• 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 2016 |OT4| Tyler New Chief Exit Pollster at CNN

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Abinash117

Member
shinra-bansho said:
Another mod (whom I respect very much) essentially drew the line at genocide being underway or about to take place, as warranting the intervention of the international community. But a non-systemic mass murder would not necessarily warrant action. I'm not sure I fully agreed. Although my view is there are other levers of power that can sometimes be used in lieu.

The problem I find is that people who are critical of current or past policy aren't actually readily willing or able to articulate their own views on when the use of force to intervene in sovereign territories is sufficiently justified. If ever.

"I'm for peace." Cool bananas. What does that even mean. So am I, that's a platitude not a policy position.
Click to expand...

What would be considered genocide ? In Syria the government is alleged to have committed mass torture and killings that could be amounted to genocide http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...crimes-gruesome-torture-deaths/8491454979690/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35521801

If anything a state or government can be more effective at committing genocide, at that point should we intervention? Which would mean we have to topple the governments in those countries. What if another country decides to ally with that government in some fashion? What if the "international community" doesn't get on board?

I feel people are so caught up of what they feel what needs to be done the correct way, which in turn means things are done so slowly the issue becomes worse. I agree that saying that I'm for peace is a platitude. Like well no shit that "I'm for peace" who fucking isn't? It is a safe answer that doesn't mean anything. I think people really needs to think about what exactly what is that they want for the world to be "peaceful" and what exactly the US should do if something goes down in a country that can spread to other countries ( terrorist groups) and the countries that aids them. That also means what should the US should do with it's military because a weak military won't stop ISIS, but some wants to cut funding if it is a lot, then how would it exactly would it effect the war?

So why only stop a "genocide", mass murder usually comes from a corrupt government I can guarantee that that wouldn't be the only mass murder the government will do.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Abinash117 said:
What would be considered genocide ? In Syria the government is alleged to have committed mass torture and killings that could be amounted to genocide http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...crimes-gruesome-torture-deaths/8491454979690/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35521801

If anything a state or government can be more effective at committing genocide, at that point should we intervention? Which would mean we have to topple the governments in those countries. What if another country decides to ally with that government in some fashion? What if the "international community" doesn't get on board?

I feel people are so caught up of what they feel what needs to be done the correct way, which in turn means things are done so slowly the issue becomes worse. I agree that saying that I'm for peace is a platitude. Like well no shit that "I'm for peace" who fucking isn't? It is a safe answer that doesn't mean anything. I think people really needs to think about what exactly what is that they want for the world to be "peaceful" and what exactly the US should do if something goes down in a country that can spread to other countries ( terrorist groups) and the countries that aids them. That also means what should the US should do with it's military because a weak military won't stop ISIS, but some wants to cut funding if it is a lot, then how would it exactly would it effect the war?

So why only stop a "genocide", mass murder usually comes from a corrupt government I can guarantee that that wouldn't be the only mass murder the government will do.
Click to expand...

Problem is that the last time we intervened in a country committing mass murder, we ended up with a bigger group of mass murderers in charge. That's the problem - that the platitudes are generally "we should do something!" and then the actual result is "even crazier and worse shit". The reason you take your time is that history has shown repeatedly, over and over, that speed without thought generally leads to even more death.
 
H

Holmes

Member
I hate people who boycott whole states because of horrible laws passed by their legislatures, like the NC bill or that anti-immigrant bill in Arizona a few years ago. The people in the state shouldn't suffer for the actions of their horrible government, especially the ones who are already being oppressed by it. Go to the state, do your show, and then donate some of the proceeds to local causes, like LGBT rights groups in NC or pro-immigration groups in AZ.
 
J

Jimmy King

Member
Holmes said:
I hate people who boycott whole states because of horrible laws passed by their legislatures, like the NC bill or that anti-immigrant bill in Arizona a few years ago. The people in the state shouldn't suffer for the actions of their horrible government, especially the ones who are already being oppressed by it. Go to the state, do your show, and then donate some of the proceeds to local causes, like LGBT rights groups in NC or pro-immigration groups in AZ.
Click to expand...

It can hurt revenue for that state though, which is something those with power actually give a shit about. It also gets more (free) publicity.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
DailyKos Elections write up about the upcoming Wisconsin redistricting case being able to set precedent for fair districting guidelines gets me pretty excited at the prospect of fair House elections happening over the next decade.

And what better site to serve as ground zero for that fight than Walkerland.

Should Democrats gain power again they'd be wise to set up some federal rules regarding redistricting.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
Cybit said:
Problem is that the last time we intervened in a country committing mass murder, we ended up with a bigger group of mass murderers in charge. That's the problem - that the platitudes are generally "we should do something!" and then the actual result is "even crazier and worse shit". The reason you take your time is that history has shown repeatedly, over and over, that speed without thought generally leads to even more death.
Click to expand...

What exactly the example are you referring too? The rise of ISIS has something to do with US involvement of the Iraq war and the Syrian civil war with jihadists going there. The US involvement part is partially post-invasion and how the Bush handle the new government( they laid off thousands of former government officials I think). Libya has something to do with complete abandonment . Regardless, to me it is more do intervention right than don't do it at all, because at that point you could get a Rwanda. If thousands die because no one cared to get involved, what would you feel? Would you care? If you fuck you figure it out to not fuck up again.

But yes of course you need to figure things out things before you jump in, but I don't think US just do it for shits n giggles the officials do think about it of course, but intelligence is sometimes crappy or they made bad assumptions( not really talking about Iraq here) .
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
ciaossu said:
Would you feel differently if it were Ted Cruz in first place? And if so, why
Click to expand...

Yes, because Trump is a uniquely terrible candidate. From his lack of principles to his willful ignorance to his racist, sexist, and other unacceptable comments--nobody's as bad as Trump. He's also unique in the amount of opposition he engenders among large swaths of Republican voters. There's a reason #NeverTrump is a thing in a way that #NeverRomney never would have been. Rejecting Trump despite a plurality of delegates is really just giving effect to the majority's votes for Not Trump.
 
B

Bowdz

Member
Aaron Strife said:
DailyKos Elections write up about the upcoming Wisconsin redistricting case being able to set precedent for fair districting guidelines gets me pretty excited at the prospect of fair House elections happening over the next decade.

And what better site to serve as ground zero for that fight than Walkerland.

Should Democrats gain power again they'd be wise to set up some federal rules regarding redistricting.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If Dems retake the house and Senate, campaign finance reform/non partisan districting/universal voter registration should be the first thing they RAM through. Just RAM it through.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
Metaphoreus said:
Yes, because Trump is a uniquely terrible candidate. From his lack of principles to his willful ignorance to his racist, sexist, and other unacceptable comments--nobody's as bad as Trump. He's also unique in the amount of opposition he engenders among large swaths of Republican voters. There's a reason #NeverTrump is a thing in a way that #NeverRomney never would have been. Rejecting Trump despite a plurality of delegates is really just giving effect to the majority's votes for Not Trump.
Click to expand...

Cruz is arguably worse
 
H

Holmes

Member
B-Dubs said:
This all seems about right.
Click to expand...
I think Clinton exceeds her 2008 numbers in NYC and Long Island/burbs, and wins in Albany, Rochester, Buffalo, and maybe a few upstate counties here and there that'll keep the upstate margin between the two close, but the county map upstate will have more Sanders wins than Clinton wins, especially in the western counties that border on Appalachia.

Something like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_gubernatorial_election,_2014

Only replace the wins in north country (which should be easy Sanders wins) with a win in Suffolk county.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Metaphoreus said:
Yes, because Trump is a uniquely terrible candidate. From his lack of principles to his willful ignorance to his racist, sexist, and other unacceptable comments--nobody's as bad as Trump. He's also unique in the amount of opposition he engenders among large swaths of Republican voters. There's a reason #NeverTrump is a thing in a way that #NeverRomney never would have been. Rejecting Trump despite a plurality of delegates is really just giving effect to the majority's votes for Not Trump.
Click to expand...

I think Cruz is worse than Trump. Imagine that.
 
R

Retromelon

Member
Ny's closed primary rules are so moronic as to make one fume. After all these months, to be disenfranchised at the polling booth!

what was it all for...nothing.
 
E

Effect

Member
So what's going on with this Deblasio thing. Read part of the thread on OT but haven't been in the mood this afternoon/evening for the madness that is OT in general. How bad was this? Apologies offered? Not a issue?
 
Wag

Wag

Member
Macho Madness said:
Ivanka Trump can't vote in the primary.

wJDlsBk.png
Click to expand...

Hahahaha! This is particularly embarrassing considering Ivanka has been doing campaign videos all over the country for her father telling people to get out and register Republican. 😂
 
U

User 406

Banned
Welp, I just put a casserole dish full of perogies, onions, and butter into the oven. Figure it'll be about done by the time I finally finish reading that enormous fucking interview. Thanks Hillary.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Abinash117 said:
What exactly the example are you referring too? The rise of ISIS has something to do with US involvement of the Iraq war and the Syrian civil war with jihadists going there. The US involvement part is partially post-invasion and how the Bush handle the new government( they laid off thousands of former government officials I think). Libya has something to do with complete abandonment . Regardless, to me it is more do intervention right than don't do it at all, because at that point you could get a Rwanda. If thousands die because no one cared to get involved, what would you feel? Would you care? If you fuck you figure it out to not fuck up again.

But yes of course you need to figure things out things before you jump in, but I don't think US just do it for shits n giggles the officials do think about it of course, but intelligence is sometimes crappy or they made bad assumptions( not really talking about Iraq here) .
Click to expand...

You could add our shadow involvement in creating the modern Middle East to fight communism, or that we are the ones who trained and equipped Afghanistan to fight Russia (and then had those weapons used against us and the Afghan population). You could also add our involvement in Central America and South America in empowering dictators there.

The problem is that ok; you go in and protect the citizens. If you stay (especially in areas where we are not particularly well liked); you end up having situations like Iraq or Afghanistan (which is slowly reverting back to where it was); if you leave - you end up with Libya or Egypt; if you try the aerial thing - you may get Kosovo or you may get Syria. The real issue is this weird belief that you can fix decades or centuries of instability and cultural, social, geographic, political, etc issues just because we got the biggest fucking guns. Congratulations. That does jack shit unless you're going to take over the country for good for a long ass time.

Think of a local version - Chicago. At some points; Chicago was having more killings per day than Baghdad. The equivalent of your response would be to send the US military into Chicago, kick everyone in power out, and then "fix" things in some magical way. But we know Chicago's issues are systemic, and rooted in decades of issues. No one thinks it's odd that when the closest thing an American city has had to a dictator (Mayor Daley) left, Chicago went to hell in a handbasket? Sound familiar to anyone?

You cannot fix long-term problems with quick fix solutions.
 
H

Holmes

Member
Sea Manky said:
Welp, I just put a casserole dish full of perogies, onions, and butter into the oven. Figure it'll be about done by the time I finally finish reading that enormous fucking interview. Thanks Hillary.
Click to expand...
You bake your perogies? Is it good? I only ever fry them.
 
H

hawk2025

Member
Frankly, I only think that interview could have been better if she had also endorsed the wonders of Mochi ice cream balls.


Retromelon said:
well im still going to vote..just in the republican primary now
Click to expand...

Wait, you were a registered Republican before wanting to vote for Sanders?

Who did you support in previous elections?
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
ivysaur12 said:
He probably has a higher ceiling but lower potential floor than Trump, electorally.
Click to expand...

I think it's actually the opposite - Trump has a higher ceiling and lower floor, versus Cruz. (see the most recent Keepin' it 1600 for a more eloquent explanation of why than I could ever state).

Cruz is throwing the check down on 3rd and 10. Trump is going for the Hail Mary.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Cybit said:
I think it's actually the opposite - Trump has a higher ceiling and lower floor, versus Cruz. (see the most recent Keepin' it 1600 for a more eloquent explanation of why than I could ever state).

Cruz is throwing the check down on 3rd and 10. Trump is going for the Hail Mary.
Click to expand...

I meant the opposite. Goddamit.
 
C

Cesare Borgia

Banned
jtb said:
If Trump wins a plurality, but not a majority, of votes and/or delegates in the GOP race and he doesn't get the nomination -- that would be even more destructive to the party than just nominating Trump imo. I remember Lindsey Graham saying something to similar effect when David Axelrod interviewed him.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. If the GOP nominates a blatant bigot, racist, sexist/misogynist fool like Donald Trump it will do catastrophic damage to the brand. The republican party will be the "party of Trump" for a very long time, and it will likely kill any short term (ie next 4-8 years) ability to attract minority or female voters. The only somewhat comparable example I can think of is Jimmy Carter. Think about how his alleged weakness and fecklessness framed the democrat party for more than a decade; even today republicans are generally more trusted in foreign policy. Obviously comparing an actual president to a nominee isn't a direct 1:1 but I believe this is a special case due to how noteworthy Donald Trump is. He's not Barry Goldwater (or Ted Cruz) or some other guy with a low-ish national profile who can be forgotten by history. Trump commands a lot of name ID and is relatively well known across generations. He's the perfect loser to frame the republican for decades with as the party of bigotry, the past, anger, etc.

If you're a 14 year old Hispanic today you're going to associate republicans with Trump for a very long time, and in four years when you're 18 the chance of a new republican nominee winning you over is nil. We're talking colossal brand damage here.

On the flip side if republicans steal the nomination from Trump...yes it will result in a major 2016 loss and impact the 2020 nomination process...but ultimately it will not destroy the brand. Establishment republicans are already hated by the base, I don't see how ending Trump will make things much worse for them. Especially if they do the right thing and hand the nomination to Cruz, who at least is the base's guy. If they hand the nom to Romney sure, that would be a problem.
 
E

Effect

Member
Macho Madness said:
Of course there's a thread about that lol
Click to expand...
So not a big deal? For me personally I've not found that phrase a problem in the past but I'm black. Or maybe I did but haven't heard it in a long time. I don't know the make up of the audience. How they responded. I do know what his family is like though. However OT will blow up the smallest things (also don't see an article on huffpost which did make one about Bill Clinton pretty fast the other day.) and I'm not able to cut through some of this at the moment due to being sick and a little out of it.
 
I

Iolo

Member
Cybit said:
If he keeps raising the amount of money he has been - his campaign isn't reporting debts and Sanders himself frankly isn't wealthy enough to do the "donate money to his own campaign" thing that usually leads to debt. That's usually what burns through the end of the money.
Click to expand...

This is where the rest of the money is going to go: California.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Defying opinion polls and expert predictions, Democratic hopeful Bernie Sanders aims to seize the party's White House nomination from Hillary Clinton's grasp with a last-ditch come-from-behind triumph in California.

By far the most populous U.S. state, California is the largest prize of the state-by-state nominating contests, and the vote on June 7 is one of the last before Democrats convene in July to select a nominee for the Nov. 8 presidential election.

An aggressive schedule of large rallies is planned along with heavy purchases of TV, radio and online advertising in three languages and a "far, far more expensive" campaign effort than in any other state, Sanders campaign sources disclosed.
Click to expand...

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0X80Y1
 
V

vicissitudes

Banned
Cesare Borgia said:
I don't know about that. If the GOP nominates a blatant bigot, racist, sexist/misogynist fool like Donald Trump it will do catastrophic damage to the brand. The republican party will be the "party of Trump" for a very long time, and it will likely kill any short term (ie next 4-8 years) ability to attract minority or female voters. The only somewhat comparable example I can think of is Jimmy Carter. Think about how his alleged weakness and fecklessness framed the democrat party for more than a decade; even today republicans are generally more trusted in foreign policy. Obviously comparing an actual president to a nominee isn't a direct 1:1 but I believe this is a special case due to how noteworthy Donald Trump is. He's not Barry Goldwater (or Ted Cruz) or some other guy with a low-ish national profile who can be forgotten by history. Trump commands a lot of name ID and is relatively well known across generations. He's the perfect loser to frame the republican for decades with as the party of bigotry, the past, anger, etc.

If you're a 14 year old Hispanic today you're going to associate republicans with Trump for a very long time, and in four years when you're 18 the chance of a new republican nominee winning you over is nil. We're talking colossal brand damage here.

On the flip side if republicans steal the nomination from Trump...yes it will result in a major 2016 loss and impact the 2020 nomination process...but ultimately it will not destroy the brand. Establishment republicans are already hated by the base, I don't see how ending Trump will make things much worse for them. Especially if they do the right thing and hand the nomination to Cruz, who at least is the base's guy. If they hand the nom to Romney sure, that would be a problem.
Click to expand...

The "party of Trump" is infinitely better than whatever it's been running on for the past 20 years or so. After the thumping it got in 2008 and 2012 the GOP needs to rebrand. The GOP have not been able to attract women or minorities even before Trump. On the other hand, Trump will bring in new white voters who were not active in the political process. Not to mention, as more and more women are getting college educations than ever before, I believe they will start voting Republican in larger numbers.
 
M

Macho Madness

Member
Effect said:
So not a big deal? For me personally I've not found that phrase a problem in the past but I'm black. I don't know the make up of the audience. How they responded. I do know what his family is like though. However OT will blow up the smallest things and I'm not able to cut through some of this at the moment due to being sick and a little out of it.
Click to expand...

I don't know I don't live in NYC and therefore basically have no opinion of DeBlasio.

I'm also a white dude so I also don't know what's offensive or not!

To me, it came off as not funny more than racist.
 
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
  • 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 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom