Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

305 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      97
    • No
      126
    • Maybe
      82
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      54
    • No
      129
    • Indifferent
      51


Recommended Posts

To be fair, the way the Obama administration has handled Syria has been a disaster, and every other candidate's ideas on ISIS are beyond laughable, whether it's the GOP carpet bombing or Clinton's No Fly Zone that's barely better. You can't really trust these countries, but putting pressure on them to use their vast military resources to clean up their own mess as opposed to the US fucking up the region for the millionth time is as good an option as any.

This is partially the IS's mess, though. How do we expect to be trusted by our allies if we say "clean up your own mess" the instant thigs get marginally difficult?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know our relationship with Saudi Arabia was based on trust.

I'm not talking about Saudi Arabia, I'm talking about decent countries like Jordan, or Iraq, who might as well be our protectorate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bloomberg might run as an independent, thoughts?

i think he'll sap away votes from whoever gets the democratic nomination which im not too fond of because i would like to see obamacare last longer so that more data on it could be produced to see whether it is a boon or vice for the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, the way the Obama administration has handled Syria has been a disaster, and every other candidate's ideas on ISIS are beyond laughable, whether it's the GOP carpet bombing or Clinton's No Fly Zone that's barely better. You can't really trust these countries, but putting pressure on them to use their vast military resources to clean up their own mess as opposed to the US fucking up the region for the millionth time is as good an option as any.

I fail to see what pressure the US can put upon other Middle Eastern countries outside of outright threatening to group them alongside ISIS as enemies of the country (Which would just give the US another country to liberate), and trade restrictions aren't likely to work against the Middle Eastern countries of authoritarian government-the ruling group likely has more than enough money to not give a damn.

Carpet bombing 1) works if you do it extensively enough, and 2) leaves a very clear message, 3) does not damage any of the US's relationships (Which putting pressure is likely to do).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what a good solution to the Middle East is, but I don't think (American) ground troops or a no-fly zone are the answer. Hillary's track record with Libya says enough.

As for Bloomberg, yeah he'd likely sap votes from the Democratic candidate; particularly in New York. Bloomberg is incredibly strict on stuff like gun control, so no Republican would vote for him.

Heck, Bloomberg could probably take New York, and that would definitely hurt the Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not too clear on how the current syrian policy is a disaster

Anything associated with Syria is generally a disaster.

I really think that the US needs to reprioritize the Middle East again. There are countries worth dealing with for economic reasons (Israel, Jordan, Turkey, SA...) and countries that shouldn't be touched with a ten foot pole (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq...) because they can't bring anything to the table. The problem started a long time ago when the US believed that it could solve every problem in this region, not understanding that this shit is built on religious intolerance and hate which spans fucking centuries.

Edited by Jim Moriarty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not too clear on how the current syrian policy is a disaster

Our plan to arm and support "moderate" Syrian opposition was a disaster. The FSA has pretty much been eclipsed by the Al-Nusra front and al-Qaeda. None of them can be trusted.

The Kurds are only interested in fighting ISIS, and would be open to working with the Syrian government.

Russia's intervention has allowed the Syrian government to make serious gains.

Leaving al-Assad in charge is the best option for stability, especially since his government has been protective of minorities like the Alawites and other Shia groups. Sunni Islamist rebels would not do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a serious question.

Why not just let them all fight and kill each other?

EDIT: Just so you understand, this is my view on the matter and it echoes a lot of Israeli thoughts. If they're killing each other, then they're not killing us. It's really that simple. We can deal with the fallout afterwards but for right now, there's no reason to back a horse.

Edited by Jim Moriarty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Bloomberg, yeah he'd likely sap votes from the Democratic candidate; particularly in New York. Bloomberg is incredibly strict on stuff like gun control, so no Republican would vote for him.

Heck, Bloomberg could probably take New York, and that would definitely hurt the Democrats.

idk, nyc =/= ny, the rest of the state is still pretty big.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see what pressure the US can put upon other Middle Eastern countries outside of outright threatening to group them alongside ISIS as enemies of the country (Which would just give the US another country to liberate), and trade restrictions aren't likely to work against the Middle Eastern countries of authoritarian government-the ruling group likely has more than enough money to not give a damn.

Carpet bombing 1) works if you do it extensively enough, and 2) leaves a very clear message, 3) does not damage any of the US's relationships (Which putting pressure is likely to do).

If the clear message is that you should just join ISIS now that your family is dead, sure.

If pressuring other countries doesn't work, fine, but it's worth attempting before we fuck up the Middle East for the billionth time, while countries actually there don't do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What ISIS? A succesful carpet bomb will mean there will be no ISIS left to join.

And the Middle East is pretty fucked already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What ISIS? A succesful carpet bomb will mean there will be no ISIS left to join.

And the Middle East is pretty fucked already.

Okay, fine, then they'll just make a new organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not too clear on how the current syrian policy is a disaster

Regardless of our intentions we have managed to give arms to extreme groups. We do this with the hopes that regime change will bring about... what, precisely? Pluralism and democracy? That seems very unlikely. It's becoming increasingly difficult to imagine a scenario where the removal of Assad leads to an improvement of any kind.

Here's a serious question.

Why not just let them all fight and kill each other?

EDIT: Just so you understand, this is my view on the matter and it echoes a lot of Israeli thoughts. If they're killing each other, then they're not killing us. It's really that simple. We can deal with the fallout afterwards but for right now, there's no reason to back a horse.

Who are you referring to? Extremists in Gaza (and their patrons) will continue attempting to murder your people regardless of the violence happening in Syria or elsewhere. Neither of our countries have the luxury of ignoring Islamism.

Edited by Duff Ostrich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a serious question.

Why not just let them all fight and kill each other?

EDIT: Just so you understand, this is my view on the matter and it echoes a lot of Israeli thoughts. If they're killing each other, then they're not killing us. It's really that simple. We can deal with the fallout afterwards but for right now, there's no reason to back a horse.

Well, the Paris attacks show that Daesh aren't just targeting the Middle East.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are you referring to? Extremists in Gaza (and their patrons) will continue attempting to murder your people regardless of the violence happening in Syria or elsewhere. Neither of our countries have the luxury of ignoring Islamism.

Syria and Hezbollah are great examples. With most of Syria's personal money being funneled into trying to win a bloody civil war, less goes to Hezbollah which means less rockets and attacks from the north. Gaza isn't the only area that hates us. Same idea with Egypt and funneling weapons through tunnels into Gaza (but Egypt's recently been doing our dirty work for us by flooding tunnels).

If the Middle East is in crisis mode without involving Israel as the main conflict, it's good for us since we take less heat and deal with fewer problems. That's a lot better than being surrounded by stable and hostile nations.

As for Paris, you can equate it to 9/11. Sure, the attacks were on Western soil. But they are a few isolated attacks that haven't been repeated on a daily basis. If you live with the understanding that you can (and probably will) be attacked on any given day, suddenly Arabs killing Arabs isn't such a bad thing because you're the alternative. The Middle East has always been volatile, especially since the 1930's (you can even look backwards to the middle of WWI when the Armenian Genocide was going on in the Ottoman Empire). The only difference is that in today's age of technology, it can affect countries outside of the region ‚Äčif those countries allow it to.

Edited by Jim Moriarty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing literally nothing/adopting the most hands-off position on the Syrian crisis possible would be accepting the source of the refugee crisis, along with its current destabilizing effects on the region and elsewhere.

Which is technically an option, but...

Some of those neighboring countries, like Jordan, would love for the U.S. to back a horse, to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When was the last time a US intervention has actually improved the situation in a country? Contrary to what people in this thread have said Obama's current middle eastern policies are quite reasonable and far better than what every other candidate except maybe Rand Paul have to offer. Beyond not taking too much action in Syria and Iraq this also includes the very pragmatic new approach towards Iran which will be very an important factor for the longterm stability of the region.

People need to realize that Daesh is mostly the result of the failed foreign policies of the USA and the EU as well as their problematic relationships with Saudi-Arabia. It's no surprise that a majority of people in Iraq and Syria believe that Daesh is a western invention - after all, it is ... in a certain way. If there actually were interest from the western side in wiping out Daesh they could've done so during the last 5 years. Obama, Paul and everybody else who claims it's better for the US to stay out of the conflict [this includes Sanders I believe?] are a lot more truthful and trustworthy than those that call for a military intervention. Leave that up to the russians. They're doing a better job at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders is anti-intervention, definitely more so than Obama.

What ISIS? A succesful carpet bomb will mean there will be no ISIS left to join.

And the Middle East is pretty fucked already.

Nah, Daesh will always exist in some capability no matter how much you bomb the region. You may be able to take down mass strongholds, but it won't get rid of the organization. This is the same dumbass logic that lead to the disaster in Afghanistan - Taliban didn't just seize to exist. This isn't even getting into the disgusting implications that it's okay to arbitrarily kill people in the Middle East under the futile hope that it will successfully root out insurgencies and ideologies.

That the Middle East is fucked up doesn't mean it can't get worse. Seems like you haven't learned much from history.

Edited by Radiant head

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how relevant it is to the current discussion, but replying in regards to the OP, my thoughts on the race is that it is shaping up to be a Bernie Sanders/Donald Trump general election. I'm not a huge fan of either--actually, just not a fan at all--but, that seems to be the inclination.

It's still relatively too early in the primaries to say anything, though. Last election this time around, Santorum was in the lead for the GOP and Bachmann was in the lead in the straw poll in Iowa, but Romney took that nomination eventually. The election before, McCain's run was looking to be a joke about this time and Obama was a nobody (and everyone thought Clinton and this other guy was the two likely candidates for election).

