It's a good thing HuffPost has direct links to videos and tweets, then.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
US PoliERA 2019 |OT4| Folded like a DOG
- Thread starter Midnight Jon
- Start date
- Status
It's a good thing HuffPost has direct links to videos and tweets, then.
I can't access their site right now but thanks for clarifying.
Wow i have seen the "some polls are skewed bc they dont poll millenial voters" argument which I guess could be a valid take?
but stuff like that tweet or the whole "Biden isnt leading by that much, every poll is wrong" narrative are just so dumb
"What's the only thing better than a war to prop up approval ratings?"
"I don't know, John, what?"
"Two wars."
That "Its literally nothing but an endless series of PR stunts unless its a grift, obstruction of justice, or on Putin's orders" theory of mine is continuing, and some of those OoJ are for PR stunts.
smh
Same difference. I mean, I hope so...
Isn't this guys whole reason for being in Congress is because he was a GOP virtue signal? Like they've ever given a shit for service members
Not taking Oil money =/= needing transportation where there are few options. Let's just not try to make things better than what we have.
While we're on the matter, who the fuck decided that the executive branch can declare war without the approval of congress? We're suppose to have checks and balances.
The legislative branch abdicated its role when it passed the AUMF after 9/11.
The AUMF was a a massive victory for bin Laden. His plan worked.
Successive Congresses ceded the power to the executive rather than make politically unpopular decisions themselves.
So, am I crazy or is the best play with NK not just... giving up on decnuclearization and trusting in MAD to keep them in line? They want nukes because they're convinced that the US or somebody is gonna try to depose the Kims, so they want to make sure that doing so extracts too great a price to contemplate, but any pretense at (deliberate) offensive missile use has to be a bluff, because they know that there's no way they survive that exchange. So... let them keep the bomb. Keep up the economic sanctions, refuse any diplomatic relations, but make it clear that nobody has an intention of deposing the regime. Let them fade farther and farther into total irrelevancy. What's the downside?
Congress has been relinquishing more and more of their authority to the executive for a long time now, all out of self-interest so they don't have to make hard choices or take votes that might put their reelection in peril.
And now it's pretty much out of control.
We're relying on China to keep the choke chain on their vassal state.
You need rational actors on both sides for MAD to work.
And arguably you don't have rational actors on either side.
It's people thinking they're allies because they don't actively want to deny us rights. They're better than bigots, but not by much.
Yeah, but the problem is, they think they're allies, and get huffy when you tell them that, no, not actively wanting to deny us rights doesn't make you an ally.
Think of it like the problem with having too many guns in this country. The whole "responsible gun owners" schtick is not wrong per se, but because there are so many guns out there then things happen as an inevitability, through depression/other mental illness, through accidents, through sudden crimes of passion, through irresponsible storage.
It's in everyone's interest to make sure there are as few nuclear weapons out there as possible. Right now the only countries "authorized" by the international order to have them are the P5 on the UN Security Council, the others (Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea) are just tolerated because forcibly de-nuclearizing a country has, to date, not been judged to be worth starting a war over.
Anti-proliferation efforts is one of the few pieces of foreign policy that is not imperialistic at its core. This stuff's about our survival as a species, as any number of Cold War near-misses can tell you, or the demented orange-stained turd who is 20 minutes away from ending life as we know it at all times.
You give North Korea a pass and it encourages Iran to go ahead and build one, or someone like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Brazil maybe, anyone with the ambition and resources to potentially pull it off.
I just don't think that's the correct read on the dynamic.
We're acting less rational than NK here - NK's primary motivation is preserving the status of the Kim dynasty inside NK. Make it clear that we're not going to go on offense, won't fire the first shot, will wipe them off the face of the earth if they do. Not much else to say after that. All the saber rattling is just that. They're not gonna do anything, because it would run counter to their objective. Just let them stew.
Saying "this country is too economically devastated for additional non-military pressure to work, so we're just going to leave them in their corner forever" isn't really giving everybody else a pass, since everybody else to some extent relies on the international community and isn't willing to go to the lengths NK is. It doesn't stop us from pursuing further nonproliferation efforts elsewhere.
Tell them that if somebody punches them in the face, you'll totally have their back, in that you won't do anything whatsoever to help or protect them, but you PROMISE you won't also punch them in the face
Yes and no?
China finances NK's extremely meager existence because they're prefer to have a buffer between them an SK than not have that buffer, but they're reading the situation more like I am. They're not going to cut off NK over nuclearization, and I doubt they would if they nuked somebody. This is about NK's internal dynamics in relation to the Kim dynasty.
And if they get mad about being punched in the face, I'll tell them about some minor thing they did to annoy me, and imply that's more important than being mad about their bloody nose.
Yep, they were betrayed by W. so any antagonism on their part falls squarely on the same irrational actors on the American side, the neocons and the GOP sheep that go along with their wars and saber rattling.
As far as I'm concerned nobody gets to define themselves as an ally.
in my opinion, people should only consider themselves allies if they are a member of a different marginalized group and therefore also have something on the line, or have demonstrated exemplary efforts towards advocacy causes
it seems like most people who claim to be "allies" would be more accurately described as "neutral" - it's great that they are not being actively antagonistic, but in wars an ally is usually named for their concrete contributions to said war effort
Congress are chicken shit, they don't want a failed war vote hanging over them on an election year, see Iraq. That war didn't change their minds about giving away their war powers it had the opposite affect and now they really won't get anywhere near another war vote again and so they just let the president run amok making wars and all they have to do is act outraged latter and have dog an pony congressional oversight committees that do nothing.
Poor white people.
Freeze speech argument.
People clamoring to be "allies" are mostly in it for self-validation. Same kind of people who take pleasure in their performative white guilt. "I'm not racist, see how much I hate myself and other white people?!"
It's become a meaningless term that some glom onto as some sort of identity. Just try to be a good person.
It's become a meaningless term that some glom onto as some sort of identity. Just try to be a good person.
Is this where I have to point out that ally isn't even a term you can apply to yourself? It's something the people you want to help apply (or don't) at their discretion.
It should be, but realistically you have tons of goobers running around on Twitter claiming it for themselves.
It's basically inevitable for at least one debate moment where someone attacks Biden hard for his crappy history and Biden puts up an exceptionally weak and dumb defence. The entire primary will then turn on if that makes people realise maybe Biden doesn't have the chops to defeat trump, or if people think that even if they don't like Biden in that moment, the maga guy next door probably did.
I don't know if that matters if it happens yesterday or in 7 months, but I want it to happen soon as possible just for the sake of my mental health.
I don't know if that matters if it happens yesterday or in 7 months, but I want it to happen soon as possible just for the sake of my mental health.
Yeah, it's very much not a term you should be using on yourself, it's something you use to reference others who have helped/are helping.
trying to draw that distinction in practice on a large scale would be absolutely miserable
however, i guess one easy line could be drawn is that people with reasonable access to the polls who don't even vote for progressive candidates - in addition to doing nothing else to help - probably should try a bit harder at being a good ally
Why does the average American have such a poor understanding of constitutional freedom of speech? Given the importance of the constitution, does it actually get much coverage in the educational curriculum?
And beyond just the text of the constitution itself, do constitutional legal challenges or landmark decisions like Roe v Wade get covered in the classroom?
Because a lot of people are shitty and like the idea of saying whatever with impunity or being able to ignore challenges to their horrible opinions. Part ignorance, part deliberate misinterpretation.
Biden going down is not an inevitability whatsoever and you are going to be in for a world of shock if you don't open yourself up to acknowledging that Biden weathering storms and still remaining the frontrunner a year from now is a real possibility. The field being splintered is going to make it hard for a candidate to gain traction in ways that are really bad for their chances.
Don't be the Sanders people from 2016 who chose to ignore the implications of South Carolina and national polling that showed Sanders dead in the water, or 2016 Pundit Hat Nate re: Trump.
It is achievable though? I feel like there is a train of thought that given a background there is some automatic disqualifyers. It shouldnt be a "title" to strive for as its more important what you do and what a person wants to fight for.
No. The Constitution is essentially holy scripture in the secular religion of Americanism, and as with the Bible that means most people don't know anything about it but think they know that they do. It's been used as a propaganda tool for decades anyway (see below, though the GOP makes that apparent every day with their claimed love for the Constitution and constant violation of it):
it is absolutely not achievable in practice
however, it would be nice if people self-reflected on that train of thought and it inspired them to do the bare minimum to help the causes they allege to support
but it probably wouldn't for many people and would just cause them to be defensive, which would do more harm than good
additionally, the people who don't do anything would be the loudest ones accusing the people who put serious effort into advocacy of not being real allies, so it would definitely cause more harm than good
- Status