Support NeoGAF

[Iolo]

Guys stop posting NSFW stuff.

Sorry.

 

[plagiarize]

That sounds... hilarious

Sadly it's pretty hard to find these days for a reasonable price:

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_...aarbürste’s+Novel+of+Roy+Orbison+in+Clingfilm

 

[Y2Kev]

Is the DNC speaking lineup coming out soon? Bernie will not be speaking if this is not resolved so that's sort of the most interesting thing I'm looking at.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Is the DNC speaking lineup coming out soon? Bernie will not be speaking if this is not resolved so that's sort of the most interesting thing I'm looking at.

We'll probably get the speaking lineup the week of the RNC. I need it for my DNC thread.

 

[B-Dubs]

We'll probably get the speaking lineup the week of the RNC. I need it for my DNC thread.

Any idea when the RNC one is coming?

 

[teiresias]

We'll probably get the speaking lineup the week of the RNC. I need it for my DNC thread.

I can't wait to see that list . . . with Sanders name not on it.

 

[ampere]

praise kev. this page was out of control lol

 

[NeoXChaos]

Any idea when the RNC one is coming?

If you go by Trump's word Wednesday. If not by the end of next week.

 

[GutsOfThor]

https://medium.com/@michaelarnovitz/thinking-about-hillary-a-follow-up-2e01a963a632#.u8sdfh1ia

Excerpt, but there's tons more

Thanks for this! So much truth in those two articles.

 

[B-Dubs]

If you go by Trump's word Wednesday. If not by the end of next week.

So next week then :lol

 

[Abinash117]

Terror attacks have nearly tripled under Obama, and the number of people dead from terror attacks has nearly quadrupled.

(By the way, under Bush attacks tripled as well, which leads to the "ninefold" increase since 2000.)

The majority of these increases have come from four primary sources:
- the complete destablization of Syria due to the civil war and the rise of ISIS in the East
- the spilling over of ISIS violence into Iraq that has led to massive casualties
- the resurgence of the Taliban in Pakistan due to their defeat in Afghanistan
- the rise of Boko Haram in Nigeria

Withdrawing from Iraq was a mistake. Letting Bashar al Assad cross the red line with no consequences was a mistake. Not doing anything to help Nigeria combat Boko Haram is a mistake.

The world has seen extensive successes in counterterrorism under Obama. Rebuilding our international relationships has enhanced our information gathering abilities and strengthed our counterterrorism ops in other countries. We eliminated Osama bin Laden and have completely destabilized and degraded al Qaeda to the point of being an afterthought in conversations about global terrorism. There has not been a coordinated terror attack on US soil at all under this president's administration.

But the world is quantifiably more dangerous. The West has seen the most serious and most damaging terror attacks since 9/11 under this administration. At the start of this presidency, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, and even Iraq were functioning countries, but by the end, Libya has seen extreme increases in violence and terrorism, Syria and Yemen are embroiled in civil war (with Syria being among the worst humanitarian crises of the 21st Century), Iraq losing its western countryside and third largest city to ISIS, and only Egypt having any semblance of order due to a military dictatorship supplanting the previous dictatorship.

This is Obama's fault by deviating substantially from what he calls the Washington Playbook, which is more aptly known as the broad consensus of security analysts working in DC.

You may argue fatalistically that the Middle East is doomed, or that we should turn our attention elsewhere, or that the goal of this administration is mostly just to keep us safe and abstain from sticky engagements in the region unnecessarily. But if the goal was ever to make the world safer, then the president has failed.

The jury is still out on whether it is worth the human and financial cost to succeed.

I would necessary blame it on Obama; he really tried to keep out of Middle Eastern wars obviously that failed though and many actions are done to to not get in further conflict or escalate. Although parts of the world is more dangerous right now than before and I believe Hillary Clinton would be a better fit now more than ever. Imo the events in the Middle East has shown that the region can not be ignored. The conflict in the Middle East affected the whole world with the Syrian Civil War and the rise of ISIS.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I don't know exactly how much could have done differently in regards to Syria to stop the carnage.. but..

You said you don't know how, but you just stated how. An intervention on behalf of either side would have been preferable to the chaos that ensued. If Obama doesn't like the US' position as a stabilizing agent in the world then he should have found a suitable replacement.

You can't say something is a mistake just because the consequences were bad. You have to be able to make a reasonable case that the consequences of doing the opposite would be better.

For Iraq and Syria I don't think that case can be made.

That's reasonable to say. I didn't want to write a whole essay on PoliGAF.

Syria: the government lost legitimacy and started using chemical weapons on civilians. And launching artillery on suburbs. So many people have died that the UN stopped counting years ago. We're probably up to 300k dead and over a million displaced. Taking any action to hasten the end of the civil war would have probably accomplished a fair amount. We should have had a no fly zone. Once it was clear that Russia was going to block our proposal for security resolution in the UN, we should have either acted unilaterally or worked with Russia for a long term solution. Just last year, Putin said that Syria's future does not include Assad. There is clearly common ground.

Iraq: Security experts wanted to leave 15k to 20k. Obama wanted to leave 10k, which is worse but it would have been something. Before we sent combat troops back into Iraq we had a residual force of 1.5k. What happened?

Maliki and Obama were BOTH open to leaving forces behind. The reason Obama blames this on Iraq is because he wanted immunity for soldiers, and Maliki couldn't risk it politically. So the talks broke down and Obama settled for his meager 1000 rotating force.

I am certain that the stability of Iraq, especially after the eruption of the Syrian civil war, was far more important than giving soldiers immunity from the laws of the country they're operating in. Doesn't anyone remember Abu Ghraib? It's only fair.

A residual force would have prevented the rise of ISIS in Iraq (and if there was a government left in Syria, there, too) and we wouldn't be talking about them.

So, yes, I think both of those actions would have been much preferable to what we have now. But after Obama found out the UN wasn't going to do anything, he gave up. And after things got tough negotiating with Maliki, he gave up.

I don't think Obama could have done anything better on Iraq; the situation was largely already decided by the time he came to office.

See above. The withdrawal was going to happen but everyone, Obama included, expected a sizable residual force. He could have fought for those ten thousand, but he didn't because he just wanted to leave. In a historical context this is understandable but tactically it was a mistake, and I would even dare to say lazy.

He could have done more in Syria; but it would have meant an immediate intervention in 2011 when the FSA forces under the SNC were at their strongest, and Assad and ISIS relatively at their weakest by comparison. I'm not sure there would have been the public appetite for such a military intervention, so he'd probably have lost the 2012 election, though, making things more complicated again.

No, there's no way the Republicans would have campaigned on "Obama got us in another war!" Not even American voters are that stupid. Most Republicans were gung ho for air strikes, and while most other Americans were not, do you really think Democrats and independents would have voted for Romney instead?

There also was a pretty wide range of options available to the president by the end of 2012. He could have started with a no fly zone. He could have provided sincere material support to the FSA instead of two worthless programs that petered out. He could have negotiated talks with Assad and the FSA. And if Russian opposition was really that strong, we could have negotisted something with Russia. But at the end, all Obama did was say he tried... And watch the flames (or rather, mustard gas).

I think intervening in Syria-- for Americans-- potentially just speeds up the cycle to where we are today. Obviously there is a ton of suffering for Syrians and other neighboring countries that can be avoided (and that is significant...particularly when you look at his rationale for what he did in Libya), but for Americans we seem to primarily be concerned with ISIS to the extent they can carry out terror attacks here (and Europe cares about them to the extent they can carry out attacks in Europe, etc.). ISIS seems to have failed as a state and its capacity to govern is significantly compromised, so now they do the terror attack thing. I don't think you can ever stamp stuff like that out, so I imagine their capacity as a state would just have collapsed earlier and we'd be at a point where Paris happens sooner.

Alternatively, supposing you completely eliminate ISIS, something else just pops up in its place maybe?

These are very good points. I'm also fairly fucking irritated with American thought processes. I can't remember the specific numbers, but I've followed the chaos in Syria fairly closely since it first started and before the '12 elections the American public overwhelmingly did not support airstrikes in Syria... But after ISIS and James Foley, something like a whopping 70% of Americans were in favor of bombing ISIS targets in Syria. Seriously? Seriously? (I used to have the polls on hand because the transition was hilarious to me, but I'm on my phone right now.)

If Americans only care about terrorism sensationalism and not actual instability then I really have nothing to say about that.

However, I disagree with you on the acceleration theory. The factors that led to the rise of ISIS in Eastern Syrian countryside were the long term instability of the Syrian government, the humanitarian crisis, the lack of unity among rebel groups, and the absence of foreign involvement. A strong international response or even a US response would have drastically reduced the period of chaos and not allowed for insurgent groups like al Nusra and ISIL to fester. I think this is very logical.

If you want to see an example, look at Libya. ISIS is barely present there even though there was an entire civil war going since 2014. As recently as March, the Muslim Brotherhood has stepped down in Tripoli and accepted a new UN sanctioned government and it's only a matter of time before the other side accepts the new government too. Once that happens, they'll roam the desert towns and take back the small villages that ISIS has only barely taken over. For all the poopooing by Republicans, Clinton's war in Libya was actually a big fat success.

Disagree on something replacing ISIS. There was no "replacement" for al Qaeda as the dominant terrorism group worldwide until we fucked up in two countries simultaneously and said "have at it, friends" by sitting on our hands and complaining about a prime minister that isn't even in power anymore, and a Russian president that takes shirtless pictures with large animals.

 

[Poodlestrike]

praise kev. this page was out of control lol

Yeah but now it looks like I've got a weird nonsensical double post lol

 

[Wilsongt]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...huma-abedin-clinton-state-schedules-destroyed

Hillary Clinton’s top aide said during a deposition that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee destroyed her schedules as the head of the State Department, according to a new report.

Huma Abedin revealed the information last week during a deposition over Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of State, The New York Post reported Monday.

Poor Huma is going to get indicted and will be Deletary Burntin's fall girl...

 

[Suikoguy]

I thought the nsfw rule was a link with NSFW clearly attached. You mean people were just posting pictures?

Geeze.

 

[Meowster]

People need to decide on their narrative on whether Hillary is an ultra-liberal or a center-right war-hawking conservative.

 

[Hobbestetrician]

People need to decide on their narrative on whether Hillary is an ultra-liberal or a center-right war-hawking conservative.

She is the quantum candidate, filling whatever role in your mind makes it easiest to hate her.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

People need to decide on their narrative on whether Hillary is an ultra-liberal or a center-right war-hawking conservative.

Who? Illuminate your strawmen.

 

[Wilsongt]

People need to decide on their narrative on whether Hillary is an ultra-liberal or a center-right war-hawking conservative.

She's a leftish ultra-war hawk right conservative

 

[Fuchsdh]

I thought there was debate over whether Shakespeare intended for shylock to be sympathetic or not?

I always sympathized with him at least.

Yeah I've never read him as a stereotype, and I've never had a teacher who presented the book that way. He's a vengeful, bitter guy who pretty plainly makes clear why he's that way, and when he's talked out of pursuing vengeance, the Christians turn around and show little of the mercy they've professed. I suppose it's pointless to argue whether Shakespeare intended him to be a multi-faceted and tragic figure or it's merely a later interpretation, but the people arguing Shylock's outright anti-semitic have probably never read or watched it.

 

[User 463088]

Not the best analogy there.

lol adam, that was a bit risqué.

That wasn't intentional. Seriously. I'ma edit it just to be clear that wasn't even CLOSE to what I was getting at. In fact, it never even entered my mind.

But, it's a good object lesson in how idioms have to be used carefully.

 

[Abinash117]

You said you don't know how, but you just stated how. An intervention on behalf of either side would have been preferable to the chaos that ensued. If Obama doesn't like the US' position as a stabilizing agent in the world then he should have found a suitable replacement.



That's reasonable to say. I didn't want to write a whole essay on PoliGAF.

Syria: the government lost legitimacy and started using chemical weapons on civilians. And launching artillery on suburbs. So many people have died that the UN stopped counting years ago. We're probably up to 300k dead and over a million displaced. Taking any action to hasten the end of the civil war would have probably accomplished a fair amount. We should have had a no fly zone. Once it was clear that Russia was going to block our proposal for security resolution in the UN, we should have either acted unilaterally or worked with Russia for a long term solution. Just last year, Putin said that Syria's future does not include Assad. There is clearly common ground.

Iraq: Security experts wanted to leave 15k to 20k. Obama wanted to leave 10k, which is worse but it would have been something. Before we sent combat troops back into Iraq we had a residual force of 1.5k. What happened?

Maliki and Obama were BOTH open to leaving forces behind. The reason Obama blames this on Iraq is because he wanted immunity for soldiers, and Maliki couldn't risk it politically. So the talks broke down and Obama settled for his meager 1000 rotating force.

I am certain that the stability of Iraq, especially after the eruption of the Syrian civil war, was far more important than giving soldiers immunity from the laws of the country they're operating in. Doesn't anyone remember Abu Ghraib? It's only fair.

A residual force would have prevented the rise of ISIS in Iraq (and if there was a government left in Syria, there, too) and we wouldn't be talking about them.

So, yes, I think both of those actions would have been much preferable to what we have now. But after Obama found out the UN wasn't going to do anything, he gave up. And after things got tough negotiating with Maliki, he gave up.

See above. The withdrawal was going to happen but everyone, Obama included, expected a sizable residual force. He could have fought for those ten thousand, but he didn't because he just wanted to leave. In a historical context this is understandable but tactically it was a mistake, and I would even dare to say lazy.



No, there's no way the Republicans would have campaigned on "Obama got us in another war!" Not even American voters are that stupid. Most Republicans were gung ho for air strikes, and while most other Americans were not, do you really think Democrats and independents would have voted for Romney instead?

There also was a pretty wide range of options available to the president by the end of 2012. He could have started with a no fly zone. He could have provided sincere material support to the FSA instead of two worthless programs that petered out. He could have negotiated talks with Assad and the FSA. And if Russian opposition was really that strong, we could have negotisted something with Russia. But at the end, all Obama did was say he tried... And watch the flames (or rather, mustard gas).

These are very good points. I'm also fairly fucking irritated with American thought processes. I can't remember the specific numbers, but I've followed the chaos in Syria fairly closely since it first started and before the '12 elections the American public overwhelmingly did not support airstrikes in Syria... But after ISIS and James Foley, something like a whopping 70% of Americans were in favor of bombing ISIS targets in Syria. Seriously? Seriously? (I used to have the polls on hand because the transition was hilarious to me, but I'm on my phone right now.)

If Americans only care about terrorism sensationalism and not actual instability then I really have nothing to say about that.

However, I disagree with you on the acceleration theory. The factors that led to the rise of ISIS in Eastern Syrian countryside were the long term instability of the Syrian government, the humanitarian crisis, the lack of unity among rebel groups, and the absence of foreign involvement. A strong international response or even a US response would have drastically reduced the period of chaos and not allowed for insurgent groups like al Nusra and ISIL to fester. I think this is very logical.

If you want to see an example, look at Libya. ISIS is barely present there even though there was an entire civil war going since 2014. As recently as March, the Muslim Brotherhood has stepped down in Tripoli and accepted a new UN sanctioned government and it's only a matter of time before the other side accepts the new government too. Once that happens, they'll roam the desert towns and take back the small villages that ISIS has only barely taken over. For all the poopooing by Republicans, Clinton's war in Libya was actually a big fat success.

Disagree on something replacing ISIS. There was no "replacement" for al Qaeda as the dominant terrorism group worldwide until we fucked up in two countries simultaneously and said "have at it, friends" by sitting on our hands and complaining about a prime minister that isn't even in power anymore, and a Russian president that takes shirtless pictures with large animals.

Syria is a extremely complicated war that any difference could have a different negative consequence. Jihadists are part of the rebellion and were coming in during the beginning of the war, Obama was cautious on who we should even help as like you said the rebels were never unified well. In addition during the beginning of the war many thought the government was going to fall, but that didn't happen when Iran started to supply them with financial support and military , I think. Only after awhile that CIA was training rebels in the south and vetting rebel groups to use TOW missiles to knock out armor. Jihadists now are one of the most strongest and influence groups, now it is hard to really anything against them. Obama's foreign policy has been a very cautious one; not wanting to repeat the mistakes of Bush's who can be seen as rash.

 

[Y2Kev]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...huma-abedin-clinton-state-schedules-destroyed



Poor Huma is going to get indicted and will be Deletary Burntin's fall girl...

Aren't these on the website? http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/appt/2009appt/index.htm

Is this just like she threw away papers she shouldn't have?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Bombing the second holiest site in Islam seems like a bad move.

 

[sphagnum]

Bombing the second holiest site in Islam seems like a bad move.

ISIS are iconoclasts, they don't care about holy sites. They already said they wanted to destroy the Kaaba.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Bombing the second holiest site in Islam seems like a bad move.

I think it's showing the campaign against ISIS is working. Desperation

 

[User 463088]

They're asking cute guys on teevee citizenship questions. And they knew none of them. <3

 

[Valhelm]

People need to decide on their narrative on whether Hillary is an ultra-liberal or a center-right war-hawking conservative.

That's the problem with being perceived as a centrist. Your enemies on both sides will see you as an extreme wingnut.

 

[Makai]

OT thinks that every criticism of a broad stroke of bad apple Bernie Supporters automatically means we are talking to them personally.

Primaries over people. Get over it. We have to stop Trump now.

Bernie supporters feel so persecuted for some reason. Their Messiah was defeated without FRAUD no matter how loudy the wish to yell it.

PoliGAF was pretty mean to Bernie fans. You guys have selective memory if you think it was just simple critique. I distinctly remember one prominent poster here saying that most Bernie fans were white supremacists.

 

[theprodigy]

PoliGAF was pretty mean to Bernie fans. You guys have selective memory if you think it was just simple critique. I distinctly remember one prominent poster here saying that most Bernie fans were white supremacists.

True, currently Cerium is banned though.

 

[ampere]

PoliGAF was pretty mean to Bernie fans. You guys have selective memory if you think it was just simple critique. I distinctly remember one prominent poster here saying that most Bernie fans were white supremacists.

There's a reason he's banned, and he was generally a huge asshole about a lot of other things too.

 

[Armaros]

PoliGAF was pretty mean to Bernie fans. You guys have selective memory if you think it was just simple critique. I distinctly remember one prominent poster here saying that most Bernie fans were white supremacists.

Those people got banned, as did the same people who did the reverse to Hillary Supporters earlier in the campagin.

Unless you forgot 'all Hillary supporters are really just closet republicans' rhetoric that occured early in the year as the primary heat up.

 

[KingK]

PoliGAF was pretty mean to Bernie fans. You guys have selective memory if you think it was just simple critique. I distinctly remember one prominent poster here saying that most Bernie fans were white supremacists.

Yeah. And even aside from actual accusations of racism (which were sometimes warranted against specific people), there was a pervasive attitude of dismissal towards posters and their arguments as being "just another privileged white BernieBro who couldn't possibly understand." The implication seemed to be that anybody who really understands things would obviously vote for Clinton, and if you didn't you must be ignorant. And if you're not ignorant and still didn't vote for Clinton than you obviously just don't care about minorities.

Same kind of attitude people rightly called out some of the Bernie fans for regarding "true progressives voting Bernie, anybody else is ignorant or a shill."

It reached its peak a while ago though, and I feel things have been calming down a bit.

 

[Retromelon]

Nintendo has sold the most overall video game hardware units every generation except ps2, but they are like ouya. Lol

 

[Valhelm]

PoliGAF was pretty mean to Bernie fans. You guys have selective memory if you think it was just simple critique. I distinctly remember one prominent poster here saying that most Bernie fans were white supremacists.

Then there was that whole "Bernie Sanders is the candidate of gamergate" thing

 

[Republic of Ezo]

I thought there was debate over whether Shakespeare intended for shylock to be sympathetic or not?

I always sympathized with him at least.

He's partially sympathetic but also a complete racist stereotype.

 

[B-Dubs]

Then there was that whole "Bernie Sanders is the candidate of gamergate" thing

There was also the Bernie supporters accusing people of being paid shills as well (among other less nice things). So what say we put the one-upmanship behind us and just agree that neither side was perfect and both had their issues?

 

[aspiegamer]

Then there was that whole "Bernie Sanders is the candidate of gamergate" thing

I participated in that discussion and this simply isn't accurate. It was remarked that a lot of the most vocal Sanders supporters--especially online--were younger white males that often feel marginalized by society. A lot of Trump supporters are the same, too! It's not limited to either party or a specific candidate.

Also, I remember talking about how a lot of the stereotypical "Bernie Bro," "Berniesplaining," and levels of Twitter harassment looked a whole lot like the Gamergate brigading style. That doesn't make them supporters. It's just a remark on their methods.

There was also the Bernie supporters accusing people of being paid shills as well (among other less nice things).

Also this.

 

[jack_package_200]

O god. I went to a 4th of July party last night and the host had Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein cardboard cut outs.

I have never cringed so hard.

There was also the Bernie supporters accusing people of being paid shills as well (among other less nice things). So what say we put the one-upmanship behind us and just agree that neither side was perfect and both had their issues?

Lets not forget Bernie supporters doxxed super delegates and harassed them. Remember the superdelegate hitlist?

 

[metalslimer]

I think one of the problems was that the term Berniebro got thrown out there and a lot of Bernie supporters took that term to mean every Bernie supporters and some Hilary supportwrs generalized the term to a lot of Bernie supporters.

In the end most of us are fighting for the betterment of society so its really time to just let the primary go. I hope Bernie gives a speech at the DNC that highlights this.

 

[B-Dubs]

Guys, just chill. This isn't something we need to shit this thread up with, there's already a thread being shit up with this stuff.

 

[whyamihere]

Trump is doubling down.

https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/750080930707111936

WHY ARE THERE SO MANY LIES

 

[Risette]

does he write his own press releases? Kinda reads like it

 

[Wilsongt]

There was also the Bernie supporters accusing people of being paid shills as well (among other less nice things). So what say we put the one-upmanship behind us and just agree that neither side was perfect and both had their issues?

And people are still saying that GAF waves away everything that Clinton does and doesn't acknowledge her wrongdoings. People have thoroughly criticized her, but after a while, most of us realize a lot of these things going on with Hillary amount to glorified witchhunts.

They act like she is the most evil thing in the world that personally killed their puppy yet can't form a coherent reason for why she's the devil incarnate. Other than she's Hillary fucking Clinton and she is more of the same and isn't exciting. Yawn yawn yawn

 

[Y2Kev]

Why don't people just ask him why he changed it?

 

[Nazgul_Hunter]

Why don't people just ask him why he changed it?

And then whatever he answers, just say "how PC of you."

 

[Makai]

Why don't people just ask him why he changed it?

It was a metaphor - he caught her. Sheriff star wasn't getting across so he changed it to a Pokeball.

 

[Wilsongt]

Trump is doubling down.

https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/750080930707111936

WHY ARE THERE SO MANY LIES

The funny thing is, it was the internet that called him out on it first, not Hillary. This amounts to a whole lot of "wah wah stop bullying me!"

Get use to it, Donald.

 

[Mario]

Trump is doubling down.

https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/750080930707111936

WHY ARE THERE SO MANY LIES

Did the Clinton campaign even comment on it? Certainly they weren't the first to make the accusation if they did.

In any case, the "it's a sheriffs badge" was the wrong way to go. They should have just said "it was just a generic star shape but we changed it because we didn't want people to take it the wrong way and thereby undermine the message. The point here is Hillary is a crook!"

 

[Makai]

Did the Clinton campaign even comment on it? Certainly they weren't the first to make the accusation if they did.

In any case, the "it's a sheriffs badge" was the wrong way to go. They should have just said "it was just a generic star shape but we changed it because we didn't want people to take it the wrong way and thereby undermine the message. The point here is Hillary is a crook!"

Part of Trump's MO is never admitting he made a mistake. Always comes up with a creative excuse instead. I'm usually impressed.