Poll numbers are very hard to trust, because they do not represent the millenial generation. How many of us have our own place with a landline? That's the primary function when polling on these official news stations in the mainstream media. When doing internet-related polls, numbers are clearly very, very different. I personally support Rand Paul and will vote for him in the primary, but if he doesn't make it into the general election, I am definitely voting for Gary Johnson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When was the last time a US intervention has actually improved the situation in a country? Contrary to what people in this thread have said Obama's current middle eastern policies are quite reasonable and far better than what every other candidate except maybe Rand Paul have to offer. Beyond not taking too much action in Syria and Iraq this also includes the very pragmatic new approach towards Iran which will be very an important factor for the longterm stability of the region.

People need to realize that Daesh is mostly the result of the failed foreign policies of the USA and the EU as well as their problematic relationships with Saudi-Arabia. It's no surprise that a majority of people in Iraq and Syria believe that Daesh is a western invention - after all, it is ... in a certain way. If there actually were interest from the western side in wiping out Daesh they could've done so during the last 5 years. Obama, Paul and everybody else who claims it's better for the US to stay out of the conflict [this includes Sanders I believe?] are a lot more truthful and trustworthy than those that call for a military intervention. Leave that up to the russians. They're doing a better job at it.

I personally blame the Lords Appellant. Basically everything bad that happened after 1400 was probably their fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how relevant it is to the current discussion, but replying in regards to the OP, my thoughts on the race is that it is shaping up to be a Bernie Sanders/Donald Trump general election. I'm not a huge fan of either--actually, just not a fan at all--but, that seems to be the inclination.

It's still relatively too early in the primaries to say anything, though. Last election this time around, Santorum was in the lead for the GOP and Bachmann was in the lead in the straw poll in Iowa, but Romney took that nomination eventually. The election before, McCain's run was looking to be a joke about this time and Obama was a nobody (and everyone thought Clinton and this other guy was the two likely candidates for election).

Poll numbers are very hard to trust, because they do not represent the millenial generation. How many of us have our own place with a landline? That's the primary function when polling on these official news stations in the mainstream media. When doing internet-related polls, numbers are clearly very, very different. I personally support Rand Paul and will vote for him in the primary, but if he doesn't make it into the general election, I am definitely voting for Gary Johnson.

mathematically, a flat tax hurts the middle and lower income levels more than upper income levels. that anyone supports a flat tax is baffling to me. well, at least with respect to those that aren't filthy rich. link. i'm sure there are more unbiased, mathematically more telling links that get the point across better, but this does it well enough. flat taxes are unfair and bad.

libertarian but doesn't believe that a woman has the right to choose to abort. moreso, doesn't think clinics should be govt. funded. this is asking needlessly for risky at-home procedures to occur, even if at a low rate.

agrees with discriminatory policies such as the indiana religious freedom restoration act. link. what if every privately-owned grocery store in the united states refused service to a certain group--should they begin to hunt for food? (eg, whites, homosexuals, middle-eastern people etc.) discrimination based on race, religion, class, gender, and sexuality are simply wrong.

he's not all bad, taken on a case-by-case basis, but many of his views on discrimination policy are very dangerous. i'm sure sure im gei is well versed in the anti-paul discussion, so i suppose i can let him add what he wants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Rand_Paul <--many things in there are flat-out wrong, but i don't have time to find proper sources because i'm lazy

Edited by Phoenix Wright

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that religion is more of an ideology and set of moral values, I don't think it should be amongst categories that you can't decide on (Namely race, gender and sexuality; and class to a more-or-less limited degree-Generally what is accesible to poorer people is more determined by the price of things). A good example of this is Scientology.

Also, as far as I've known, shops already can ask disrupting customers to leave their establishment-I could very easily see a law that enforced the owners of a private business to attend everyone ending up with quite catastrophic results. ((And then, if every single shop in the relatively nearby area was to refuse service to a single category of people, I guess that would be a quite clear sign of what the people want-And there would always be someone willing to exploit that opportunity for a monopoly, after all.)).

Edited by tuvarkz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that religion is more of an ideology and set of moral values, I don't think it should be amongst categories that you can't decide on (Namely race, gender and sexuality; and class to a more-or-less limited degree-Generally what is accesible to poorer people is more determined by the price of things). A good example of this is Scientology.

Also, as far as I've known, shops already can ask disrupting customers to leave their establishment-I could very easily see a law that enforced the owners of a private business to attend everyone ending up with quite catastrophic results. ((And then, if every single shop in the relatively nearby area was to refuse service to a single category of people, I guess that would be a quite clear sign of what the people want-And there would always be someone willing to exploit that opportunity for a monopoly, after all.)).

and i'm more thinking that one should not be able to discriminate based off of those differences. mcdonald's should not be able to refuse muslims because they are muslims. i don't see where you're going with scientology.

where in "discrimination based on race, religion, class, gender, and sexuality are simply wrong," do you see my support for businesses not being able to refuse service at all? come on dude.

i don't care what they want. the state shouldn't care what they want because it's irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...