Support NeoGAF

[Holmes]

Are Breitbart and Trump on opposite sides of the AHCA?

 

[Teggy]

Are Breitbart and Trump on opposite sides of the AHCA?

Yup. So either Bannon doesn't actually have say over there anymore...or Bannon doesn't like the AHCA, which is possible too (probably wants full repeal).

 

[pigeon]

Pigeon, I know you and I disagree a lot about foreign policy, but American atrocities during war and peacetime aren't a conspiracy theory.

The United States drops three bombs an hour to preserve our hegemony over the Middle East. US-backed rebels have massacred hundreds of civilians during the war against Assad. In Yemen, we're blasting the country apart at the Saudi's behest, just to keep Iran from getting a friend in the region. Our blockade and bombardment is now creating famine conditions.

Perhaps worst of all, this violence isn't even effective. Bombarding Middle Eastern populations with munitions does not make them love America. Nor does it scare them into complying with Western domination. Instead, the ongoing American intervention leads to radicalism. American aggression isn't just brutal, it's wholly unnecessary.

So this is a much better argument than your previous "liberals are dumb and only I am the real left" post. I appreciate that it has citations to review. Thanks! This is much improved from the LaRouche level of discourse.

I generally agree, and I think I've said here before, that our bombing of the Middle East is wrong and should stop. I don't think the particular examples you've provided are that moving, though, so let's dig into them a bit.

For example, when you say three bombs an hour, you neglect to mention that most of those bombs in Iraq and Syria, against ISIS. Do you think that America should stop bombing ISIS? Should we no longer be attempting to fight ISIS, or to help others fight ISIS? What, specifically, do you believe our policy should be with regards to ISIS, and with regards to the local forces, often specifically created with the support of the United States, that wish to eliminate ISIS? This is a serious question. It is necessary to have an answer to it if you wish to have a coherent position on foreign policy!

Your next citation is about Syria. Obviously, crimes against humanity are terrible. But, again, what specific policy do you think is appropriate in Syria? The United States got involved because Bashir al-Assad is a war criminal who viciously oppressed democratic protestors during the Arab Spring and used chemical weapons on his own people. Some of the rebels against him -- but not all -- are also religious extremists, mainly because Assad cynically manipulated the conflict to bring religious zealots into the fray. Many of the rebels are also pro-democracy and pro-civil rights, which we ostensibly support. In addition, of course, ISIS is present and killing everybody. And these are only the aggressive belligerents! The Kurds are also fighting to defend themselves. So let's be clear -- what do you believe America should do in Syria? Who should we support? Should we do nothing? It is easy to criticize the events in Syria -- it's so easy that I am pretty confident the same people would be criticizing them regardless of the choices the United States made. It is harder to clearly state what you believe our priorities and choices should be.

To be clear, I'm happy to agree that our general drone strike policy has been neither productive or moral, and I would generally support ending it, with the codicil that I am not fully informed on the topic (for example, I do think the support, or not, of the local government is relevant). But this post helps display my frustration in discussing this issue. Rolling ISIS, Syria, and the preexisting Al-Qaeda-targeted strikes into one ball is facile and reduces understanding rather than increases it.

 

[Ogodei]

Yup. So either Bannon doesn't actually have say over there anymore...or Bannon doesn't like the AHCA, which is possible too (probably wants full repeal).

Bannon and Breitbart have long hated Paul Ryan.

Which, fine, get rid of him so we can remove even the figleaf of the party being "wonkish," "intellectual," or "serious."

 

[Bishman]

Any more details on this? Is it something that Republicans can run into the ground in 2020 if she runs, like they did with emails and Benghazi with Hillary?

The old playbook doesn't work. Who cares what the right thinks anymore.

Bernie brought up some good points.

 

[kirblar]

The old playbook doesn't work. Who cares what the right thinks anymore.

Bernie brought up some good points.

No, he didn't. Politics is cyclical and Bernie's been running in a safe lily-white seat for decades. Technomancer posted a great response to this BS a page back.

Noah Berlatsky‏Verified account @nberlat 12h12 hours ago

so, I really don't see how this analysis is especially accurate, nor how it's likely to be helpful.

the assumption is that GOP is right-wing extremist party, therefore the opposition should always win, or should win easily.

that's not how politics works. In a two party system (which is what we've got, adn will have until major election rule changes)

the out party always has a really good chance of winning. Out party also has major structural advantages in off year elections.

2nd, the claim that right wing extremists don't have strong appeal to many americans is pretty clearly and objectively false.

racism and attacking marginal people has a powerful constituency. pretending that isn't the case is dangerous.

Democrats often suck on left issues. But assuming that your own priorities match those of the electorate in some sort of sweeping way

is not a recipe for making wise political decisions in the short, middle, or long term.

left policies *can* be popular. But it's dumb to assume they always *are*, and that people lose *because* not pursuing left policies.

the big, horrible, stupid, ugly mistake Dems have made? not going all in on voting rights.

you know who is a dem and makes that mistake too? Sanders.

 

[Aylinato]

The old playbook doesn't work. Who cares what the right thinks anymore.

Bernie brought up some good points.

Bernie is also part of the problem. We have lost so, so many seats because of "purity" tests and getting rid of viable moderates in competitive districts for the sake of a false sense of "purity"

The playbook of 10-20 years hasn't even been the same. It's like he thinks every state can run like he can and be competitive, it's just not reasonable in the slightest and if we listen to him democrats WILL lose every time.

 

[Grexeno]

Here's an article that's going to look really dumb in 2018.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

So this is a much better argument than your previous "liberals are dumb and only I am the real left" post. I appreciate that it has citations to review. Thanks! This is much improved from the LaRouche level of discourse.

I generally agree, and I think I've said here before, that our bombing of the Middle East is wrong and should stop. I don't think the particular examples you've provided are that moving, though, so let's dig into them a bit.

For example, when you say three bombs an hour, you neglect to mention that most of those bombs in Iraq and Syria, against ISIS. Do you think that America should stop bombing ISIS? Should we no longer be attempting to fight ISIS, or to help others fight ISIS? What, specifically, do you believe our policy should be with regards to ISIS, and with regards to the local forces, often specifically created with the support of the United States, that wish to eliminate ISIS? This is a serious question. It is necessary to have an answer to it if you wish to have a coherent position on foreign policy!

Your next citation is about Syria. Obviously, crimes against humanity are terrible. But, again, what specific policy do you think is appropriate in Syria? The United States got involved because Bashir al-Assad is a war criminal who viciously oppressed democratic protestors during the Arab Spring and used chemical weapons on his own people. Some of the rebels against him -- but not all -- are also religious extremists, mainly because Assad cynically manipulated the conflict to bring religious zealots into the fray. Many of the rebels are also pro-democracy and pro-civil rights, which we ostensibly support. In addition, of course, ISIS is present and killing everybody. And these are only the aggressive belligerents! The Kurds are also fighting to defend themselves. So let's be clear -- what do you believe America should do in Syria? Who should we support? Should we do nothing? It is easy to criticize the events in Syria -- it's so easy that I am pretty confident the same people would be criticizing them regardless of the choices the United States made. It is harder to clearly state what you believe our priorities and choices should be.

To be clear, I'm happy to agree that our general drone strike policy has been neither productive or moral, and I would generally support ending it, with the codicil that I am not fully informed on the topic (for example, I do think the support, or not, of the local government is relevant). But this post helps display my frustration in discussing this issue. Rolling ISIS, Syria, and the preexisting Al-Qaeda-targeted strikes into one ball is facile and reduces understanding rather than increases it.

Now I'm not an expert on Middle Eastern foreign policy and I don't pretend that I have proper answers, but isn't this all kind of cyclical? We're turning Yemen into a crater because of Iran, who we're opposed to because of what we did there before for geopolitical reasons and our alliance with Saudi Arabia. We're fighting ISIS because of invading Iraq. I understand the argument that it's the United State's job to intervene because we have the hegemonic power to try and create stability and save lives but what productive goals have we accomplished? The Gulf War was pretty successful and Kuwait's actually pretty democratic as far as Middle Eastern Muslim states go (Freedom House gives it a Partly Free with a score of 36, placing it two points below Turkey) so there's that. We've been pretty successful at destroying ISIS, which is obviously good, but what's our plan after that?

Bernie is also part of the problem. We have lost so, so many seats because of "purity" tests and getting rid of viable moderates in competitive districts for the sake of a false sense of "purity"

The playbook of 10-20 years hasn't even been the same. It's like he thinks every state can run like he can and be competitive, it's just not reasonable in the slightest and if we listen to him democrats WILL lose every time.

What seats have the Democrats lost because of "purity tests"?

 

[Ogodei]

Thankfully for the Democrats there will never be another candidate like Hillary Clinton, singularly unique in that the right-wing media machine had been inventing lies about her for more than a quarter-century when she ran for President. I bet Dems could run a genuinely shadier candidate like Booker and they wouldn't catch the same amount of flak.

Especially due to the mainstream media's peculiar bias against Clinton.

It was a one-off problem basically.

The only problem, as the main thread in OT pointed out, was that despite having a vibrant progressive platform, Clinton's main message was "I'm not Trump, oh my god, how terrible is this guy?"

That's the main point where the Dems try to emulate the GOP: fear of the competition doesn't drive Dem voters. We need to be inspired, not whipped by fear of the Other.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Here's an article that's going to look really dumb in 2018.

Reminds me of all the articles in 2006 declaring the GOP dead

Or the ones in 2004 declaring the Democrats dead

 

[Zereta]

Reminds me of all the articles in 2006 declaring the GOP dead

Or the ones in 2004 declaring the Democrats dead

Or the ones in 2016 declaring the GOP dead

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Thankfully for the Democrats there will never be another candidate like Hillary Clinton, singularly unique in that the right-wing media machine had been inventing lies about her for more than a quarter-century when she ran for President. I bet Dems could run a genuinely shadier candidate like Booker and they wouldn't catch the same amount of flak.

Especially due to the mainstream media's peculiar bias against Clinton.

It was a one-off problem basically.

The only problem, as the main thread in OT pointed out, was that despite having a vibrant progressive platform, Clinton's main message was "I'm not Trump, oh my god, how terrible is this guy?"

That's the main point where the Dems try to emulate the GOP: fear of the competition doesn't drive Dem voters. We need to be inspired, not whipped by fear of the Other.

I mean, Elizabeth Warren has the same media feuding that Hillary had.

 

[Hooligan69]

Exactly. This is why I think one way or another it passes. This watered down joke of a bill paves the way for their tax agenda. And everyone in the GOP is foaming at the mouth over passing that.

As for GOP Senators not backing the bill, they do this shit all the time. Doesn't matter if it's confirming a nominee or legislation. They always come around after they put on a show. I think it's a head fake to persuade opponents to not be as vigilant in opposing someone or something.

Exactly, those prick cocksuckers came out against Trump before the election, but fell in line and voted for Cheeto Jesus in the end. Same will play out here. They own this!

 

[Aylinato]

Now I'm not an expert on Middle Eastern foreign policy and I don't pretend that I have proper answers, but isn't this all kind of cyclical? We're turning Yemen into a crater because of Iran, who we're opposed to because of what we did there before for geopolitical reasons and our alliance with Saudi Arabia. We're fighting ISIS because of invading Iraq. I understand the argument that it's the United State's job to intervene because we have the hegemonic power to try and create stability and save lives but what productive goals have we accomplished? The Gulf War was pretty successful and Kuwait's actually pretty democratic as far as Middle Eastern Muslim states go (Freedom House gives it a Partly Free with a score of 36, placing it two points below Turkey) so there's that. We've been pretty successful at destroying ISIS, which is obviously good, but what's our plan after that?

What seats have the Democrats lost because of "purity tests"?

Off the top of my head without googling, we lost the senate seat in 2010 in Pennsylvania where the republican turned democrat then we primaried him for a liberal and handily lost an easy seat, michigans governor race in 2010 where we went with a Lansing mayor over any of the moderates for sake for being "pure" liberal, made all the seats that could have been won lost. Those were battles democrats could of won instead of the purity tests that took place. I could actually find more examples, but at present I don't want to do anymore research as I'm relaxing on my day off work.

 

[East Lake]

So this is a much better argument than your previous "liberals are dumb and only I am the real left" post. I appreciate that it has citations to review. Thanks! This is much improved from the LaRouche level of discourse.

I generally agree, and I think I've said here before, that our bombing of the Middle East is wrong and should stop. I don't think the particular examples you've provided are that moving, though, so let's dig into them a bit.

For example, when you say three bombs an hour, you neglect to mention that most of those bombs in Iraq and Syria, against ISIS. Do you think that America should stop bombing ISIS? Should we no longer be attempting to fight ISIS, or to help others fight ISIS? What, specifically, do you believe our policy should be with regards to ISIS, and with regards to the local forces, often specifically created with the support of the United States, that wish to eliminate ISIS? This is a serious question. It is necessary to have an answer to it if you wish to have a coherent position on foreign policy!

Your next citation is about Syria. Obviously, crimes against humanity are terrible. But, again, what specific policy do you think is appropriate in Syria? The United States got involved because Bashir al-Assad is a war criminal who viciously oppressed democratic protestors during the Arab Spring and used chemical weapons on his own people. Some of the rebels against him -- but not all -- are also religious extremists, mainly because Assad cynically manipulated the conflict to bring religious zealots into the fray. Many of the rebels are also pro-democracy and pro-civil rights, which we ostensibly support. In addition, of course, ISIS is present and killing everybody. And these are only the aggressive belligerents! The Kurds are also fighting to defend themselves. So let's be clear -- what do you believe America should do in Syria? Who should we support? Should we do nothing? It is easy to criticize the events in Syria -- it's so easy that I am pretty confident the same people would be criticizing them regardless of the choices the United States made. It is harder to clearly state what you believe our priorities and choices should be.

To be clear, I'm happy to agree that our general drone strike policy has been neither productive or moral, and I would generally support ending it, with the codicil that I am not fully informed on the topic (for example, I do think the support, or not, of the local government is relevant). But this post helps display my frustration in discussing this issue. Rolling ISIS, Syria, and the preexisting Al-Qaeda-targeted strikes into one ball is facile and reduces understanding rather than increases it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKEKocLmWVM&t=9m0s

If our drone strike policy might not be moral, it might be worth wondering if the stated goal for the Syrian conflict to "get rid of a war criminal", may have other motives that aren't moral. I also think it's kind of weird to speak of something like white privilege or ignorance but at the same time say you're not fully informed on the topic of drone strikes. American privilege?

 

[BoogieWoogie]

Roger Stone, Trump confidant, acknowledges ‘innocuous’ Twitter conversation with Democratic National Committee hackers

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/10/roger-stone-trump-confidant-acknowledges-innocuous/

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Off the top of my head without googling, we lost the senate seat in 2010 in Pennsylvania where the republican turned democrat then we primaried him for a liberal and handily lost an easy seat, michigans governor race in 2010 where we went with a Lansing mayor over any of the moderates for sake for being "pure" liberal, made all the seats that could have been won lost. Those were battles democrats could of won instead of the purity tests that took place. I could actually find more examples, but at present I don't want to do anymore research as I'm relaxing on my day off work.

Why do you assume those races would've been won by people who lost primaries? McGinty was also a moderate and lost to Toomey by a larger margin than Sestak. 2010 was a Republican wave that wiped out the Blue Dogs, being moderate didn't seem to save them.

Actually it looks like I was wrong, McGinty did like 0.4 points better than Sestak.

 

[Zereta]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/10/roger-stone-trump-confidant-acknowledges-innocuous/

"innocuous"

these fucking people.

 

[jtb]

"innocuous"

these fucking people.

"MCCARTHYISM"

- glenn greenwald

 

[BanGy.nz]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/10/roger-stone-trump-confidant-acknowledges-innocuous/

Washington Times are trash and aren't even close to a reliable source of information.

 

[teiresias]

I literally used the word "Innocuous" in an email at work today.

FUCK!!!!!!

 

[thepotatoman]

Washington Times are trash and aren't even close to a reliable source of information.

Not entirely. I wouldn't trust them for any reporting on democrats or policy or anything like that, but Republicans do give them a lot of statements and interviews that can be trusted as news.

 

[whyamihere]

Why do you assume those races would've been won by people who lost primaries? McGinty was also a moderate and lost to Toomey by a larger margin than Sestak. 2010 was a Republican wave that wiped out the Blue Dogs, being moderate didn't seem to save them.

Actually it looks like I was wrong, McGinty did like 0.4 points better than Sestak.

She has a bad candidate but she actually didn't end up doing too poorly. Seems like there were a decent amount of Trump/McGinty voters. If she could've captured a few more Clinton voters in the burbs, she would've won.

 

[Teggy]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/10/roger-stone-trump-confidant-acknowledges-innocuous/

So, the CIA?

Also, let me fix that for you

Roger Stone is trash and isn't even close to a reliable source of information.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I literally used the word "Innocuous" in an email at work today.

FUCK!!!!!!

Was it in reference to possible treason?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I'm so confused by how well McGinty did.

Because she was a corrupt nobody who had never won elected office and had negative charisma.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

She has a bad candidate but she actually didn't end up doing too poorly. Seems like there were a decent amount of Trump/McGinty voters. If she could've captured a few more Clinton voters in the burbs, she would've won.

Just looking at the raw numbers but I'm not seeing anywhere she outperformed Clinton in raw vote totals other than the northwest counties around Scranton.

My point though was just that running a moderate also lost the seat so I don't think Sestak being "too liberal" was the cause of the loss.

edit: Though Toomey also had lower vote totals than Trump too and does in a lot of these states, so maybe it's all relative and I'm not sure what conclusions to draw by these discrepancies.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Apparently Schwarzenegger is thinking about running for US Senate in 2018 as an Independent(according to a news broadcast).

Hrmm. Id be for it. He seems to piss of Trump well enough.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Apparently Schwarzenegger is thinking about running for US Senate in 2018 as an Independent(according to a news broadcast).

Hrmm. Id be for it. He seems to piss of Trump well enough.

In Cali?

 

[thepotatoman]

I saw the title to a Washington Post opinion piece that kinda irked me:

What is the absolute worst aspect of the Trump presidency? The institutionalization of dishonesty.

I think we may have reached the point where people need to step back, and look at what ICE is doing under Trump, or the signalling Sessions is doing about enforcement of civil rights laws for racist police departments, or the people that will literally die if he signs the healthcare bill.

I know it's easy for political junkies to get lost in stuff like Trump's fake/real news with employment numbers, but there's some really sad stuff to real life people happening right now that isn't about Trump's statements. You could say that trump's dishonesty is enabling those things, but the press hasn't even given enough attention to that stuff for Trump to have to lie about it.

 

[pigeon]

Apparently Schwarzenegger is thinking about running for US Senate in 2018 as an Independent(according to a news broadcast).

Hrmm. Id be for it. He seems to piss of Trump well enough.

No

Why not elect a DEMOCRAT in California

 

[BreezyLimbo]

In Cali?

Yeah.

Feinstein(sp?) also hasnt decided if shes going to run again? According to the news story I heard.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Apparently Schwarzenegger is thinking about running for US Senate in 2018 as an Independent(according to a news broadcast).

Hrmm. Id be for it. He seems to piss of Trump well enough.

I'm all for this. In an unrelated point, I would really like it if Arnold decided he wanted to move to a state like Texas or Oklahoma. You know, for the weather.

 

[LostMyNarbles]

Apparently Schwarzenegger is thinking about running for US Senate in 2018 as an Independent(according to a news broadcast).

Hrmm. Id be for it. He seems to piss of Trump well enough.

I thought he ruined California? Why would anybody vote for him aside from his celebrity appeal?

 

[AntraxSuicide]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKEKocLmWVM&t=9m0s

If our drone strike policy might not be moral, it might be worth wondering if the stated goal for the Syrian conflict to "get rid of a war criminal", may have other motives that aren't moral. I also think it's kind of weird to speak of something like white privilege or ignorance but at the same time say you're not fully informed on the topic of drone strikes. American privilege?

The bolded here doesn't actually matter at all. If I donate a billion dollars to medical research at Boston College, but my real motive instead of helping people is to get the school to get me a signed Doug Flutie jersey and football, does it really matter?

If our leaders are trying to kill a brutal dictator who has every right to be held in the same regard as Hitler or Stalin, but they're doing it because they want trade deals or something with Saudi Arabia, I don't really care.

You can certainly make isolationist arguments, but much like a libertarian making an argument against health care, you have to own the fact that you're saying "we know there are militants butchering you and your government is gassing you, but I'm ideologically opposed to getting involved."

 

[Valhelm]

So this is a much better argument than your previous "liberals are dumb and only I am the real left" post. I appreciate that it has citations to review. Thanks! This is much improved from the LaRouche level of discourse.

I generally agree, and I think I've said here before, that our bombing of the Middle East is wrong and should stop. I don't think the particular examples you've provided are that moving, though, so let's dig into them a bit.

For example, when you say three bombs an hour, you neglect to mention that most of those bombs in Iraq and Syria, against ISIS. Do you think that America should stop bombing ISIS? Should we no longer be attempting to fight ISIS, or to help others fight ISIS? What, specifically, do you believe our policy should be with regards to ISIS, and with regards to the local forces, often specifically created with the support of the United States, that wish to eliminate ISIS? This is a serious question. It is necessary to have an answer to it if you wish to have a coherent position on foreign policy!

Your next citation is about Syria. Obviously, crimes against humanity are terrible. But, again, what specific policy do you think is appropriate in Syria? The United States got involved because Bashir al-Assad is a war criminal who viciously oppressed democratic protestors during the Arab Spring and used chemical weapons on his own people. Some of the rebels against him -- but not all -- are also religious extremists, mainly because Assad cynically manipulated the conflict to bring religious zealots into the fray. Many of the rebels are also pro-democracy and pro-civil rights, which we ostensibly support. In addition, of course, ISIS is present and killing everybody. And these are only the aggressive belligerents! The Kurds are also fighting to defend themselves. So let's be clear -- what do you believe America should do in Syria? Who should we support? Should we do nothing? It is easy to criticize the events in Syria -- it's so easy that I am pretty confident the same people would be criticizing them regardless of the choices the United States made. It is harder to clearly state what you believe our priorities and choices should be.

To be clear, I'm happy to agree that our general drone strike policy has been neither productive or moral, and I would generally support ending it, with the codicil that I am not fully informed on the topic (for example, I do think the support, or not, of the local government is relevant). But this post helps display my frustration in discussing this issue. Rolling ISIS, Syria, and the preexisting Al-Qaeda-targeted strikes into one ball is facile and reduces understanding rather than increases it.

It's naive to think we're bombing Syria for humanitarian reasons. Our interventions are selective and pursuant of American and broader Western interests. This is why the American government turns a blind eye to our allies who also kill protesters and suspend democracy and invade their neighbors. For instance, the Saudi monarchy beheads gay people, spreads reactionary ideology across the Middle East, and represses their opposition. Yet we are absolutely fine working with them, as long as they play ball with American dominance.

Motivation and aside, why is it our job to remove every dictator in sight? Like Bonen no Max'd said, our track record for intervention is abysmal. We've destroyed the economies of infrastructure of Iraq, Syria, and Libya for very little return. In all of these countries, right-wing religious extremists (generally supported by our friends in Saudi Arabia) have risen to greater prominence in the ensuing power vaccuum.

Bombing ISIS is necessary to help forces on the ground destroy them, but ISIS would not have emerged if we had not occupied Iraq for ten years and created chaos in Syria through our support for the rebels. Moreover, American efforts have directly hampered the effort against ISIS.

Is it really democratic for one nation to tell all others who is allowed to lead them? Why is American hegemony preferable to a more equitable distribution of power in this region? At the very least, can't we let a country befriend Russia or Iran without trying to obliterate their ruling class?

The bolded here doesn't actually matter at all. If I donate a billion dollars to medical research at Boston College, but my real motive instead of helping people is to get the school to get me a signed Doug Flutie jersey and football, does it really matter?

If our leaders are trying to kill a brutal dictator who has every right to be held in the same regard as Hitler or Stalin, but they're doing it because they want trade deals or something with Saudi Arabia, I don't really care.

You can certainly make isolationist arguments, but much like a libertarian making an argument against health care, you have to own the fact that you're saying "we know there are militants butchering you and your government is gassing you, but I'm ideologically opposed to getting involved."

Going into a country to murder its people is the worst way to stop them from getting murdered.

And yeah, the state providing healthcare to poor people is definitely comparable to bombing raids against countries that oppose US policy.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

The bolded here doesn't actually matter at all. If I donate a billion dollars to medical research at Boston College, but my real motive instead of helping people is to get the school to get me a signed Doug Flutie jersey and football, does it really matter?

If our leaders are trying to kill a brutal dictator who has every right to be held in the same regard as Hitler or Stalin, but they're doing it because they want trade deals or something with Saudi Arabia, I don't really care.

You can certainly make isolationist arguments, but much like a libertarian making an argument against health care, you have to own the fact that you're saying "we know there are militants butchering you and your government is gassing, but I'm ideologically opposed to getting involved."

Motives can affect the outcomes and strategies and outcomes can include serious unintended consequences that may be worse than the previous situation.

It's not a binary proposition of isolationism or turning turning the Middle East into a crater.

 

[daedalius]

I saw the title to a Washington Post opinion piece that kinda irked me:

What is the absolute worst aspect of the Trump presidency? The institutionalization of dishonesty.

I think we may have reached the point where people need to step back, and look at what ICE is doing under Trump, or the signalling Sessions is doing about enforcement of civil rights laws for racist police departments, or the people that will literally die if he signs the healthcare bill.

I know it's easy for political junkies to get lost in stuff like Trump's fake/real news with employment numbers, but there's some really sad stuff to real life people happening right now that isn't about Trump's statements. You could say that trump's dishonesty is enabling those things, but the press hasn't even given enough attention to that stuff for Trump to have to lie about it.

I've never seen my wife more pissed off about government.

 

[Aylinato]

Why do you assume those races would've been won by people who lost primaries? McGinty was also a moderate and lost to Toomey by a larger margin than Sestak. 2010 was a Republican wave that wiped out the Blue Dogs, being moderate didn't seem to save them.

Actually it looks like I was wrong, McGinty did like 0.4 points better than Sestak.

Single member district in winner take all electoral system. Moderate>either extreme. Pennsylvannia was the incumbent losing to a "true liberal" democrat who got his ass kicked in the general.

 

[jtb]

Man, that 2010 Florida Senate race was a real fuck up, huh.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Single member district in winner take all electoral system. Moderate>either extreme. Pennsylvannia was the incumbent losing to a "true liberal" democrat who got his ass kicked in the general.

I understand how American elections work. My question is why do you think Sestak caused the loss by being too extreme? McGinty was much more moderate and barely performed better than he did. Moreover, why is it the moral burden of the left to always vote for centrist candidates, but the centrists have no obligation to vote for more left candidates?

 

[AntraxSuicide]

It's not a binary proposition of isolationism or turning turning the Middle East into a crater.

Could've fooled me.

 

[Hooligan69]

I wish this would happen in the US. We're so polarized, Trump could literally shoot one of his own supporters at a rally and he'd maybe drop below 30.

Naw, the rest of the audience would just assume the victim was a paid libtard protester, calling him cuck as they kicked the body.

 

[TiredofWinning]

Man, that 2010 Florida Senate race was a real fuck up, huh.

Yea having Arnold run as an independent in California sounds like exactly the same situation.

 

[Hooligan69]

The point of this CIA conspiracy is not to make sense.

The point is to muddy the waters as much possible. To muddy the waters so much that, to the passerby who's not following all this crap daily, NOTHING makes sense and so it all must be bullshit.

Once again proving he's out to gaslight America (and the world). That's been president Bannon's plan, as part of burning it all down. Tear down reality first.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Yea having Arnold run as an independent in California sounds like exactly the same situation.

While voting for Arnold is stupid and no one should do it, having a jungle primary prevents this sort of thing.

 

[Coriolanus]

On the question of Syria and similar conflicts, i fail to see why the US needs to be a bellicose interventionist. If yall care about the people being afflicted by the violence in the region, by all means, provide humanitarian aid, cordon off sections of cities and create safe zones where infrastructure and services *will* be preserved, if you like. No drones are needed for any of that, and you are less likely to be played into bombing some rando folks attending a marriage. Heck, would probably even cost less.

On the subject of tackling global terrorism, every war on concepts is doomed to failure. Thus i continue to fail to see why something that is tackled with police actions within your borders should be tackled with military actions in foreign borders. And one hopes folks remember that the party big on tackling crime (for terrorism is crime) via repression isnt supposed to be the democratic party.

 

[East Lake]

The bolded here doesn't actually matter at all. If I donate a billion dollars to medical research at Boston College, but my real motive instead of helping people is to get the school to get me a signed Doug Flutie jersey and football, does it really matter?

The analogy isn't that great because donating to cancer research doesn't have many serious downsides, even if it amounts to little in the way new medicine or whatever.

If our leaders are trying to kill a brutal dictator who has every right to be held in the same regard as Hitler or Stalin, but they're doing it because they want trade deals or something with Saudi Arabia, I don't really care.

Like I said above killing the brutal dictator could have downsides that that are very negative and uncontrollable, unlike cancer research. For example civil war, proxy war, terrorism, economic destruction etc...

You can certainly make isolationist arguments, but much like a libertarian making an argument against health care, you have to own the fact that you're saying "we know there are militants butchering you and your government is gassing you, but I'm ideologically opposed to getting involved."

That's fine, after all there's atrocities all over the world that that the US isn't going to bother with.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/10/roger-stone-trump-confidant-acknowledges-innocuous/

If this were true, would this be illegal or just frowned upon?