Hillary or Bernie?

A forum to seperate the more serious discussions from the lighter topics in Off-topic.

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby condude1 » 21 Feb 2016, 01:40

GregorV wrote:
Rolan A Doobie wrote:
GregorV wrote:
OK, so this originated in the idea that America ought to reduce defense spending.

So, while we're cutting defenses/reducing foreign bases/pulling back support for allies, the Middle East, who we have been running around fighting in a "who came first, chicken or the egg" argument, will...not do anything about it?

If you're relying on basic human goodness to protect yourself, I'm really quite sorry. I think that the unprovoked attacks by those from the Middle East in Germany and the Scandinavian countries that have been put on a pedestal suffice to show that if one does not push back, then people will do whatever they want with your land/people/stuff.

To say that any country should decrease their military on a scale that would affect their budget while hoping that their enemies simply let it happen is sheer foolishness. That's just not the way it works on the global theatre.


It's funny that you think those attacks are unprovoked.

Everyone in the world wants their oil, but they don't want to pay for it. They'd rather just kill them and take it. It's all provoked by that. Stop trying to steal their oil, and the overwhelming majority of these problems go away.

The US could cut their military spending in half and still have a force that's twice the size of the next 10 nations combined.....and that's STILL not enough for some people. If we can't defend ourselves with half of what we currently have, then either we are far too stupid or far too big of a global asshole.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 67071.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/641 ... rant-crime

These are the unprovoked attacks I'm talking about. I think you think I'm talking about something else here.

Unless you're trying to say that refugees have a legitimate, moral reason to rape people, or that we raped their people first? I don't think you're trying to say that.


We kinda did. We've been murdering civilians over there for years now, and I'm sure there was some rape going on at the same time.
Telleo wrote:I don't think I've ever met someone who more perfectly embodied Chaotic Neutral than Condude1.


Moderator of the Mafia Subforums!

Silver member of The Classicists!
User avatar
condude1
 
Posts: 8160
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 03:41
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1368)
All-game rating: (1307)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby Rolan A Doobie » 21 Feb 2016, 01:56

GregorV wrote:Unless you're trying to say that refugees have a legitimate, moral reason to rape people, or that we raped their people first? I don't think you're trying to say that.


Of course not, the armed forces of the US and her allies have never been anything but 110% morally upright and upstanding.

Image
Some of you I know, some of you I'm meeting for the first time...
User avatar
Rolan A Doobie
 
Posts: 5323
Joined: 08 Apr 2009, 08:10
Location: Space Volcano
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby GregorV » 21 Feb 2016, 02:10

Rolan A Doobie wrote:
GregorV wrote:Unless you're trying to say that refugees have a legitimate, moral reason to rape people, or that we raped their people first? I don't think you're trying to say that.


Of course not, the armed forces of the US and her allies have never been anything but 110% morally upright and upstanding.


Are you saying that the abhorrent acts of 17 individuals completely and fully justifies the acts committed in Germany and Sweden?

I know I'm not. A crime against humanity is a crime against humanity, no matter where and by whom it is committed.
I got left with nothin' but a Penny, so I had to do it the Hardaway.

What is Mafia? It is a never ending time sink where seemingly trivial inconsequential passing comments are often portrayed as cast iron proof of guilt. Run away backs rather whilst you still can. For me, there is no hope.
User avatar
GregorV
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2442
Joined: 02 Jun 2015, 17:12
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: 1065
All-game rating: 1054
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby condude1 » 21 Feb 2016, 02:15

GregorV wrote:
Rolan A Doobie wrote:
GregorV wrote:Unless you're trying to say that refugees have a legitimate, moral reason to rape people, or that we raped their people first? I don't think you're trying to say that.


Of course not, the armed forces of the US and her allies have never been anything but 110% morally upright and upstanding.


Are you saying that the abhorrent acts of 17 individuals completely and fully justifies the acts committed in Germany and Sweden?

I know I'm not. A crime against humanity is a crime against humanity, no matter where and by whom it is committed.


Are you saying the abhorrent acts of 19 individuals completely and fully justifies the acts committed in Iraq and Afghanistan? (WRT 9/11)

That's what you've been arguing.
Telleo wrote:I don't think I've ever met someone who more perfectly embodied Chaotic Neutral than Condude1.


Moderator of the Mafia Subforums!

Silver member of The Classicists!
User avatar
condude1
 
Posts: 8160
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 03:41
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1368)
All-game rating: (1307)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby GregorV » 21 Feb 2016, 02:23

condude1 wrote:
GregorV wrote:
Rolan A Doobie wrote:Of course not, the armed forces of the US and her allies have never been anything but 110% morally upright and upstanding.


Are you saying that the abhorrent acts of 17 individuals completely and fully justifies the acts committed in Germany and Sweden?

I know I'm not. A crime against humanity is a crime against humanity, no matter where and by whom it is committed.


Are you saying the abhorrent acts of 19 individuals completely and fully justifies the acts committed in Iraq and Afghanistan? (WRT 9/11)

That's what you've been arguing.


One was done on an individual's initiative. The other was done on the backing a global organization. One was condemned by their home country as soon as it came to light, the other was praised by their home country.

To put it a different way: The goal of the American military is not to do what was done in Abu-Gharib. The goal of Al-Qaeda was to do what was done on 9/11. Thus, I'm comfortable blaming considerably more than 19 individuals for 9/11, while I'm willing to limit blame to the 17 individuals involved at Abu-Gharib.

There are strong differences here, some of which I've outlined.
I got left with nothin' but a Penny, so I had to do it the Hardaway.

What is Mafia? It is a never ending time sink where seemingly trivial inconsequential passing comments are often portrayed as cast iron proof of guilt. Run away backs rather whilst you still can. For me, there is no hope.
User avatar
GregorV
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2442
Joined: 02 Jun 2015, 17:12
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: 1065
All-game rating: 1054
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby I Love Italy » 21 Feb 2016, 02:26

GregorV wrote:
Rolan A Doobie wrote:
GregorV wrote:Certainly drone strikes commanded by Americans have violated the rules of war.

Let me put this another way:

America didn't have to get involved in WW2. So was it a morally good thing that America did?

Remember, America was thrown head-first into that war because of a surprise attack via plane on an important target.


I don't know why you think that's relevant.

That was then, this is now. The world is not what it was, the methods and weapons of war have changed.

Living in the past doesn't help you move forward.


What's the line, again...those who don't study their past are condemned to repeat it?

It's not a good idea to live in the past, but that doesn't mean that there's nothing to learn from it. The point is relevant: When we are attacked in our homeland, it is not unreasonable to respond with force. When America's allies are attacked, we respond.

In any case, this is diverting from the original topic in thread. Much as I would like to continue the line of thought, let's ideally keep on topic.


But, in this case we didn't respond by attacking those responsible, we attacked the country where their organization was based.

That would be like if Apple rigged one of their Chinese factories to explode (for whatever reason), and so China invaded America.
I have special eyes.
User avatar
I Love Italy
 
Posts: 2357
Joined: 31 Jul 2013, 23:08
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1041)
All-game rating: (1059)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby Rolan A Doobie » 21 Feb 2016, 03:19

GregorV wrote:To put it a different way: The goal of the American military is not to do what was done in Abu-Gharib. The goal of Al-Qaeda was to do what was done on 9/11. Thus, I'm comfortable blaming considerably more than 19 individuals for 9/11, while I'm willing to limit blame to the 17 individuals involved at Abu-Gharib.


Horseshit.

Abu-Gharib was far from an isolated incident. Brutal treatment and torture was precisely the goal of the US military....from Iraq to Afghanistan to Guantanamo and undoubtedly some other blacksites that have never been made public....with some evidence suggesting that the orders for such behavior were given by then Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.

That was precisely their mission, and...
Image
Some of you I know, some of you I'm meeting for the first time...
User avatar
Rolan A Doobie
 
Posts: 5323
Joined: 08 Apr 2009, 08:10
Location: Space Volcano
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby Elric Hazard » 21 Feb 2016, 03:40

joe92 wrote:
Elric Hazard wrote:I go with what I always go with, "Who is least likely to start a nuclear war?"

Is anyone likely to start a nuclear war?


Least likely means a 0.04% chance is better than a 2% chance, etc. Neither has to be "likely" for one to be least. Further any war has the potential to escalate whether it was all part of the strategic planning or not.

Cruz might actually come close to likely though, when you consider he was raised by a Dominionist and told even as a child that he was selected by God for greatness. Nuclear war is one possible interpretation of Biblical 'End Times.' (I personally believe he is too smart for that and just using the RW Christian talking points, but that could be nearly as bad considering who he has to be pressured to appoint, etc.)
The history of civilized man is but the history of his misery. All the pages of it are stained with blood. - Abbé Raynal 1781
User avatar
Elric Hazard
 
Posts: 296
Joined: 01 Oct 2010, 09:34
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1179)
All-game rating: (1184)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby mat.gopack » 21 Feb 2016, 09:07

For me, Bernie is the clear choice. His social democratic ideals really fit well with my positions on most issues, although I'm probably a bit to the left of his stated positions. (It's hard to know exactly how far to the left he is - obviously, his policies are solidly social democratic, but he might actually be a democratic socialist under that - not the label he's selected, but actual democratic socialism)

Universal health care is probably my #1 issue, the current system in the US is ridiculous. I've seen first hand the difference you have between a universal system (France) and the US system - it's crazy that despite being the richest country in the world, we think that healthcare is something that shouldn't be for everyone. Bernie is the only one with the right position there - since none of the others want a single payer system, at least not as campaign goals (I'm sure Hillary wants that, and who knows about Trump, but it's not what they're pushing for now)

Income inequality and campaign finance reform are also important issues to me - super PACs are an abomination, and it's mind blowing that they even exist. I don't like the idea of money buying elections, even though it basically already did. Super PACs make it even worse. Once again, Bernie is the only candidate (with Hillary) to be against them - but he doesn't have a super PAC, which makes him much more credible to me that he'd be able to do something against them than Hillary. Income inequality is growing larger and larger, and I don't like how we have a system that gives so much to a few and so little to the many. Bernie seems the most likely to me to do something about that, in an FDR style way.

College tuition is also important - once again, we are the richest country in the world. Free college tuition is something that is well within our means, and is a far better system than the garbage tens of thousands of dollars a year of tuition that many colleges have. Anyone who is capable and willing should be able to go to college without wracking up a huge debt, not just the ones that can afford it. We can afford it, it's better for society as a whole - we should do it. Bernie is the only one for free tuition, so that's another point for him (Hillary has her 'debt free' college plan, that still relies on loans, and free community college - not far enough)

Environment - we need to do something about climate change immediately. I think that both Sanders and Clinton would be fine in this area, though Clinton being more beholden to big business would worry me a bit more with these decisions. Obviously, basically any republican would have ridiculous policies here.

Criminal justice - our current system is broken, having the most people imprisoned of any country on Earth. I like Bernie's plan to fix it the most of any of the candidates, plus his other policies would also help fix the underlying issues that can cause some of the brokenness. Hillary's policies are a little worse here, in my opinion.

Foreign Policy - Hillary is very hawk-ish, and would likely continue the Obama administration's foreign policy, maybe a bit to the right. Sanders would be much less interventionist. He still supports the drone program, something I'm disappointed about, but he's comparatively better there. I also think he wouldn't push against civil liberties as much as Hillary would, another plus.

Basically, Sanders has the policies that line up best with what I believe, and I trust him to fix many of the issues more than Hillary would. She'd still be way better than any of the Republicans, but that's not really saying much. To me, the closer position on the issues + the consistent track record for Sanders makes him a far better choice than Hillary.

I do find all the talk about how 'extreme' Sanders is amusing, since all of his policies are center-left so far, and many of them are basically continuing/returning to FDR. The US has swung so far to the right in the last few decades, it's pretty crazy. If Bernie's economic policies are 'crazy radical', I wonder what we'd say if he proposed the Economic Bill of Rights or proposing a maximum income at any number (compromised down to 88% max marginal tax rate). And he's universally regarded as one of our greatest presidents... (yes, it's for the war, but his economic policy was also very important).
.·ï¨Ï¨Ï¨ï·.mat.gopack.·ï¨Ï¨Ï¨ï·.
Mattopia of the Mattibean Union in CYOC. You should join ;)

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake"

Spreadsheets are fun!
User avatar
mat.gopack
 
Posts: 20734
Joined: 22 Nov 2009, 23:40
Location: The Carolinas
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (929)
All-game rating: (929)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby mat.gopack » 21 Feb 2016, 09:18

Rolan A Doobie wrote:
GregorV wrote:That we not attack the people who tear down our buildings and kill our people in our own lands?


Hard to tell whether you are saying this as an American citizen or an Iraqi/Iranian/pretty much anywhere in the Middle East citizen.

Should they not attack the people who fire "patriot" missiles into their buildings and kill their own people with drone strikes?

I know this will be a strange concept to such a war-loving people as we are....but maybe if we spend a little time not killing the shit out of them, they might be a bit less interested in killing the shit out of us.

Agreed on the outlook on this Rolan. The US has destabilized many countries with our involvement in the past, and we're always *shocked* that they might harbor a grudge. I mean, just look at the relations with Iran. Imagine if any country overthrew our democratically elected President, shot down a civilian aircraft (giving medals to the crew of the warship that did that), and refused to apologize. You'd have half the country openly calling for war. (Our involvement in Iran is also the reason for it being a theocracy now, but who cares?)

There's a reason that America is not seen well in many parts of the world, and a big chunk of that reason is our actions. When we kill civilians, it makes the population there angry. When we overthrow governments because they disagree with us, it's going to cause unrest. And we can't pretend that we're doing that because they're terrible, because we prop up regimes and governments that are just as bad in many cases!

I wish our foreign policy was better :'(
.·ï¨Ï¨Ï¨ï·.mat.gopack.·ï¨Ï¨Ï¨ï·.
Mattopia of the Mattibean Union in CYOC. You should join ;)

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake"

Spreadsheets are fun!
User avatar
mat.gopack
 
Posts: 20734
Joined: 22 Nov 2009, 23:40
Location: The Carolinas
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (929)
All-game rating: (929)
Timezone: GMT-5

PreviousNext

Return to Debates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests