Speaker role as they didn't want him in the spotlight and wanted to more of a family.

Yet....

He was a VP candidate a few years ago... I don't get it.
Click to expand...

He'd see more of his family as VP than as a Congressman, because they would all share the Naval Observatory Residence.

You can read about it in Double Down.
 
L

leroidys

Member
RustyNails said:
Nothing's gonna change until the borders are redrawn by the Middle-eastern countries. Which is never.

European imperialist dipshits are responsible for the mess they made over there. Frankly the least they can do is accept the refugees that resulted over their civilizing adventures there.

Side note: did you know that honor killings came from the French Napoleanic code?
Click to expand...

That's a vaaaaaast oversimplification.

EDIT: On both points.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Trump has always led by that much in NH.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom