Macho Madness
Member
Not that I particularly care about Bernie's taxes but "We can't find them" is like the silliest reason not to release the tax returns and that's what Jane just said.
-
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
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
NYCmetsfan
Banned
This dude at this Hillary event is wearing Adams avatar. #yasqueen
Seriously when you work with lots of white people and live with lots of white people who constantly shit on Deblasio for making the city LESS SAFE and flooding with homeless people when every statistic says exactly the opposite, it just grates on you to see people take whatever opportunity they can to shit on him despite all the good he does for lower income residents both white and black and other in this city.
Seeing him attacked from the left is nauseating. Ask for an apology, but pretending he is a racist is really eating your own.
Seeing him attacked from the left is nauseating. Ask for an apology, but pretending he is a racist is really eating your own.
Macho Madness
Member
You're allowed no fuck ups.
Except when your dude votes on a bill he then uses to attack his opponent for supporting
Macho Madness
Member
NeoXChaos is a mess
IRMess. At least Hillary knows where her incriminating emails are.
Plot twist: they forgot to file for 2015 in all the excitement.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
I wonder what Bernie supporters would be saying about Hillary if she didn't release her taxes and claimed she couldn't find them..
Abinash117
Member
What are you talking about leaving in Egypt ? There was never an occupation there, and the uprising really has very little to do with the US besides the standard " We urge peace" or " Step down" . The guy there was kicked out because of the Arab Spring. You kind of have a point during the times of the Cold War, but the US policy then was to fight Communism were ever so any and all goals was to get rid of it and stop the spread regardless of the later repercussions. I think you are making some mistakes with the examples. Besides Egypt, Syria was started because of the Arab Spring and the air campaign happened 3 years later and it is solely to fight ISIS, and we pulled out of Iraq and then went back in because of ISIS.
In some of those examples the goal isn't necessary is to fix anything. Libya,Syria, Kosovo there was no fix, the intervention was to stop. After that the people there decides their future or whatever. That was suppose to happen in Libya, but that failed. Again the issue I see is doing the post intervention right, each place has done it differently after the intervention, but there were many issues. Again the solutions are not appearing especially in a Rwanda or ISIS situation. Unless the solution is to not get involved . The original argument I was making is how do you go about intervening in a scenario that can turn to a Rwanda one that happens by not getting involved. Should we or should we not? If we should how exactly do you do it? If you want peace in the world how would you stop genocides from happening? If we shouldn't well are you willing to deal with the deaths of thousands?
The Chicago example is pretty stupid. Unless the mayor was actively causing genocide and there was an actual war going on with killings caused by the government/terrorists hands I would see it being comparable. The fact there is a lot of murders is not even the reason to get involved.
excelsiorlef
Member
Given the out roar about transcripts they'd probably say the FBI should investigate her for tax fraud too because obviously she's hiding something.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
What race? lol
It's only a question if Trump get's an outright majority or a plurality of delegates.
What if Bernie is in the Panama leak.
So what you are saying is that the files are INSIDE the computer?
Ps: that s a terrible terrible cop out.
Terrible
Macho Madness
Member
Meh Steve Kornwhacky you are not Rachel and wow Ted Cruz in Calfornia nope not tonight
maabus1999
Member
I still wonder how many of the under 30 crowd though either registered in time, or changed affiliations since A.) New voter registration was pretty minimal and B.) Younger voters have claimed to be "independent" as an affiliation at much higher rates than previous generations.
And this dude had the nerve to call for Hillary's speech transcripts?
Macho Madness
Member
Sad!
This new Tesseract, I like him.
Who wants to watch that sadness?
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Has the answer to that question ever been yes?
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Which is still a more interesting unknown than if Hillary wins with 55% or 60% of delegates.
Abinash117
Member
I don't think that is a major issue. Most of Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary anyway and most don't even dislike her. The ones that do probably are independent and are in it because Bernie. If Bernie didn't even run they probably wouldn't have voted anyway. I always thought that part of Bernie's coalition are people that are anti-establishment, really liberal democrats and independents( a lot tend be young), and people that are blue-collar workers( they tend to be older ) or people that don't much money, but are aren't totally poor. That last group probably makes up a huge deal of his support, but these people aren't on the net. This group will most likely vote for Hillary.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Yes, his strength is in no one paying attention to him.
The strategy is to win by default as all others prove to be unlikable.
It's taking longer than expected but the strategy is still a go.
Macho Madness
Member
Kasich is doing so well that he hasn't earned a single delegate in a month.
Sad!
Sad!
who?
Macho Madness
Member
I'm glad Scalia dead
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Or he won the majority of the delegates in the last month, we just don't know it yet.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
I'm not a Republican, but Kasich's presence pisses me off so much. He literally can't win unless the nomination is stolen for him. Honestly, I wonder if him still being here is riling up more of the Cruz/Trump people.
And I had to google
bing
User 463088
Banned
I'm glad Kasich is still running.
Keeps his ass out of Ohio.
Win freaking win baby.
But then I have flashbacks to him eating soup. That's something I will never, ever be able to forget.
Keeps his ass out of Ohio.
Win freaking win baby.
But then I have flashbacks to him eating soup. That's something I will never, ever be able to forget.
I think you're beautiful
User 463088
Banned
I'm sorry. Do you want cake? My mom made cake and she's too sloshed to eat it. : hugs :
Nah. I have wine.
There are downsides to purity tests, unfortunately. Basically, even the left is not immune to being attacked by their own outrage machines.
My understanding is that the US was putting a lot of diplomatic pressure on Egypt that caused him to step down.
The biggest example is Iraq in terms of direct intervention to "protect the citizens"; and I'm not sure we really did it for totally humanitarian reasons.
Some of the recent examples aren't the best - but they are the best we have to use in modern times, especially post-Iraq.
Going to the original point, which is, "how do we intervene in a situation that may turn into Rwanda 2.0" - and I think the problem is that right now, on a purely military sense, we can intervene just fine. Airstrikes, troop deployments, counter-intelligence, etc - we're fine on that part. But the reason the post-intervention is so hard is because often times the precipitating causes of said terrible event are something that is ingrained in the country. Take Iraq for example. On a basic level, Iraq shouldn't be a single country. It is three countries smushed into one. Iraq wasn't formed organically; it was formed by Europe a long time ago, who had no concerns for regional stability.
Fundamentally, that's where the issues lie.
Maybe it comes down to a situation where we can only protect them, and then once that happens, we have to let them fall. I don't like the idea of sitting back - but history has shown that when we interfere, we, ultimately, cause more deaths. At some point, you have to realize that as good as your intentions are, they will lead to worse things. I think the US can't be the police of the world. If we can't tackle the fundamental issues causing the divisiveness; we're just delaying the inevitable. In a lot of cases, tackling those issues would be require breaching the sovereignty of the country; which is in of itself an even more dangerous path. That's basically the "we know what's best for you" argument that they used during colonialism. From what I remember - generally regional powers can often lead to much better end results - but then that really puts us in a position of being someone else's hammer when called upon. (Why I think Kosovo worked out better is because the entire region was invested in a solution). When it comes to some parts of the world - the local powers give no crap about making the situation better. I don't think it works without the regional powers being genuinely invested - and if they're not; I think we have enough evidence that foreign involvement, even with the best intentions, leads to larger issues down the road, unless we are willing to remove that area's self-determination.
The shame of not winning his own state is too much.
User 463088
Banned
You know what goes well with wine?
CAKE!
If I eat this whole cake, I'll judge myself really, really harshly.
Hobbestetrician
Member
Is it going in or coming out?
Manky use this as your avatar.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked