Campaign!

G'day, fellow RationalWikians! Don't forget to visit the Campaign page of the 2016 Board of trustees election in order to make your voice heard. Suggested activities include:

  • Endorsing select candidates (lending a hand to your loyal henchmen and/or glorious overlords!)
  • Anti-endorsing select candidates (character-assassinating your hated opponents!)
  • Providing moar goat (please wipe afterwards)
  • Just asking questions to the candidates

Your participation might help other users better direct their votes. More importantly, it'll show the world that we've yet to go full Citizendium in terms of election hype!

from FuzzyCatPotato (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 00:24, 25 July 2016

RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Oldest archives: 0001 -- 0002 -- 0003 -- 0004 -- 0005

Contents

[edit] Saudi support for al-Qaeda hjiackers

Firstly, I would encourage everyone reading this, if you have not already done so, to read the entire 28 pages. I've read them, and I think it should be clear to most people reading it that the Saudi government didn't do enough to stop the attacks, that some people in the Saudi government financed the hijackers, and the Saudi government itself may have intentionally and knowingly bankrolled the entire thing. This won't be covered by the news because the US government decided to release this right after a major news story (mass killing) in France, I believe because the US government doesn't want the media to cover it. But this should be a major wake-up call for all rational people, particularly Americans such as myself. The Saudis were the primary governmental entity involved with this. I also think the US delayed the release of these documents for over 10 years because they didn't want to have the people chanting for war against Saudi Arabia, instead wanting them to back the Iraq War. That's a travesty. If my government were serious about fighting terrorism, the first thing it would've done post-9/11 would be to have ordered its troops stationed in the KSA to march on Riyadh and depose the House of Saud. But the US government didn't want that because oil. PBfreespace3 (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

In before Arisboch (Kugelschreiber) or someone else says "but Iran is worse! becausetheyhateIsrael" أمير المعكرونة (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia (or at the very least its government) also hates Israel. Granted they are more likely to make common cause (grudgingly) than the "kill the Juice" government of Iran, but they still have a "you die second" approach to Israel. At best. 149.210.131.21 (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
If we turn on the Saudis, the terrorists win!
No seriously, they win. Al Qaeda's number one goal is to get the US to turn on the Saudis. CorruptUser (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Why should the US not turn on the Saud dynasty? 149.210.131.21 (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Because the people who replace it will probably be worse? We are talking about a country that threw a hissy fit when we convinced the leadership to ban slavery in 1962, and murdered a king because he allowed televisions. CorruptUser (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
If the Us overthrew Saudis and put the Hashemite dynasty into power (complete with Jordanian military control), that would likely prevent a takeover of "worse" people, whilst ensuring US control over oilfields. The reason the US doesn't do this has to do with Saudi monetary support for the US. PBfreespace3 (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
It's been discussed. The Hashemites don't want it. They're perfectly happy to let Saudi Arabia have the Hejaz; they want Iraq and Syria instead. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
That would be the last thing the US would want to do, overthrow the Custodians of the Holy Places and be accused by the Islamic world as interfering or dictating who oversees the pilgrimage. Of all bad choices - Salafists or Iranians - to take over, the Saudis are probably least objectionable. If a collapse is meant to be, it'll happen of its own weight, and then of various successors, we'd have to look at who's least objectionable or rational enough in the long run to not have that big of a disruption to the global economy. nobsBern baby bern 04:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Having posted this and actually read the report, there is a whole fuckton of "maybe", "might have", and "unconfirmed" in there, far too much for me to advise taking action on.
Also, OK, we depose the House of Saud, which causes immense tribalization of the whole country as they're the only thing holding it together. Which of the approximately 35 tribal should we support as the new rulers? --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
If I were president we'd be moving towards green energy, so oil wouldn't be a factor for me. I'd invade, kill all of the Saudi male royal family members, imprison everyone involved with al-Qaeda, then leave. Let the country fight a bloody civil war that kills hundreds of thousands. If you are scared of that, you could artificially partition the country by giving Jordan, Yemen, and UAE their own slice along their border, whilst spinning off the Shia region in the Northeast into a separate state. Another alternative would be to occupy the country for 30 years like with Korea and Germany, but the US public might not have went for that. PBfreespace (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
What an amazingly simple and obvious plan to fix the entire universe, PB. Such a shame reality disagrees. It should surprise me that you're advocating for stuff even the Nazis would find a lil' bit extreme, but after all you've admitted that you'd love sending Hillary to prison just because of your personal hatred towards her, so it doesn't. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The plan was purposefully obtuse to show the unlikeliness of it happening, dipshit. I can't fix the entire universe because I am just one person at a computer. Godwin's Law so you lose (nahh, I retract that). I would send Hillary to prison because she sent classified information over an unsecure private server 106 times over the course of 4 years, and deleted tens of thousands of "personal" e-mails, which is destruction of evidence in an active investigation. Try again. PBfreespace3 (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
You mean the thing she was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing for? You think the justice system is just a tool to further your own agenda? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Every US president post-FDR could've been convicted of war crimes and imprisoned, but they weren't because they were the political establishment. Of course James Comey wouldn't want to recommend indictment for Hillary Clinton. He's a supporter of hers. The justice system was only ever a tool of the rich to keep people they didn't like out of their way. Hence why only one person was imprisoned after the financial crisis that Wall Street caused. You had hundreds of people participating in fraud, and they didn't get charged solely because they were well-connected. If I wanted to, I'd only prosecute people I disagreed with. That's how things work in America and most other countries. pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Coup in Turkey, good or bad?

First of all it is still very much fog of war and it seems unclear who will ultimately win the coup, but it may end much like previous military coups in Turkey with the military taking over for a bit and then giving power to a "civilian" government that has relatively free reign as long as it does not impose upon the military or becomes too religious. I think a military regime and an Islamist one are equally unpleasant and Erdoğan is/was no friend of a free press or all the other trappings that usually come with democracy, but I doubt the military will be. What do you say? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Fucking bad. The attempted overthrow of a democratically elected leader, even if it is of a turd like Erdoan, is not good.--Mercian (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Mixed. Erdogan has abused his powers for a while, but he's also democratically elected, so I'll wait and see. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you really call someone "democratically elected" if they have new elections if they lose once? Also obtaining a majority (or plurality) in a democratic or semi-democratic election does not make you a small d democrat. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Fucking bad. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I fully and completely support the military coup against the fascists AKP and Erdogan. Turkey might have a real change to stop supporting the terrorists in Syria. Hopefully the crackdown on the PKK and Kurdish civilians in Kurdistan will stop too, but that's more of a dream than what's happening now. There are reports of a massive pro-Erdogan protest in Taksim square. Remember that Turkey has a history of military coups, with thousands killed and hundreds of thousands arrested. PBfreespace3 (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Are you fucking high?
Look, I despise Erdogan, but he was properly elected in accordance with the law. A coup? Talk about destabilization. If the coup succeeds, we might as well give up on Turkey because it will be in a civil war for the next decade.
Also, I can't countenance abrogation of rule of law. At all. I denounce all coups, no matter where they take place. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not. He was not elected with full support. Some polling placed were rigged and pro-opposition TV channels and newspapers were shut down before the election. Classic steal. Anyways, it looks like the coup is starting to fail after Erdogan's CNN Turk live broadcast told his dogs to go and oppose the military. Even if the majority of people in Turkey support Erdogan, I don't care. Screw them. PBfreespace (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
And you call yourself a progressive for Bernie?
I think the Trumpalo alt-right is more your style. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Or hang out at Free Republic. They have calls for military coups against Obama every other day, if you like them so much.
Or do you only apply your liking for coups to those you personally approve of? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The guy is a fucking fascist. Do you think I'm gonna criticize a coup attempt against Hitler because he was democratically elected? Godwin's Law doesn't apply in this situation, because it's a fascist leader. A bomb just went off in the Turkish Parliament. PBfreespace3 (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, actually, you should. Because if rule of law and democracy and all that jazz work even when you hate the guy in charge, that means you have a good country and a stable setup that provides peace and prosperity for the citizenry. If you're willing to dump constitutions - ours, theirs, anyone's - whenever you get a throw of the dice you don't like, you might as well just go with warlords and kings and absolute emperors. Because that's not rule of law, that's rule of men and pure whim.
Seeing you support this makes me wonder if, when you decide to have a coup, whether you'd blow my brains out yourself when I opposed the coup, or whether you'd delegate it so you don't get your hands dirty. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Aren't basically all governments in existence based on overthrowing previous governments? How do you determine legitimacy then? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
There are several ways to define political legitimacy. The way that I adhere to is rational-legal legitimacy, which "derives from a system of institutional procedure, wherein government institutions establish and enforce law and order in the public interest. Therefore, it is through public trust that the government will abide the law that confers rational-legal legitimacy."
A coup d'état, being the "illegal and overt seizure of a state by the military or other elites within the state apparatus" does not conform to rational-legal legitimacy and so therefore is invalid (IMHO). If you follow a different path of legitimacy, you'll get different answers to that. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
It is hard to say for sure what is going on right now. Some are saying the coup has already failed, in which case it was probably not a "real" military coup, but rather the actions of a smaller group that looked up to Sisi with inspiration. Or that may be government propaganda and they really have lost control. Unlike in Syria, the Turkish military is representative because it is compulsory for young men, and it is generally popular, but also an independent institution from the government, the President does not have direct control the same was the POTUS does. Regardless of who "wins", this is unlikely to be good in the short term, the military taking over will not put an end to the secularist/Islamist divide in Turkey, and could spark a civil war. If Erdogan does stay in power (and there are already theories floating around that the whole thing is a front to take over the military and get rid of people he doesn't like), that will cause its own problems. Hentropy (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I think in general it's dangerous for the military to be too strong and popular (as is often the case in e.g. Latin America). Especially since it tends to tilt to the right politically. On the other hand most state military forces are - arguably - if not outright secular at least less likely to be religious nutcases. Though Argentine and Pinochet were a different case of religious. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Depends what the coup was for. Remember; this is Turkey. The military repeatedly has coups whenever the leadership becomes too religious. That is a good thing, maybe, kind of. Erdogan has consistently become more dogmatic and has been restricting the military to remain in power, which is a bad thing, kind of. So we'll have to see how this plays out. CorruptUser (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see someone is backing me up on this. Update: Turkey's parliament building has been bombed by jet aircraft. Pbfreespace2 (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
It is true that Turkey is not a stranger to coups and I couldn't help but laugh a little when one of the 'experts' on CNN said "the US doesn't ally with countries that have military coups." In general if the military has taken control, it is a good thing for "us" and a good thing for secularism in that area, but... not so great for the idea that the people should be the ones who decide who their government is. If a democratically elected leader actively undermines democracy and separation of powers, is the "democratic" thing to do to oust him without a new election? Obviously we would never tolerate the military deciding the person in the white house is unacceptable and then ousting him, no matter how bad he was, so should there be a different standard for Turkey or Egypt before them? It's one of those philosophical questions that it would be nice to have a more solid, practical answer to. Hentropy (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I completely agree with Castaigne2 here, this coup is horrendously bad. Even if this coup attempt fails it will likely lead to more violence if not a civil war like Botswana. If this coup does succeed the government that is installed will likely end up in the same way Sisi has taken over Egypt. There are no bloodless coups.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 01:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Except for that post-modern coup, where in 1997 Turkey's military sent a letter to the leader ordering him to resign. CorruptUser (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Except that government was forced out without dissolving the parliament or suspending the constitution, so it really doesn't count as a coup in political science, but meh.
It should be noted that the rule of law as laid out by the Turkish Constitution of 1982 was followed at the time. There was no law against the military memorandum, and the dissolving of government was voluntary. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Which is why it's called a "post modern" coup. CorruptUser (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
And which is I really despise imprecision in terms. That's why everyone thinks a representative republic is a total democracy. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
WTF is a "total democracy"??--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 04:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 04:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
(EC) If the rule of law is being followed then it isn't a "coup" in the traditional sense. AFAIK, there wasn't even a stretch in the process to remove the President like there was in the US for Clinton's impeachment.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 01:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
A bloodless coup is still a coup. The military may've not shot, but they held the government at gunpoint. --The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 04:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 04:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I never said anything about a bloodless coup not being a coup, only that a coup must bend or break the rule of law and they didn't seem to do that in '97. I would consider what happened to Roussef to be a coup but it was still bloody since they have cut welfare and the police budgets which have resulted in more violence and death.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 04:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
This violence and death wasn't done by the coup, though, at least not directly.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 05:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 05:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
It is an externality that was directly caused by the coups outcome so I think you can blame Temer for this violence and death.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 05:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Some reports out now are saying that the coup is not being lead by the secular military, but a faction of Gulenist Islamists in the military. Also, indications are that the coup is failing as the Navy and the 3rd Army commanders have both come out as loyalists. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I have read reports of fighting against police forces and the main forces of the military have fired on the renegades. This may very well lead to a civil war depending on how influential this action ends up being. Even if a civil doesn't occur, Erdogan will likely use this to take as much draconian power as possible.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 02:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I doubt that a civil war will occur because the support for AKP is so widespread geographically. It's possible, sure. The Gulenists have condemned the coup, so it's not them. The coup people are flying helicopters over Ankara right now, at least I think it's them. That means Erdogan clearly can't get a genuine air cover, which is interesting. There is ongoing gunfire in Ankara right now, so whatever is happening isn't even close to being over. PBfreespace (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Well the Gulenist have most likely condemned this coup because it has become unlikely for it to succeed. Assuming the Gulenist have anything to do with this then the US is in an even more problematic situation since Erdogan will likely try to extradite Gulen and the US will not extradite him. If a civil war doesn't break, IMO the securalist in Turkey are doomed since Erdogan will purge the military as his first act back.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 03:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Erdogan is doing a live speech in Istanbul. They're fucking doing the Roman salute. This is like North Korea, ISIS, Assad, and Saddam. PB (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
...and, here's the chants of "Allahu Akhbar". *drink* PB3 (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The people support him. What did you expect would happen? Anytime a coup has succeeded in Turkey, it's been because there wasn't popular support for the existing civilian government. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
^This and that the military was clearly divided on this with very little support from the top brass. If any of these coup commanders had leanings towards the Gulen movement then rhis will confirm all of Erdogan's fears and he will use this to purge the military and judicial system. He will also use this new support to gut the military's power and centralise as much power to the executive. The only thing that can save the Geulenists, leftists, secularists, and republicans now is if they decide to start a civil war. Ironically, this coup has doomed Turkish democracy.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 04:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, coup looks like it's almost over. What exactly were they planning with only a small fraction of the military? What happened? StickySock (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Inside job?--Mercian (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Well unlike previous coups this one would most likely not restore democracy quickly because Erdogan and his party had a large amount of support. It appears they played their hand too soon and the country will pay for it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 16:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Coup Part 2: Electric Boogaloo

Now Erdoğan has called for the extradition of Gülen from the US to Turkey, despite not providing any evidence he was involved. As a bargaining chip, Erdoğan has had the Turkish authorities besiege the US airbase at Inçirlik, cut electricity (US has backup generators), and stopped all US air sorties from that base against ISIS. Erdogan is literally not allowing the US to bomb ISIS from his country. It accused airplanes from Inçirlik of refueling coup fighter jets that bombed Ankara's Parliament (again without evidence). Hey coup-opposers, you think the coup members would've pulled this shit if they had won? What are you going to say now? PBfreespace (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering that I don't give a shit about ISIS anyway, I don't care that they are not being bombed.
Personally, I call for pulling all military forces out of the Middle East and Europe anyway, so I say we shut down the base and pull out of there. --Castaigne2 (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Pb, the military tortured and disappeared people during both the previous coups in Turkey so I would expect this to happen. You seem convinced that the coup would've restored Turkey's secular democracy but this was unlikely since a majority of people still supported Erdogan; these people would've likely voted for Erdogan or whoever the AKP leader was after the military allowed elections again. Therefore, this coup wouldn't have ended the junta and would've likely ended up like Egypt with an authoritarian military leader. Assuming that this coup was mostly Gulenists, that would've allowed Gulen to become the unelected leader and women's rights would've taken a tumble along with secularism.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 07:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
This coup wasva terrible idea no matter how you look at it:
  1. The military doesn't get to overthrow a president and a political with a massive voter base who has been decisively (re-)elected in every election since 2003.
  2. The coup wasn't even by conducted the entire military, but a rather small clique, apparently centred on the airforce and gendarmerie.
  3. The coup was, in the words of one Danish professor of Middle Eastern studies "amateurish" in both planning, timing and implementation and thus highly unlikely to succeed (e.g. weak support, failure to arrest Erdogan, failure to gain momentum, trying to overthrow a democratically elected government while it is physically in the country - as are quite a number of NATO troops etc.)
  4. Being unlikely to succeed, it was not exactly rocket science to predict that Erdogan would use a failed coup to further clamp down on the opposition, both in the "deep state" and his democratically elected opponents.
So, the question is, why in the name of Zeus' butt-hole did these "coup generals" think it was a great idea to launch a half-baked, half-assed coup against a quite popular president? My only explanation is that they probably thought that Erdogan and the AKP would meekly fold (i.e. wishful thinking) and that they hoped to be able to pull off a Morsi/Sissi (more wishful thinking: Turkey is not Egypt and Erdogan is the head of a well-entrenched democratic ruling party, not a recently elected political party that can be easily demonised as a sort of Al-Qaeda light in business suits trying to handle a newly (re)instated democracy after decades of de facto military rule).
All in all: Bad idea, bad effort, bad result - you get an F. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The military should never rule a nation. Even in severe circumstances where there is no option but to declare martial law it should be a civilian who has the final say.--Mercian (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
So you're saying the military shouldn't remove domestic threats to the nation? Should the military not be able to depose leaders who are actively providing aid and comfort to the nation's declared enemies? pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Since historically this has led to total fascism and repressive authoritarian regimes, yes, the military shouldn't remove domestic threats to the nation.
There is a specific reason why we have the Posse Comitatus Act here in the USA. There is a specific reason why we have excluded the military from having a role in the electoral politics of the USA.
I have great suspicion at your seeming predilection to use the military as a quick-and-dirty method for taking care of political opponents you don't care for. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick fact check, the air base in question is not a US airbase, but rather a Turkish one that the US, UK, and Saudis all use in conjunction with the Turks, and I can imagine the French have used it recently as well. Its principle operator is still the Turks, however, so them screwing with it was more of a slap to the Turkish military than the US one. I doubt even Erdogan would be stupid enough to think that we would just hand over Gulen in one day. The commander at the air based was arrested, but as of today (the 17th), coalition forces have resumed air activity against Daesh, even if power is still cut to parts of the base. Hentropy (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Would the coup have been successful if Erdoğan had been killed?

Just a thought, had the coup succeeded if the undoubted leader of the "other side" had died in the process? I mean there does not seem to be an heir apparent of second in command for the AKP. And the military could have taken over decisively in the time it would have taken for such a successor figure to emerge. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably not since this renegade faction would've been defeated for being too uncoordinated. Maybe AKP wouldn't be able to find a leader like him but they would surely continue to control Turkey with a majority.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 17:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Might have led to civil war.
While ISIS is right on Turkey's border...
Europe couldn't handle a million Syrians. Just imagine the chaos for 10 million Turks. Damn coup should never have been started if they didn't have a good chance of winning. CorruptUser (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Glass-Steagall

I have serious concerns with calling support for a new Glass-Steagall a "stopped clock" moment on the Republican side when the economic concensus is that its repeal did not contribute to the financial crisis (it actually allowed some former investment banks to access short time loans from the Fed they would not have been allowed to receive otherwise, i.e. with Glass-Steagal the crisis might have been worse.) Instead it introduced competition and diversified the financial markets. Mind also, that this proposal comes from the same platform set on repealing Dodd-Frank which actually introduced measures to prevent further crisis. The links themselves are fine, though. 128.176.164.39 (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The repeal of Glass-Steagall, along with other financial deregulation that Congress passed in the 90s and 2000s, contributed to the culture of corporate freedom that led to the financial crisis and the Great Recession. Separating commercial banks from investment banks decreases risk and increases consumer confidence in the financial market. I think that a modern Glass-Steagal should be adopted, banning CDOs, ending the sale of subprime mortgages, and limiting risky betting on the performance of consumer commodities. This would ensure stability in the financial market, hedging risk and ensuring a safer market. Pbfreespace2 (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
"Ensuring" may be a strong word, there's no such thing as ensured stability in financial markets. At most the absence Glass-Steagll and certain investment regulations contributed to the financial crisis, but the failing simply wasn't all policy or things the government could control. It was the short-term greed and "conventional wisdom" of those working in it, that housing prices would never go down and that the good loans would always cover the bad, that caused the crisis. And even if you nationalize the banks, unless you also nationalize the entire real estate business along with it, it could happen again, with or without Glass-Steagall or even tighter regulations. Maybe it wouldn't have been as bad with those things, I am all in favor of reimposing Glass-Steagall and tighter regulations, but it's far from a silver bullet that would have prevented the whole mess. Hentropy (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] "Scheisse Ausländer!"

Another terrorist attacks, and of course it was Mus—

Oops! It wasn't Muslims this time!

I was amused by all of the right-wingers on the internet immediately blaming Muslims without looking at the evidence first. One of the guys who did it shouted "Scheisse Ausländer!", or fucking foreigner. There was a video of him saying this on the rooftop. I'd encourage you to look for it. This attack was from white German right-wing men, against Muslim refugees.

I'm posting this because someone has to start the thread. Thoughts? I'd love to hear from resident German Kugelschreiber for his opinion on all this. PЬFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

When I heard about the attack at work roughly an hour ago, one of the Pegida/AfD supporters said that it was bound to happen because of the refugee stream without having any evidence that it was actually a refugee/foreigner/Muslim. It's interesting to note how the media is starting to change its lingo from "terror attack" to "rampage" depending on who does a murder spree. NameThatNobodyTakes () 19:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Your regressive attitudes are showing. There is zero evidence either way, and as of yet, no reputable sources have anything solid. Mainstream news think Islamic background is likely, because location, time, how (city, shopping mall, friday evening); whereas Right Wing was deemed “implausible” but not impossible. Unlike other cases, this is also remarkably opaque. ~ Aneris 20:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Guess what Aneris? Mainstream news is BULLSHIT! It seems like right-wing Germans did this. The shooter spoke with Bavarian slang. After the smoke clears, the media will get the story right: German shooters did this atrocity. Mark my words. Pbfreespace2 (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Words marked, you are probably wrong already (Iranian-German is not your usual Nazi), but that isn't the point. The point is that you badly wanted your agenda pushed when the bodies weren't even cold and the authorities were remarkably opaque about this whole situation. Even when your prediction turned out to be correct, you here are appalling for demanding that everyone jumps to conclusions because you just can't hold out a day or three. I'm refering to the article. ~ Aneris 03:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Which mainstream news say Islamic background is likely? Certainly not Lügenpresse German mainstream media. Munich police as of yet rules out an Islamist background. And where in my statement did I say that it was an absolute certainty of it being right-wing extremists? I merely pointed out that people were immediately sure that the attack has been carried out by ISIS sympathizers at the very moment they heard of the story. You called me "regressive", you're really an expert on how to hurt others' feelings, lol. NameThatNobodyTakes () 21:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you really blame the media for showing some confusion and unaccurate info right as this kind of event is happening? They're not omniscient, if circumstances point more probably to ISIS terrorism, then that's what they're gonna go with in the heat of the action. It has shit to do with them being "mainstream" (hint: non-mainstream media is just as likely to contain bullshit than mainstream media). Nice to see you being your disturbingly grotty self as always, PB: you sure showed the right-wing assholes that don't actually exist on this site how full of shit they are! @Name: I don't really see the problem in qualifying the same event two different ways depending on who commited it. A rampage and a terror attack might take the same form, but the same thing they're not. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Obviously Obama and Hillary planned it as a false flag to take attention away from Fuhrer Trump's rally. Only regressive leftists would deny this! --Ymir (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I am surprised nobody has brought up Jews, yet... Also is "scheisse Ausländer" actual correct German? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
CNN was the main network with the shitty-ass coverage. They kept guessing "ISIS? Was it ISIS? Maybe it was ISIS!". Then they played a clip of Trump from yesterday saying "I will make us so safe". Great Nazi propaganda CNN. Meanwhile, FOX FUCKING NEWS said it might be a German Neo-Nazi or other right-winger. When FOX is better than CNN, you know CNN's a total dogshit network. They've steadily declined over the decades. pbfreespace (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Munich's police have identified the suspected shooter as an 18 year old local of Iranian descent. Nothing else said so far in the press conference over than the train services will go ahead as normal tomorrow.-- Forerunner (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, the gunman was of mixed German-Iranian ethnicity. He didn't say "Ali Madad" or any Shia slogans. Plus almost all Muslim terrorists are Sunnis, so it's not Islam. This guy grew up on German welfare. PBfreespace (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
You are joking, right? While Al Qaeda is Sunni, the Sunni terrorists copied the successful fanaticism of the Shia from the Lebanon Marine barracks bombing that caused the US to withdraw. Before then, Sunni suicide attacks were incredibly rare. CorruptUser (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Beirut Bombing was nothing compared to the Cole, embassy bombings, and 9/11. But that's a fine point. I'm talking about today, not 30 years ago. Get your mind out of the past, CorruptUser. PBfreespace3 (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
If we are going by him being a Shi'a Iranian, and not a Sunni Iranian migrant, then it is puzzling. After all, the two major Islamist terrorist groups in Europe are al-Qaeda and DAESH, who are technically and officially all Sunni, respectively, with the latter identifying Iran as an enemy at war. I'm going with Max Abram's idea of him being a "Lune Wolf" - someone with mental health problems who's already considering mass-murder and pretends to be an ideological terrorist to look intimidating (like that gay bar shooter who pretended to be part of DAESH and Hezbollah).-- Forerunner (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Umm, Cole killed not even a tenth of the people as Beirut. Iran also financed a lot of Sunni terrorist groups[wp] so it's not clear how to categorize them. They even allied with Al Qaeda at a number of points. And there are a lot more Sunni than Shia. That's not getting into Iraq, with all the Shia groups that were bombing the crap out of anyone.
This is the third time in one conversation where you have the facts predominantly wrong. CorruptUser (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
This is irrelevant to the conversation at hand. This guy wasn't a jihadi, or even a Muslim. He was motivated by Pbfreespace2 (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
CNN and BBC both have nothing about the guy other than he was a dual citizen of Iran and Germany. So we'll just have to wait and see what it was all about. Probably just a normal spree killer, but best not to speculate until there's actual proof. CorruptUser (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

A question that should be raised is: How does an 18 year old get his hands on a gun? Apparently the German gun laws are too lax. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

He bought it illegaly off the street. Laws can't stop criminals from getting guns, as evidenced by this shooting. Therefore it's pointless to try and regulate guns, since they end up in the hands of bandits anyways. PB (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
This is as misguided rubbish as is your opening. Not having weapons around everywhere prevents most of the shootings that plague the USA, where someone just needs to be in a personal crisis or bad spot and can kill himself or others (not to mention the accidents that happen all the time). It also makes routine encounters with police less dangerous, because they can assume that people are generally not armed, which makes it much less stressful and less deadly for everyone involved. As to your opening quote and basis for the rubbish article here: The xenophobic slurs were hurled AT the shooter when he pulled out his guns and panic broke out, because he's presumably foreign looking (we now know he's Iranian-German). He then replies BACK to them that he was German. None of this, ever, suggested a right wing motive. The media the RW lambasted in the article did not treat this poorly at all. This is just the usual Dunning-Kruger Effect that acommompanies everything regressives touch, being total cocksure about everything without as much as an afterthought that one might be wrong. ~ Aneris 17:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Aneris don't worry. I'm just using NewFrenchHotness logic. In other words, I'm showing how stupid that person's argumentative style is. But I'm loving Aneris' shouts of REGRESSIVE!!!!1!1!1!1!11 when he has no argument against me. PBfreespace3 (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I presented you the arguments. And everyone can read them just above. No need to play obtuse. ~ Aneris 17:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Dude, I agree with every fucking word you said. I just pointed out how stupid NewFrenchHotness', attitude about everything is, which as namely "everything sucks, so we shouldn't try to do anything to make the world better". I am in total agreement with your points, Aneris, except for your instashouting "REGRESSIVE!". PBfreespace3 (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey, PB? If you have problems with me or my "argumentative style", talk it over with me, not with Aneris over here, and not by putting words in my mouth and thinking you know my positions when I've said nothing about gun control concerning this subject. Maybe then people will respect you. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Spineless LA Democrats give up on helping homeless

That should be the headline on LA newspapers today. As a background, homelessness is a big problem in LA. There are 47,000 homeless people in that county. The weakling Democrats, who apparently control the city, can't manage to do anything about the crisis: failing to pass a millionaire tax, a sales tax, or a property tax to raise money to deal with the problem. Why? Why the hell can't they get these bills passed? Aren't they supposed to care about the poor? But wait, they passed a bill to tax marijuana 10% to raise money for the homeless! ..or not. The pussy Dem who originally proposed the measure changed her fucking mind. Maybe helping the homeless isn't such a great idea after all. What a bunch of pussies! PBfreespace3 (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Why should we punish the rich because the poor are lazy? We should tax the homeless for all the crime they commit. Send 'em back to Mexico where they belong! --Ymir (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Primarily because the tax increases are not up to the Democrats controlling the city.
According to the article you referenced, "Kuehl said there had been “a good deal of ambivalence” about the marijuana tax proposal among service providers, particularly substance abuse treatment providers, who were not enthusiastic about legalizing marijuana. She said she worried it would be difficult to get the needed two-thirds majority among voters without a united front of support among homeless advocates. “We certainly didn’t want to raise millions of dollars for a campaign and have it fail by two or three points,” she said."
Sounds to me like 2.6 million or more of the LA populace ain't going to be on board with the idea.
I think this is relevant as well - "Ariel Clark, chair of the Los Angeles Cannabis Task Force, a marijuana industry advocacy group, said in a statement, “It's premature to talk about what L.A. will do with cannabis tax revenue. Today, cannabis businesses are banned in L.A. County and illegal in the City of L.A. We need fair local licensing laws that align with state law. Until then, proposals like these are wishful thinking.""
So, it sounds like the marijuana tax proposal was a boondoggle to begin with, until the legalization changes.
Do you think a bad idea that sounds like it wouldn't have raised hardly any money should have been pursued? --Castaigne2 (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I find it fascinating how both lefty self-righteous douchebags and fascists always point to the same reason for why things aren't going their way : it's always because of "lack of balls" or because the lawmakers are "pussies". Not because the world's a complicated place and changing it for the better on the long run takes tremendous work and patience, not because democracy requires more than just goodwill to move things, not because you have to consider if your laws won't actually backfire or will actually do any good; nope. It's because everyone's a pussy! We should just have the dictatorship PB won't admit he wants. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Or, you know, fully-realized and implemented policies being generally more effective than muddled half measures. Organizations tend to be good at what their members actually care about. Efficacy goes down when political processes, infighting, etc. becomes more important than accomplishing goals. Following through can be difficult in politics, and it tends to take "balls" to push parties in line when they'd prefer some other policy. But follow through is important for results, so here we are. LA apparently doesn't care enough about homelessness to do what it would take to deal with it. One possible solution would be for a "ballsy" politician to campaign on the issue and push against resistance hard enough for changes to stick. Or 'Noting that Pasadena reported a 16% decrease in its 2016 homeless count, Mangano said it may be time to replace the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, a joint city-county agency, with local community oversight “that can muster the local political will to get things done.”' 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
And do what, exactly? Pass your millionaire tax and the millionaires move to the suburbs, depressing the local economy and causing an even larger budget shortfall (and really, California is already heavily taxed). Tax Hollywood and Hollywood notices that California isn't the only place with good weather (and do you really think the government is going to piss off the world's largest propaganda machine, or suck up to them?). Spend money on the homeless and half the homeless move to your city. Set up homeless camps and you end up with constant harassment and crime concentrated in certain neighborhoods, depressing the local economy and leading to even more crime. Institutionalize the mentally ill, and it's basically more expensive than prison but with more risks of abuse; keep in mind that Reagan succeeded in shutting down the mental hospitals. Don't pretend there are easy answers here. CorruptUser (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

If we are to believe Castaigne, NewFrenchHotness, and CorruptUser, then America is literally incapable of doing anything about homelessness. And they're all wrong. Utah has less than a third of the homeless that LA county has. Utah recently reduced its number of chronic homeless — people who've had a disability or addiction — by 91%. Holy shit! It turns out the solution to homelessness was staring us in the face this whole time: give people homes! And guess what? It's cheaper to do this than not do this; you don't need to raise taxes at all. What do you think of this proposal? PЬFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the number of *chronic* homeless, who represent about 20% of the national homeless population. No one's said the problem of homelessness is impossible to solve or at least make better: but we were simply responding to your self-righteous dick-waving about California Dems and how they were "pussies" for living in the real world and not yours. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Never said we can't do anything, just that there is no magic bullet and absolutely no solution exists that would solve all the problems. CorruptUser (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
"If we are to believe Castaigne, NewFrenchHotness, and CorruptUser, then America is literally incapable of doing anything about homelessness." - Pbfreespace3
No one said that. No one even intimated it. All that was said was that particular solution appears to be withdrawn because it wouldn't have worked and that the solutions are complex. No one said it was impossible. Why do you lie?
"Utah recently reduced its number of chronic homeless — people who've had a disability or addiction — by 91%" - Pbfreespace3
And perhaps you should suggest to L.A. that they adopt some of those solutions? Contact some politicians there, point them in the correct direction? Grassroots petitions maybe?
But no, you'd rather whine and shitpost and stamp your feet because how DARE they not be OBEDIENT to your wishes.
You are the absolute embodiment of "The perfect is the enemy of the good." --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Castaigne, you and NewFrenchHotness are doing nothing to help. You're not making any counterproposals or alternative solutions to the problem. All you're doing it criticizing my wish to try to solve homelessness and my dislike of the Democrats' not doing anything about it.
CorruptUser, if we implemented a millionaires tax all over the US, would all the millionaires leave to avoid the tax? No! They'd stay and pay, giving us the money we need to fight homelessness. Why don't you support that? Would a sales tax stop people from buying shit? No! Why are you using Reagan's arguments for why we can't realistically take care of our worst off? PB3 (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm willing to vote for whatever solution to the homeless problem will work, won't cost a fortune that could have been used for better or more efficient things, won't fuck other people over further down the line, and won't backfire in some way when the initial problem has been resolved. Guess what, this solution is complex. I don't have to make detailed counterproposals: this is not about us or what we would do, this is about *you* and your unbearable self-righteousness that leads you to calling people who actually have stake in this kind of work "pussy". The Democrats shelved a project that they knew wouldn't work: what, were they supposed to go ahead and waste time and money that could have been spent coming up with a more effective solution? Or do you propose they threaten to bomb the city if they don't get their way? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you explain to me why the marijuana tax wouldn't work? Don't quote the article. Explain to me in practical terms why it won't help the problem, or make it worse. Pbfreespace2 (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Why shouldn't I quote the article? Here, have what Castaigne already quoted: "Ariel Clark, chair of the Los Angeles Cannabis Task Force, a marijuana industry advocacy group, said in a statement, “It's premature to talk about what L.A. will do with cannabis tax revenue. Today, cannabis businesses are banned in L.A. County and illegal in the City of L.A. We need fair local licensing laws that align with state law. Until then, proposals like these are wishful thinking."". This kind of law could work... in the future, when some other laws have been passed. Until then, it's a waste of time and money. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
But would you support a marijuana tax once it's legal? Because I have a feeling the LA Democratic officials won't because they're wimps. Mark my words: when it's legal they won't divert the tax revenue to helping the homeless. PB3 (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
In other words, it would take three legal changes rather than one, with the extra changes being at the governmental levels that the Homeless Services Authority operates at already. Therefore it's a waste of timed money, and they shouldn't take one of the three steps needed for that policy? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Not if the money could be used to campaign for stuff that'd have a more immediate impact, rather than laws that basically serve no purpose until more specific laws are voted, which isn't a certainty anyways. One bird in the hand being better than two in the bush and all that. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
First, I don't live in L.A. Not my jurisdiction.
Second, homelessness is not one of my pet causes.
Third, I don't have enough information to offer a counter-proposal. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Reading this whole conversation, it seems like this is indicative of the larger philosophical debate of pragmatism versus idealism, with Pbfreespace3 and that IP address being the idealist, and everybody else the pragmatists. It's an interesting debate, with good points being made on both sides. Applesauce (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Peebles, the very first paragraph in this section involved you complaining about a single city in California failing to tax millionaires higher. Not the whole US. CorruptUser (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes. And your point is? PBfreespace3 (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
CorruptUser, if we implemented a millionaires tax all over the US, would all the millionaires leave to avoid the tax? No! They'd stay and pay, giving us the money we need to fight homelessness. Why don't you support that?
Do you see the problem with you making that statement? CorruptUser (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
No. The alternative to what I'm proposing is to either lower the tax or keep it where it is. Do you support that? Because the only way to actually make sure the millionaires don't leave is to just raise the tax nationally. Do you oppose that motion? PBfreespace (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem is you/we were discussing a county in California and then you are claiming I made statements about national policy that I never made.
As for national taxes, there does need to be tax reform; capital gains should be treated as regular income, companies shouldn't get nearly so many tax breaks but dividends should be tax deductible (and then taxed as income from the recipient). Companies shouldn't be allowed to play games with where the profits were made, and we should get smart about it; if 80% of your revenue was made in the US, 80% of your profit was made in the US even if your company was headquartered in the Cayman Islands. Schools should not be funded primarily from local property taxes, as that rewards segregation, the biggest form being in Florida with age discrimination where by keeping communities 55+ they don't need to build schools and other neighborhoods pay for education (but still expect everyone else to pay for medicare and social security). But good luck getting any of that through... CorruptUser (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Careworker shot trying to help an autistic man with a toy truck

