Support NeoGAF

[whyamihere]

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.

I thought she did better in Erie in south of Pitt. Maybe I'm wrong.

I also don't think Sestak would've won either. Our bench in PA is crap.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I thought she did better in Erie in south of Pitt. Maybe I'm wrong.

I also don't think Sestak would've won either. Our bench in PA is crap.

She did a bit worse in Erie, 4k less votes than Clinton while Toomey did just short of 2k less than Trump. You're right about south of Pittsburgh though, she did better there, I missed that.

I wasn't saying Sestak would've won, just questioning the logic that he lost because he was too liberal in 2010.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

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.

I'd argue there's a rather large chasm between the GOP going after pot heads and people that behead others and use chemical weapons on massive populations of people.

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.

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...

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

Talking about downsides is moving the goalposts because now we're talking execution of intervention and not the act itself.

And saying "we aren't helping North Koreans (true) so why bother helping Syrians" is at least logically consistent, though I'd argue the decades of dominance of the Kim family regime is one of the world's greatest moral failings, akin to ignoring a battered coworker because "it's none of our business." When that family finally does die out and lose power, the world's largest nations should absolutely consider the political massacres and starvation of the North Korean people as an L we'll hold for centuries.

 

[Aylinato]

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?

Single member district, winner take all, one party already moved to the far right, opposition has to stay moderate to be competitive. It's simple. I could dig out my beginning political science text books if you'd like me to.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Single member district, winner take all, one party already moved to the far right, opposition has to stay moderate to be competitive. It's simple. I could dig out my beginning political science text books if you'd like me to.

I have polisci textbooks too, you're ignoring my point. Sestak and McGinty both lost to Toomey by near-equivalent margins, why didn't McGinty's pivot to the center win her the election against Toomey if all it took was moderating from Sestak's position?

 

[Coriolanus]

I'd argue there's a rather large chasm between the GOP going after pot heads and people that behead others and use chemical weapons on massive populations of people.

I am trying to understand your argument and cant quite figure if you're saying that youd like potential terrorists within US borders to be droned.

i also cant quite see the difference between gassing people to death and bombing people to death, fwiw. Is one extra-worse than the other?

 

[Aylinato]

I have polisci textbooks too, you're ignoring my point. Sestak and McGinty both lost to Toomey by near-equivalent margins, why didn't McGinty's pivot to the center win her the election against Toomey if all it took was moderating from Sestak's position?

Oh, haha I didn't notice you were using the liberals who lost to Toomey. I was speaking of Senator Arlen Specter getting primaries by a liberal causing the democrats to lose that seat, it also has nothing to do with "becoming a moderate." It's about having actual moderates that are bound to what they said in the primaries, it's getting more difficult year after year to do that "moderate" shift because of how much money is invested in campaigns and how easy it is to drag out that information.


You've ignored the point of single member districts governing how two parties can operate. If one party chooses an extreme side, the other party is forced, in order to be competitive, to be moderate. You've neither acknowledged that nor account for it while bringing out an example, so I choose to ignore your example until you actual refute my claim. I don't like having my actual argument be ignored.

 

[thepotatoman]

Single member district, winner take all, one party already moved to the far right, opposition has to stay moderate to be competitive. It's simple. I could dig out my beginning political science text books if you'd like me to.

What issues do you think liberals have moved too far left on?

I'm of the opinion that median voter theory is bunk in 2017 just because there's no possible way I can fit it into explaining Republicans having so much government control, but maybe you're seeing a democrat position that's too far left that I'm not. Otherwise, it seems to me that Republicans played the turnout game, while democrats played the median voter game, and the turnout game is what won.

The party as a whole moved left since 2008, but mostly because every single moderate democrat lost reelection to a republican.

 

[soul creator]

ahh, new thread

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?

In addition, and I've made this point a million times before, but I think people sometimes underestimate what everyday citizens consider "moderate" or "liberal" or "conservative". It isn't some static thing that means the same in 2017 the same as it did in 1992, nor does it always mean "halfway between the Democrats and Republicans position on the topic".

Sure, it doesn't mean that everyone is secretly a communist, but it also doesn't mean that everything outside whatever the current Democrat/Republican mainstream is talking about is automatically "too radical" for the population and should just be ignored.

For example, if you're a "purist" when it comes to money in politics, that's generally seen as some radical left-wing position. Yet people for the most part tend to adopt that "radical" view.

Now sure, as its often done with other issues (like when I post about medicare for all), you can say that American's "don't really mean that", or "they change their tune when it comes time to vote for it", or "they don't consider it a top priority", or "yeah, but the TAXES!", and so on, and there may be some truth to that. But that just means it's a viewpoint with some complexities and challenges to deal with, and people can be swayed towards it or away from it based on their current societal context (as with any issue!)...but it doesn't mean that it's some obscure thing that only loony radicals believe.

 

[pigeon]

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?

I really don't have a specific comment on Yemen -- it sounds like we should not be intervening there, but I don't know a lot about it.

I don't think I would describe it as cyclical, but it's definitely true to say that a huge amount of the violence in the Middle East is directly caused by our invasion of Iraq. That was a bad idea! I marched against it and everything. But pointing out that we invaded Iraq doesn't really answer the question of what we should do to deal with the problems that have resulted from that invasion. If anything, don't we bear more responsibility given that we're the ones who caused ISIS to arise?

I generally agree and have said before that you can't shoot democracy into people. If people in other countries don't want secular democratic rule then they probably won't have it and we need to pretty much accept that. The question -- and it is a question -- is whether we should help people who do actively strive to bring about democratic rule in their countries. Historically the answer is that we do help them, because we believe freedom and civil rights are important and democracy is the best way to deliver them, and because one good way to protect American lives is to make sure most countries in the world pretty much like us and democracies tend to like us more. Also like I'm pretty sure the UN says somewhere that we're supposed to help advance democracy!

I am happy to hear the argument that if rebels in a foreign dictatorship are trying to create democracy we should ignore them. It's possible! But it doesn't sound great, does 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?

I don't have time to watch videos. What is the point you wanted to make?

I guess we might have other motivations to intervene in Syria, sure. I wasn't really arguing about the motivations of our current government. That seems unproductive since we can't possibly know those motivations. The question is what you believe our foreign policy and our motivations should be.

Your point about white privilege makes no sense to me at all. Part of the point of talking about privilege is to illustrate that sometimes you don't have enough information about a topic and should just say you don't know about it. That's what I did! What would you prefer I do, lie and act like I do know all about 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.

As I noted to East Lake, this argument does not seem particularly relevant to the one I advanced. What do you think our motivations should be?

I am generally not a big fan of our support for Saudi Arabia and I'd be happy to say we should phase out our alliance with them, since they are pretty bad. Happily, the expansion of green energy and our support for fracking make it possible for us to do this. Fracking is very important for allowing us to unwind petrodollar alliances!

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.

As far as I can tell, your history of the Syrian Civil War is simply false. This is part of why I wanted to ask you what your theory for what we should do in Syria actually is. Our intervention in Syria didn't start until 2014. Armed conflict had been ongoing for three years at that point! Assad started using chemical weapons against the rebels in 2013. It seems ahistorical to suggest that this is because of "our support for the rebels." Why does your narrative for Syria completely subtract any culpability for Bashir al-Assad suppressing democratic protests with military force in the first place? Is that fine, as long as the economy isn't disrupted?

As above, I certainly acknowledge that ISIS is our fault. That doesn't constitute a foreign policy plan for managing it. If you want me to say that the Iraq War was a super bad idea, obviously it was. Unlike many people, I was against it at the time! But the Iraq War did actually happen and forms part of the current state of the world, and we have to engage with that reality. We can't go back and not invade Iraq.

As above again, my question about supporting democracy applies to you as well. I asked you specifically what foreign policy you would propose for ISIS and for Syria. You didn't respond to that. I think you should attempt to do so! But let's add on the same question -- should we support democratic rebels at all? It seems like you don't think we should. Why not? Is our commitment to the United Nations to support democratic values meaningless?

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?

I mean, the purpose of hegemony is to reduce warfare so that people die less. Multiple equitable power blocs in a region are also referred to as "enemies." As you can probably tell, we don't have hegemony in the Middle East. Far from it! Our hegemony is strictly limited to America and Europe, but in fairness, it has been pretty successful at preventing warfare in those theatres since the 50s. Isn't preventing warfare a valid goal?

 

[pigeon]

On the question of Syria and similar conflicts, i fail to see why the US needs to be a bellicose interventionist

I don't think we should be a bellicose interventionist either, but I am not convinced that term applies.

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.

I mean, mainly because we don't have police in foreign countries? I think you need to unpack this argument more.

 

[Aylinato]

What issues do you think liberals have moved too far left on?

I'm of the opinion that median voter theory is bunk in 2017 just because there's no possible way I can fit it into explaining Republicans having so much government control, but maybe you're seeing a democrat position that's too far left that I'm not.

The party as a whole moved left since 2008, but mostly because every single moderate democrat lost reelection to a republican.

I don't feel the democrats are too far left. I'm arguing they aren't fostering moderates around the country to actual be viable in elections. Democrats haven't controlled a majority of governships and state legislators in that entire time. What, the last time we controlled the most governships was in 2006, and that was because people hated GWB. Since then democrats have lost so much ground.

And no, not every single moderate democrat lost because Gary Peters and Stabenow both are in office in Michigan as senators.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Oh, haha I didn't notice you were using the liberals who lost to Toomey. I was speaking of Senator Arlen Specter getting primaries by a liberal causing the democrats to lose that seat, it also has nothing to do with "becoming a moderate." It's about having actual moderates that are bound to what they said in the primaries, it's getting more difficult year after year to do that "moderate" shift because of how much money is invested in campaigns and how easy it is to drag out that information.


You've ignored the point of single member districts governing how two parties can operate. If one party chooses an extreme side, the other party is forced in order to be competitive to be moderate. You've neither acknowledged that nor account for it while bringing out an example, so I choose to ignore your example until you actual refute my claim. I don't like having my actual argument be ignored.

SMDs with FPTP encourage two party splits because of the spoiler effect, you're ignoring that base turnout matters and elections aren't solely won by who the median voter is. Toomey ran against Sestak (a liberal) and McGinty (a moderate) and defeated both with near equivalent margins. McGinty running in the center didn't improve her margins in suburban Philly/Pittsburgh (actually the opposite, it's the area where she most underperformed Hillary) and I'm not seeing compelling evidence that Specter necessarily would either. You're using situations specifically from situations unfavorable to Democrats (swing state performance in a backlash election to Democrats) to say that Democrats too far to the left lose. Better examples of this would be Akin losing to McCaskill even though the fundamental of the race (presidential election in a state that went for Romney by ten points) should point to Akin winning. You're also ignoring that people's political beliefs and behaviors are much more complicated than simply showing up and voting for the candidate closest to them on a linear spectrum.

 

[whyamihere]

I have polisci textbooks too, you're ignoring my point. Sestak and McGinty both lost to Toomey by near-equivalent margins, why didn't McGinty's pivot to the center win her the election against Toomey if all it took was moderating from Sestak's position?

Just to remove it from a left/center-left spectrum, I would say first that Sestak wasn't over leftist, just an annoying campaigner because of his tendencies to be insular and hire his family members on his campaign. And McGinty didn't really have a voting record, so it would be tougher to peg her on a left-right scale.

On the whole, I would say this is where candidates matter. Both McGinty and Sestak kind of sucked (like, hard) and it did not matter if either was left, right, up, or down. A lot of people can forgive so-called extremism when they like the candidate of choice. Neither McGinty or Sestak were likable and thus had to rely on partisanship to attempt to win. It didn't work. Maybe in 2022!

 

[thepotatoman]

You've ignored the point of single member districts governing how two parties can operate. If one party chooses an extreme side, the other party is forced, in order to be competitive, to be moderate. You've neither acknowledged that nor account for it while bringing out an example, so I choose to ignore your example until you actual refute my claim. I don't like having my actual argument be ignored.

Could you expand on this theory that an extremist party forces the other to be moderate, or point to something that explains it.

That one is new to me, and certainly wasn't covered in my Government or PoliSci 101 college classes.

Edit: unless you're talking about median voter theory, which I don't think exactly is saying that.

 

[Aylinato]

SMDs with FPTP encourage two party splits because of the spoiler effect, you're ignoring that base turnout matters and elections aren't solely won by who the median voter is. Toomey ran against Sestak (a liberal) and McGinty (a moderate) and defeated both with near equivalent margins. McGinty running in the center didn't improve her margins in suburban Philly/Pittsburgh (actually the opposite, it's the area where she most underperformed Hillary) and I'm not seeing compelling evidence that Specter necessarily would either. You're using situations specifically from situations unfavorable to Democrats (swing state performance in a backlash election to Democrats) to say that Democrats too far to the left lose. Better examples of this would be Akin losing to McCaskill even though the fundamental of the race (presidential election in a state that went for Romney by ten points) should point to Akin winning. You're also ignoring that people's political beliefs and behaviors are much more complicated than simply showing up and voting for the candidate closest to them on a linear spectrum.

You ignored specter being the incumbent and isn't the same as upsetting a sitting senator. The math is different for incumbents holding seats then trying to upset a sitting senator.

Anyway I must get going, as I said it's Friday and I'm not working so no research for me today, maybe Sunday if I remember.

 

[pigeon]

Could you expand on this theory that an extremist party forces the other to be moderate, or point to something that explains it.

That one is new to me, and certainly wasn't covered in my Government or PoliSci 101 college classes.

Edit: unless you're talking about median voter theory, which I don't think exactly is saying that.

You are right. Median voter theory mostly just says (to radically oversimplify) that you need to be slightly more moderate than your opponent, if possible. So an extremist party on one side should give the other party freedom to be somewhat extreme as well, as long as it's a little less extreme.

 

[kirblar]

Could you expand on this theory that an extremist party forces the other to be moderate, or point to something that explains it.

That one is new to me, and certainly wasn't covered in my Government or PoliSci 101 college classes.

Edit: unless you're talking about median voter theory, which I don't think exactly is saying that.

That's exactly what median voter theory says- if your opponents go extreme, that means they've given up the center, which makes them vulnerable in a competitive district. (or a wave election in a non-competitive one.)

It doesn't "force" you to be moderate, but it makes moderation by far the better political strategy since it gains you access to voters who are unavailable if you run from the opposite pole.

 

[thepotatoman]

That's exactly what median voter theory says- if your opponents go extreme, that means they've given up the center, which makes them vulnerable in a competitive district. (or a wave election in a non-competitive one.)

It doesn't "force" you to be moderate, but it makes moderation by far the better political strategy since it gains you access to voters who are unavailable if you run from the opposite pole.

Right, which means in theory shouldn't Democrats be dominating government right now?

It seems like it would be hard to come up with an argument that democrats have moved further left in the last few decades than the republicans moved right.

 

[kirblar]

Right, which means in theory shouldn't Democrats be dominating government right now?

It seems like it would be hard to come up with an argument that democrats have moved further left in the last few decades than the republicans moved right.

US politics is very reactionary, whoever has the presidency tends to lose the house/senate/etc. Obama's DNC exacerbated this issue.

It also means if they're winning (if just barely) going far right, going far left isn't going to be the answer, the voters just aren't there. (And keep in mind the US system punishes cities.)

 

[Coriolanus]

I mean, mainly because we don't have police in foreign countries? I think you need to unpack this argument more.

That does not prevent police actions. See UN forces in Haiti. (which, fwiw, is also evidence that police action, by itself, also fails to bring stability to a region mired in conflict).

Then you factor the countries where the US has used drones with backing of the current heads of state, where they most certainly can use local police forces.

I don't think we should be a bellicose interventionist either, but I am not convinced that term applies.

To start, the choices are intervention, isolation or diplomatic efforts/asking the UN to intervente. We'll exclude the last three since the US has obviously intervened in the region. Thus i hopethat the charge of the US being interventionist in the region goes without opposition. Bellicose, then

When we looked, the bureau's accounts by country indicated the latest U.S drone strike in Pakistan occurred in May 2016; the latest strike in Somalia was in September 2016; and the latest U.S. strikes in Yemen and Afghanistan were in October 2016.

Separately, we noticed, the Department of Defense said in an Oct. 11, 2016, web post that countries including the U.S. battling the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, have conducted 15,634 air strikes to date -- 10,129 in Iraq, 5,505 in Syria -- with the U.S. conducting 6,868 in Iraq and 5,227 in Syria. In a Sept. 30, 2016, post, the U.S. Air Force said attacks from the air have affected ISIL's "ability to fight and conduct operations in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan."

Too, in August 2016, the New York Times reported the U.S. had "stepped up a new bombing campaign against the Islamic State in Libya, conducting its first armed drone flights from Jordan to strike militant targets" in Libya's coastal city of Sirte.

I fail to see which country could possibly be more deserving of the term in those regions.

And of course, the extra bad bit about building up the apparatus capable of carrying out those ops (ignoring the lack of tangible results) is that... you obviously wont be in control forever, and thus will have to give the reins to one Orange Turd. Or Texas Cretin That You'd Like To Have A Beer With. And then even more brown people die.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

The Dems have moved massively to the left on white supremacy after the Dixiecrats refused to ever vote for them again after the Dems nominated a black man to be president. Hillary Clinton promised no more deportations ever for people other than violent criminals in 2016. This was the Dem platform in 2008.

Nonetheless, our current immigration system has been broken for far too long. We need comprehensive immigration reform, not just piecemeal efforts. We must work together to pass immigration reform in a way that unites this country, not in a way that divides us by playing on our worst instincts and fears. We are committed to pursuing tough, practical, and humane immigration reform in the first year of the next administration.

We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. The American people are a welcoming and generous people, but those who enter our country's borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law. We need to secure our borders, and support additional personnel, infrastructure, and technology on the border and at our ports of entry. We need additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with better technology and real-time intelligence. We need to dismantle human smuggling organizations, combating the crime associated with this trade. We also need to do more to promote economic development in migrant-sending nations, to reduce incentives to come to the United States illegally. And we need to crack down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants. It's a problem when we only enforce our laws against the immigrants themselves, with raids that are ineffective, tear apart families, and leave people detained without adequate access to counsel. We realize that employers need a method to verify whether their employees are legally eligible to work in the United States, and we will ensure that our system is accurate, fair to legal workers, safeguards people's privacy, and cannot be used to discriminate against workers.

We must also improve the legal immigration system, and make our nation's naturalization process fair and accessible to the thousands of legal permanent residents who are eager to become full Americans. We should fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy that hampers family reunification, the cornerstone of our immigration policy for years. Given the importance of both keeping families together and supporting American businesses, we will increase the number of immigration visas for family members of people living here and for immigrants who meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill, as long as appropriate labor market protections and standards are in place. We will fight discrimination against Americans who have always played by our immigration rules but are sometimes treated as if they had not.

For the millions living here illegally but otherwise playing by the rules, we must require them to come out of the shadows and get right with the law. We support a system that requires undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens. They are our neighbors, and we can help them become full tax-paying, law-abiding, productive members of society.

This is basically Trump's position.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=78283

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I really don't have a specific comment on Yemen -- it sounds like we should not be intervening there, but I don't know a lot about it.

I don't think I would describe it as cyclical, but it's definitely true to say that a huge amount of the violence in the Middle East is directly caused by our invasion of Iraq. That was a bad idea! I marched against it and everything. But pointing out that we invaded Iraq doesn't really answer the question of what we should do to deal with the problems that have resulted from that invasion. If anything, don't we bear more responsibility given that we're the ones who caused ISIS to arise?

I generally agree and have said before that you can't shoot democracy into people. If people in other countries don't want secular democratic rule then they probably won't have it and we need to pretty much accept that. The question -- and it is a question -- is whether we should help people who do actively strive to bring about democratic rule in their countries. Historically the answer is that we do help them, because we believe freedom and civil rights are important and democracy is the best way to deliver them, and because one good way to protect American lives is to make sure most countries in the world pretty much like us and democracies tend to like us more. Also like I'm pretty sure the UN says somewhere that we're supposed to help advance democracy!

I am happy to hear the argument that if rebels in a foreign dictatorship are trying to create democracy we should ignore them. It's possible! But it doesn't sound great, does it?

I think motivations actually matter here a lot because our motivation will determine our course of action and can effect the consequences of our decisions here. If our actual motivation is "protect our and our allies interests in the region" then that might not mean we'll accomplish goals that are beneficial to the people we're ostensibly trying to help. How committed are we to guaranteeing democracy in Syria? If we're not committed adequately, could that mean that are current levels of commitment are only going to serve to make things worse? In the same way that invading Iraq has caused numerous problems, should we not be more reserved in our use of power and save it for multilateral interventions with clearer goals (a la the Gulf War) unless we're fully willing to commit to the sorts of massive expenses larger scale interventions cost? We didn't just bomb Japan to the ground and then help them write a constitution.

Tunisia, for example, is a fairly poor country that successfully became a mostly secular liberal democracy unlike its sisters in the Arab Spring but has been financially struggling since making that transition. Is it a better use of our resources to help bring them up and act as a stabilizing force in the region rather than to pursue our current aggressive policies? After all, if the economy collapsing means that it falls prey to a takeover by a dictator, then that could have similarly disastrous consequences.

Or for a different example, the Kurds should probably be able to start their own state especially as an often abused minority group split between four states. Assuming there were no negative consequences, the US would benefit from a democratic Kurdistan and could have another ally that could help stabilize the region. Because of our relationship with Turkey, however, we're probably not going to recognize a Kurdistan because that would hurt our relationship with Turkey and weaken our ability to project hegemonic power abroad, potentially destabilizing the area further, right? So do we recognize a Kurdistan because it's the right thing to do, or do we avoid doing so because of the potentially worse consequences from the action.

I mean, the purpose of hegemony is to reduce warfare so that people die less. Multiple equitable power blocs in a region are also referred to as "enemies." As you can probably tell, we don't have hegemony in the Middle East. Far from it! Our hegemony is strictly limited to America and Europe, but in fairness, it has been pretty successful at preventing warfare in those theatres since the 50s. Isn't preventing warfare a valid goal?

I actually agree with you here, but I'm curious if you're looking at this as a realist or liberal institutionalist?

 

[AntraxSuicide]

I am trying to understand your argument and cant quite figure if you're saying that youd like potential terrorists within US borders to be droned.

i also cant quite see the difference between gassing people to death and bombing people to death, fwiw. Is one extra-worse than the other?

If the potential terrorists inside our borders had taken cities by force and were executing people in those cities, then yes, I'd be advocating Waco, basically. Like, if the Klan just goes and conquers Birmingham, AL and starts throwing black people off the top of Legion Field, then I would like military force to stop the Klan.

And are you legitimately saying the intentional chemical massacre of people is the same as accidental deaths from traditional bombs? On a logistic standpoint, the former is a heinous act in concept while the latter is a matter of execution, to say nothing of the outright insanity of comparing the two morally. You've lost the plot if you're trying to "both sides" the Obama administration and Assad.

I really don't have a specific comment on Yemen -- it sounds like we should not be intervening there, but I don't know a lot about it.

I don't think I would describe it as cyclical, but it's definitely true to say that a huge amount of the violence in the Middle East is directly caused by our invasion of Iraq. That was a bad idea! I marched against it and everything. But pointing out that we invaded Iraq doesn't really answer the question of what we should do to deal with the problems that have resulted from that invasion. If anything, don't we bear more responsibility given that we're the ones who caused ISIS to arise?

I generally agree and have said before that you can't shoot democracy into people. If people in other countries don't want secular democratic rule then they probably won't have it and we need to pretty much accept that. The question -- and it is a question -- is whether we should help people who do actively strive to bring about democratic rule in their countries. Historically the answer is that we do help them, because we believe freedom and civil rights are important and democracy is the best way to deliver them, and because one good way to protect American lives is to make sure most countries in the world pretty much like us and democracies tend to like us more. Also like I'm pretty sure the UN says somewhere that we're supposed to help advance democracy!

I am happy to hear the argument that if rebels in a foreign dictatorship are trying to create democracy we should ignore them. It's possible! But it doesn't sound great, does it?



I don't have time to watch videos. What is the point you wanted to make?

I guess we might have other motivations to intervene in Syria, sure. I wasn't really arguing about the motivations of our current government. That seems unproductive since we can't possibly know those motivations. The question is what you believe our foreign policy and our motivations should be.

Your point about white privilege makes no sense to me at all. Part of the point of talking about privilege is to illustrate that sometimes you don't have enough information about a topic and should just say you don't know about it. That's what I did! What would you prefer I do, lie and act like I do know all about it?



As I noted to East Lake, this argument does not seem particularly relevant to the one I advanced. What do you think our motivations should be?

I am generally not a big fan of our support for Saudi Arabia and I'd be happy to say we should phase out our alliance with them, since they are pretty bad. Happily, the expansion of green energy and our support for fracking make it possible for us to do this. Fracking is very important for allowing us to unwind petrodollar alliances!



As far as I can tell, your history of the Syrian Civil War is simply false. This is part of why I wanted to ask you what your theory for what we should do in Syria actually is. Our intervention in Syria didn't start until 2014. Armed conflict had been ongoing for three years at that point! Assad started using chemical weapons against the rebels in 2013. It seems ahistorical to suggest that this is because of "our support for the rebels." Why does your narrative for Syria completely subtract any culpability for Bashir al-Assad suppressing democratic protests with military force in the first place? Is that fine, as long as the economy isn't disrupted?

As above, I certainly acknowledge that ISIS is our fault. That doesn't constitute a foreign policy plan for managing it. If you want me to say that the Iraq War was a super bad idea, obviously it was. Unlike many people, I was against it at the time! But the Iraq War did actually happen and forms part of the current state of the world, and we have to engage with that reality. We can't go back and not invade Iraq.

As above again, my question about supporting democracy applies to you as well. I asked you specifically what foreign policy you would propose for ISIS and for Syria. You didn't respond to that. I think you should attempt to do so! But let's add on the same question -- should we support democratic rebels at all? It seems like you don't think we should. Why not? Is our commitment to the United Nations to support democratic values meaningless?



I mean, the purpose of hegemony is to reduce warfare so that people die less. Multiple equitable power blocs in a region are also referred to as "enemies." As you can probably tell, we don't have hegemony in the Middle East. Far from it! Our hegemony is strictly limited to America and Europe, but in fairness, it has been pretty successful at preventing warfare in those theatres since the 50s. Isn't preventing warfare a valid goal?

This is all a great post, so I'm quoting the whole thing, but to the bolded, I've always thought we'd do better these days taking up more relations with Iran and less with the Saudis. Iran seems to be moving forward in a lot of ways.

 

[Valhelm]

As I noted to East Lake, this argument does not seem particularly relevant to the one I advanced. What do you think our motivations should be?

I am generally not a big fan of our support for Saudi Arabia and I'd be happy to say we should phase out our alliance with them, since they are pretty bad. Happily, the expansion of green energy and our support for fracking make it possible for us to do this. Fracking is very important for allowing us to unwind petrodollar alliances!



As far as I can tell, your history of the Syrian Civil War is simply false. This is part of why I wanted to ask you what your theory for what we should do in Syria actually is. Our intervention in Syria didn't start until 2014. Armed conflict had been ongoing for three years at that point! Assad started using chemical weapons against the rebels in 2013. It seems ahistorical to suggest that this is because of "our support for the rebels." Why does your narrative for Syria completely subtract any culpability for Bashir al-Assad suppressing democratic protests with military force in the first place? Is that fine, as long as the economy isn't disrupted?

As above, I certainly acknowledge that ISIS is our fault. That doesn't constitute a foreign policy plan for managing it. If you want me to say that the Iraq War was a super bad idea, obviously it was. Unlike many people, I was against it at the time! But the Iraq War did actually happen and forms part of the current state of the world, and we have to engage with that reality. We can't go back and not invade Iraq.

As above again, my question about supporting democracy applies to you as well. I asked you specifically what foreign policy you would propose for ISIS and for Syria. You didn't respond to that. I think you should attempt to do so! But let's add on the same question -- should we support democratic rebels at all? It seems like you don't think we should. Why not? Is our commitment to the United Nations to support democratic values meaningless?



I mean, the purpose of hegemony is to reduce warfare so that people die less. Multiple equitable power blocs in a region are also referred to as "enemies." As you can probably tell, we don't have hegemony in the Middle East. Far from it! Our hegemony is strictly limited to America and Europe, but in fairness, it has been pretty successful at preventing warfare in those theatres since the 50s. Isn't preventing warfare a valid goal?

Pigeon, the war in Syria was never as clear-cut as "democracy versus autocracy". The Assad regime is secular and the ruling class disproportionately includes members of the Shi'i Alawite minority, to which Assad and his family belong. Because Syria is a mostly Sunni country, and many of these Sunnis are very religious, this arrangement was stable. Iraq next door has spent most of its history in the opposite situation, with a religious Shi'i majority ruled by a secular Sunni government.

Toppling Saddam's Sunni clique did have one major fortuitous outcome -- the establishment of democratic government in Iraq. However, this had its own drawbacks. The arrival of democracy to Iraq empowered the Shi'i majority. This terrified many hardline Sunnis, leading to widespread terrorism against Shi'i Iraqis and Saudi fears of a global Shi'i ascendancy. Saudi Arabia views itself as the guardian of the global Sunni community, so the empowerment of Shia Islam anywhere is a threat to their legitimacy and regional influence.

Saudi Arabia and Turkey have supported Sunni militancy in Syria for years before the revolution began. Much like Saudi Arabia, Turkey is a Sunni country distrustful of Shia governments. Syria is closely allied with Iran, the shared ally of Saudi Arabia and Turkey. If a Sunni government were to emerge in Syria, this would weaken Iranian influence substantially and likely give Turkey an important new ally.

It's inappropriate to say American intervention began in 2014. The CIA has been funding opposition militias since 2011. Because America doesn't like Iran very much either, and wants to maintain a friendly relationship with our Turkish and Saudi allies, funding opposition made sense. Syria has also been a thorn in our side for decades. Bashar al-Assad's father Hafez abetted anti-US forces during our intervention in the Lebanese Civil War.

Unfortunately, much of America's aid went to the wrong people. Far-right opposition groups, directly and indirectly, gained access to American funding and munitions. Our connection with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, who actively want Sunni extremists to run Syria, made this worse. By 2013, Islamists had co-opted the Syrian opposition. Violence by extremists against members of the moderate opposition caused most secularists to join with Assad or the Syrian Democratic Forces , a US-backed anti-Islamist front led by the Kurds, who fight both ISIS and the remnants of the Syrian opposition.

Since 2013 there has been no legitimate case to support the Syrian opposition against Bashar al-Assad. While America could have used our military power and connection to the popular Syrian Democratic Front as bargaining power to institute democracy in Syria, instead we preferred to continue supporting extremist rebels against the Assad regime. These rebels do not want democracy. They want to live in a more religious society, in which religious minorities like the Shi'i Alawites have less of a voice. Our willing cooperation with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and our inability to vet the groups we were supporting, made this outcome largely inevitable.

By striving for hegemony, America is not preventing warfare. Our desire to be the leader of Middle Eastern politics demands extreme violence and the destruction of any regional hegemon who does not cooperate. Moreover, it is morally wrong and practically dangerous for our nation to dictate the politics of a region so far away. American imperialism, in its current form, isn't a course of action we should pursue.

 

[Rebel Leader]

Trump has fired 46 US attorneys.. or "asked to resign "


According to CNN they didn't know untill it was reported on the news

 

[Coriolanus]

If the potential terrorists inside our borders had taken cities by force and were executing people in those cities, then yes, I'd be advocating Waco, basically. Like, if the Klan just goes and conquers Birmingham, AL and starts throwing black people off the top of Legion Field, then I would like military force to stop the Klan.

And are you legitimately saying the intentional chemical massacre of people is the same as accidental deaths from traditional bombs? On a logistic standpoint, the former is a heinous act in concept while the latter is a matter of execution, to say nothing of the outright insanity of comparing the two morally. You've lost the plot if you're trying to "both sides" the Obama administration and Assad.

You are advocating two different things and treating them as if they are the same. You know US bombings in the region do not solely target ISIL, so do not pretend otherwise. Terrorists did capture that one federal building, however. You think it should've been reduced to cinders?

You are also so preoccupied with the defense of obama's handling of the situation that youve ignored the obvious point: it doesnt matter if the massacre carried by the forces that you oppose is done by chemicals or bombs, the civilians are dead just the same. Would it not be justified, were conventional weapons used? To try to paint your intervention as extra-justified simply because chemicals are used is an exercise in futility.

Were i interested in shitting on obama's use of weapons beyond drones, i would've pointed out to the use of depleted uranium in syria.
-
To expand on ISIL: that is a concrete, non-conceptual target. One can carry a military operation against such a target and remove it from a region, even if temporarily, as was done with the Taliban.

This is all a great post, so I'm quoting the whole thing, but to the bolded, I've always thought we'd do better these days taking up more relations with Iran and less with the Saudis. Iran seems to be moving forward in a lot of ways.

And in this our positions are in the same tune.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Unfortunately, much of America's aid went to the wrong people. Far-right opposition groups, directly and indirectly, gained access to American funding and munitions. Our connection with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, who actively want Sunni extremists to run Syria, made this worse. By 2013, Islamists had co-opted the Syrian opposition. Violence by extremists against members of the moderate opposition caused most secularists to join with Assad or the Syrian Democratic Forces , a US-backed anti-Islamist front led by the Kurds, who fight both ISIS and the remnants of the Syrian opposition.

Since 2013 there has been no legitimate case to support the Syrian opposition against Bashar al-Assad. While America could have used our military power and connection to the popular Syrian Democratic Front as bargaining power to institute democracy in Syria, instead we preferred to continue supporting extremist rebels against the Assad regime. These rebels do not want democracy. They want to live in a more religious society, in which religious minorities like the Shi'i Alawites have less of a voice. Our willing cooperation with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and our inability to vet the groups we were supporting, made this outcome largely inevitable.

So did/does the US support anti-Islamist pro-secular democracy rebels or extremist, Islamist rebels?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Supporting socially conservative terror groups against a secular government is bad! Now let me tell you guys about Hamas...

(Note: Assad is 2e42 times worse than Israel and Bibi).

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Pigeon, the war in Syria was never as clear-cut as "democracy versus autocracy". The Assad regime is secular and the ruling class disproportionately includes members of the Shi'i Alawite minority, to which Assad and his family belong. Because Syria is a mostly Sunni country, and many of these Sunnis are very religious, this arrangement was stable. Iraq next door has spent most of its history in the opposite situation, with a religious Shi'i majority ruled by a secular Sunni government.

Toppling Saddam's Sunni clique did have one major fortuitous outcome -- the establishment of democratic government in Iraq. However, this had its own drawbacks. The arrival of democracy to Iraq empowered the Shi'i majority. This terrified many hardline Sunnis, leading to widespread terrorism against Shi'i Iraqis and Saudi fears of a global Shi'i ascendancy. Saudi Arabia views itself as the guardian of the global Sunni community, so the empowerment of Shia Islam anywhere is a threat to their legitimacy and regional influence.

Saudi Arabia and Turkey have supported Sunni militancy in Syria for years before the revolution began. Much like Saudi Arabia, Turkey is a Sunni country distrustful of Shia governments. Syria is closely allied with Iran, the shared ally of Saudi Arabia and Turkey. If a Sunni government were to emerge in Syria, this would weaken Iranian influence substantially and likely give Turkey an important new ally.

So this is mostly just saying that if we do things to help people, bad people will retaliate. But that's not really a good answer. If you try to talk a battered wife into leaving the relationship, there's a chance her husband gets violent. You still do it though; you just execute the plan with the goal of not giving him the chance to be violent.

Again, this seems to be mostly about execution of intervention, not the act itself.

It's inappropriate to say American intervention began in 2014. The CIA has been funding opposition militias since 2011. Because America doesn't like Iran very much either, and wants to maintain a friendly relationship with our Turkish and Saudi allies, funding opposition made sense. Syria has also been a thorn in our side for decades. Bashar al-Assad's father Hafez abetted anti-US forces during our intervention in the Lebanese Civil War.

Unfortunately, much of America's aid went to the wrong people. Far-right opposition groups, directly and indirectly, gained access to American funding and munitions. Our connection with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, who actively want Sunni extremists to run Syria, made this worse. By 2013, Islamists had co-opted the Syrian opposition. Violence by extremists against members of the moderate opposition caused most secularists to join with Assad or the Syrian Democratic Forces , a US-backed anti-Islamist front led by the Kurds, who fight both ISIS and the remnants of the Syrian opposition.

Again, more execution problems. "We're arming bad people" doesn't mean we tell the people getting massacred to fuck off (which is essentially what you're saying, just a bit nicer). We just need to do more outreach beyond "Find group with guns who hates bad guys and dump cash on them." Like Bonen mentions below, intervention should follow exactly like post-war Japan; lots of continuous support, in ways other than just money.

Since 2013 there has been no legitimate case to support the Syrian opposition against Bashar al-Assad. While America could have used our military power and connection to the popular Syrian Democratic Front as bargaining power to institute democracy in Syria, instead we preferred to continue supporting extremist rebels against the Assad regime. These rebels do not want democracy. They want to live in a more religious society, in which religious minorities like the Shi'i Alawites have less of a voice. Our willing cooperation with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and our inability to vet the groups we were supporting, made this outcome largely inevitable.

By striving for hegemony, America is not preventing warfare. Our desire to be the leader of Middle Eastern politics demands extreme violence and the destruction of any regional hegemon who does not cooperate. Moreover, it is morally wrong and practically dangerous for our nation to dictate the politics of a region so far away. American imperialism, in its current form, isn't a course of action we should pursue.

So here, you seem to be actually engaging in American imperialism yourself because it seems your argument is that we should only be helping people who agree to completely forego the process of creating their own governments and basically just write them a US Constitution and shove it down their throats. I don't really take this position; if a country largely wants a system other than democracy, that's fine. My only concern is whether people are being, ya know, massacred. A democracy isn't even immune to that, so why make that a non-negotiable requirement before we save people from being slaughtered, as Pigeon notes, because of our own choices in the past. Much as we'd like to turn back time and not invade Iraq, it's a fantasy land to even think about, and it's not much comfort to the people that we'd be throwing to the wolves.

I think motivations actually matter here a lot because our motivation will determine our course of action and can effect the consequences of our decisions here. If our actual motivation is "protect our and our allies interests in the region" then that might not mean we'll accomplish goals that are beneficial to the people we're ostensibly trying to help. How committed are we to guaranteeing democracy in Syria? If we're not committed adequately, could that mean that are current levels of commitment are only going to serve to make things worse? In the same way that invading Iraq has caused numerous problems, should we not be more reserved in our use of power and save it for multilateral interventions with clearer goals (a la the Gulf War) unless we're fully willing to commit to the sorts of massive expenses larger scale interventions cost? We didn't just bomb Japan to the ground and then help them write a constitution.

Tunisia, for example, is a fairly poor country that successfully became a mostly secular liberal democracy unlike its sisters in the Arab Spring but has been financially struggling since making that transition. Is it a better use of our resources to help bring them up and act as a stabilizing force in the region rather than to pursue our current aggressive policies? After all, if the economy collapsing means that it falls prey to a takeover by a dictator, then that could have similarly disastrous consequences.

WhyNotBoth.jpg

We have a massive military budget; how much does Tunisia need? (Legit question). And I argue above that we should be modelling such projects around post-war Europe and Japan; massive undertakings that potentially take over a decade.

To basically state a rough idea of how I see the world: the US is essentially Bill Gates. We have more of everything that any country could possibly have (money, weapons, food, natural resources, you name it). And just like I think Bill Gates should be taxed to spread his resources around to poor people in the US (and to further argue my analogy, there are different types of poor; maybe you can afford food and housing and whatnot, but you can't afford a car to increase your employment prospects

Spoiler

gov't subsidized cars should be a thing

), I think the US should basically tax itself on the world stage. Terrorist group conquers a city and kills people? US should provide disproportionate military help because we can. Need money to fund your new government? US should throw some cash your way. Having a problem with food or other resources after a natural disaster? Why fuck around with charities that might scam you. Just let our government start sending what we've got.

The US is the most powerful country in the world, in a lot of metrics. I think it's morally wrong to close our borders and tell the world's citizens to fuck themselves, we got ours.

edit:

You are advocating two different things and treating them as if they are the same. You know US bombings in the region do not solely target ISIL, so do not pretend otherwise. Terrorists did capture that one federal building, however. You think it should've been reduced to cinders?

You are also so preoccupied with the defense of obama's handling of the situation that youve ignored the obvious point: it doesnt matter if the massacre carried by the forces that you oppose is done by chemicals or bombs, the civilians are dead just the same. Would it not be justified, were conventional weapons used? To try to paint your intervention as extra-justified simply because chemicals are used is an exercise in futility.

Were i interested in shitting on obama's use of weapons beyond drones, i would've pointed out to the use of depleted uranium in syria.
-
To expand on ISIL: that is a concrete, non-conceptual target. One can carry a military operation against such a target and remove it from a region, even if temporarily, as was done with the Taliban.


And in this our positions are in the same tune.

You mean those guys that took that federal building in Oregon? Yes, after a few days to see if they'd leave, the police should've gone in and thrown them out (with force if necessary). They didn't because they were white.

And "dead is dead" is a bad argument. If that's the case, why let people die of illnesses when you can just throw them out the hospital window? They'll be dead either way. The concept of cruelty exists, philosophically and legally.

And I never said we only target ISIS. But this is again an execution argument; I'm saying that we should do better to secure information about possible civilians before taking action. You're saying we should tell people in other countries to go fuck themselves.

 

[Aaron Strife]

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

There were "The GOP is dead forever!" articles the day before they won the presidency.

You'd think they'd learn.

 

[pigeon]

You are advocating two different things and treating them as if they are the same. You know US bombings in the region do not solely target ISIL, so do not pretend otherwise. Terrorists did capture that one federal building, however. You think it should've been reduced to cinders?

I have to go out for a bit but I wanted to quickly note that I am actually totally in support of the idea that white nationalist terrorists who seize federal buildings should be shot. In fact, the official American position is that not only can they be shot, anybody else who takes up arms in sympathy should also be shot, and in fact if it's necessary to burn down half of Georgia we should do that too just to make sure. This policy has been pretty successful in the past! Let's not lose sight of it.

 

[Suikoguy]

Trump has fired 46 US attorneys.. or "asked to resign "


According to CNN they didn't know untill it was reported on the news

Had this been done before?

 

[kirblar]

Had this been done before?

You always do it.

You don't do it all at once. Especially not when you've not nominated any replacements!

They're deliberately taking power away from agencies and centralizing it.

 

[Suikoguy]

You always do it.

You don't do it all at once. Especially not when you've not nominated any replacements!

They're deliberately taking power away from agencies and centralizing it.

This structure was created centuries ago right?
They sure fucked up.

 

[kirblar]

This structure was created centuries ago right?
They sure fucked up.

Been pointed out this is exactly what shitty populist dictators do in Latin American countries, it's by far the best/closest comparison for his behavior.

 

[Wanda/Wander]

Trump has fired 46 US attorneys.. or "asked to resign "


According to CNN they didn't know untill it was reported on the news

Seems thread worthy. These firings have come out of nowhere and there has been no real reason why this has happened,

 

[Blader]

There were "The GOP is dead forever!" articles the day before they won the presidency.

You'd think they'd learn.

The cheering about the GOP's permanent destruction and bemoaning over the Dems' permanent destruction is really fucking annoying. This country runs on a two-party system; no one party will ever be shut out of power for long, much less for forever. And the sooner people stop thinking about the possibility/inevitability of one party being completely dead, the better.

 

[NeoXChaos]

The cheering about the GOP's permanent destruction and bemoaning over the Dems' permanent destruction is really fucking annoying. This country runs on a two-party system; no one party will ever be shut out of power for long, much less for forever. And the sooner people stop thinking about the possibility/inevitability of one party being completely dead, the better.

so what your saying is we will never be rid of the GOP or at least the current makeup of it will evolve over time but still be named GOP?

 

[Dan]

Seems thread worthy. These firings have come out of nowhere and there has been no real reason why this has happened,

Here's the reason:

A person familiar with the calls that have been made said there was no advance warning of the move. It came less than 24 hours after Sean Hannity, the Fox News commentator who often speaks with Mr. Trump, called for a “purge” of Obama appointees at the Justice Department on his show.

 

[kess]

Regarding PA, Kanjorski was arguably one of the most "moderate" Democrats in the House and got beat like a gong, quite abruptly, on Barletta's anti-Hispanic immigration platform.

However, the Democrats have done well with the state level races lately, despite losing the state to Trump. A Senate candidate with an ounce of charisma could go a long way, although they'll have to wait a long time to replace Toomey.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Here's the reason:

>Get dirt on Hannity
>Get him to do a line about how Trump needs to do something liberal
>Wait to see results

Sad as fuck that this is the only thing that gets into his head.

 

[Blader]

so what your saying is we will never be rid of the GOP or at least the current makeup of it will evolve over time but still be named GOP?

The latter. Of course, what that future makeup looks like, who the fuck knows. I was hoping that this election would finally force the GOP to move in a more sensible direction and instead... well. Given the trends of the last 50-60 years, we can probably expect the GOP to evolve into something even worse. But, they will still be electable! And it's important that Dems/progressives remember that.

 

[pigeon]

The cheering about the GOP's permanent destruction and bemoaning over the Dems' permanent destruction is really fucking annoying. This country runs on a two-party system; no one party will ever be shut out of power for long, much less for forever. And the sooner people stop thinking about the possibility/inevitability of one party being completely dead, the better.

That's why I support the Whigs in 2020

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

That's why I support the Whigs in 2020

With all the craze for Hamilton with libs we might as well rebrand as the Federalist party.

 

[sangreal]

I'm sure Trump will get right on finding replacements for those US Attorneys just like his well-oiled machine has filled the vacancies in every other department

 

[whyamihere]

It's also monumentally stupid because the vast majority of those 46 US Attorneys are Democrats in places where Democrats need a bench and now all have time to run for office in 2018.

 

[Wilsongt]

Had this been done before?

I heard on NPR today that it isn't uncommon.

 

[More_Badass]

I heard on NPR today that it isn't uncommon.

It's the how and why of the action that is uncommon, not the action itself

 

[East Lake]

I don't have time to watch videos. What is the point you wanted to make?

If you have time to make long posts you have time to watch a couple minutes of video. The relevant part is only a few minutes long. The main thrust of the argument is that intervention is not inherently moral, even if it sounds like the only option, like I've said in an earlier post.

I guess we might have other motivations to intervene in Syria, sure. I wasn't really arguing about the motivations of our current government. That seems unproductive since we can't possibly know those motivations. The question is what you believe our foreign policy and our motivations should be.

This seems to pretty clearly talk about motivations?

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.

It's not something I'd particularly agree with but if knowing the motivations is not important then why bring it up? It certainly seems to excuse the government when you bring up altruistic behavior.

Your point about white privilege makes no sense to me at all. Part of the point of talking about privilege is to illustrate that sometimes you don't have enough information about a topic and should just say you don't know about it. That's what I did! What would you prefer I do, lie and act like I do know all about it?

It makes perfect sense. You're privileged enough to claim you haven't read much about drone strikes. You have the privilege that a white conservative does when tough on crime policies sound reasonable. They don't have the time to read michelle alexander and you don't have the time to watch a video.