Who is at fault? Part of the problem is because guns are widely available in the USA people are frightened. A toy truck gets mistaken for a gun. An autistic man plays with the toy truck and doesn't obey an order to lie down with his hands up. Police at a distance (perhaps?) imagine he's loading a gun. The autistic man and the caregiver are both lucky to be alive. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Warning! If you're black and a white policeman has a gun don't holler. You may feel you have good reason to holler to prevent an unarmed patient playing with a toy being shot. Still it's a big risk. Too many white American police dealing with blacks shoot first and ask questions later. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't you just love police in America? Shoot first, ask questions about autism later. Well at least the poor people weren't killed like they usually are... Applesauce (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Well they are lucky in the sense that the policeman's incompetence didn't kill either of them. One of the reasons police in the US kill so many mentally ill and intellectually disabled people is because they are not trained to recognize that the individual is different and requires special care. I am not sure why the officer couldn't understand the caretaker since he seemed to clearly say that the white man was autistic and that he had a toy car.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC) 18:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
If the autistic man had been black it's much more likely he'd have been shot. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the story isn't bad enough the way that it happened or anything... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous. I fully support Campaign Zero and their policy proposals. That's the best way to solve this crisis. PBfreespace3 (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

A black man was lying on the ground with his hands up as he'd been told. Still he was hollering. The police either didn't know or didn't care that he was hollering trying to protect the patient. When a white police officer has a gun a black man should stay quietly respectful. A bullet in the leg wouldn't disable him longterm (hopefully). Still it should hurt enough to teach him better respect for the future. I don't know what was really going through the mind of the police who shot him. Still I keep wondering if it was anything on the lines of what's above. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Hillary Clinton

What are Hillary Clinton's policies besides being immeasurably better than Donald Trump? Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Pro-choice, pro equal marriage (not that it matters at this point), pro equal pay, pro death penalty, pro non-crazy SCOTUS justices, anti TPP, for the DREAM Act, fasttrack to citizenship, etc. AyzmoCheers 15:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The main problem I have with Hillary, besides her being bought off by corporations and the Arab kings, controlled by centrist think tanks and lobbyists, and not truly caring about what the people want, is that she's not trustworthy. If she tells me her view on something, I can't say I trust she's telling the truth. She's been shown to tailor her policy positions based on what crowd she's talking to. If she's in front of the banks, she'll say she's against reform and regulation, but if she's at a Democratic rally, she'll act like tight regulation is the only sane choice. What does she really think? I'd say the former, but I actually don't know. That's a problem. I pretty much know what I'll get with Trump and Sanders, but Hillary is a giant wild card. PBfreespace3 (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Will Trump really build that wall? How will he force Mexico to pay for it? Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
If you are afraid that Hillary might not do what she says, that is a much smaller problem to have than the problem I have with Trump. I am afraid he will do what he says. Ban mḾuslims, build a wall, give nukes to Japan and South Korea, defund NATO and all his other harebrained schemes. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair fear. However I don't think he will get the chance to do these things. If there is a wall it'll be some half-assed fence that people can still tunnel under and climb over, also taking his entire presidency to build. The Muslim ban was a clever bargaining position taken by Trump to force a compromise he wouldn't mind, which would likely be a temporary ban on Muslims from Syria, Iraq, and Libya. That's not a big deal. He wouldn't "give nukes" to Japan and South Korea, he just said he wouldn't block their production as Obama and Bush did. He wouldn't "defund NATO", but simply slightly reduce our funding. If anything, we should be pulling troops from Japan and South Korea, and Germany. That Okinawa base needs to go. You take Trump way too literally. All politicians lie and exaggerate (except for Sanders, peace be upon him), so it's not a big deal. PBfreespace3 (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
For me, the issue is not so much his stated policies, but his not-so-hidden dog whistle politics and his appeals to the far- and alt-right. If you think Breitbart is a force for bad now, just imagine what will happen when it becomes Trump's chosen media outlet. We saw it after the Brexit vote, when the xenophobic wing of British society, previously marginalized, came out of the wood work to perpetrate hate crimes against Polish and Muslims. Brexit by itself may not have apocalyptic consequences and there's reasonable arguments for it, but the vote became more about the movement than the policies. The Bernie or Bust people miss at least part of the point of Presidential elections, because they're pretending that all that matters with the President is their personal ideology, when in reality, ever since Andrew Jackson, the President has been a symbol of their political movement. Obama's election and reelection was not important just because of the individual policies he set forth, his election showed an optimistic, accepting America, and his reelection affirmed that this was still the case. The right wing has been endlessly and obnoxiously claiming victory for the last 6 years because they won and then gerrymandered the House, imagine if they win the Presidency. We're already seeing more and more hate crimes from him simply being on the campaign trail, what do you think will happen if he actually wins, his horrible cultish fanbase becomes empowered and feel like they're in control. This is putting aside very important things like the SUPREME COURT, we already know how Trump has in mind there and it's not pretty. We will have to hope that it stays a Swing Court, and Trump doesn't get 3 appointments. That will do much more harm to many vulnerable people (including perhaps you, but maybe not. Bernie fans usually don't have much to lose), much more harm than four years of Clinton or Trump are capable of. No one is going to stand up and pat you on the back for voting for Jill Stein when 2020 rolls around, just as no one views 2000 Nader voters as being brave and today. They're viewed as the purist babies who gave us 8 years of Bush, with many more dead US soldiers than Obama or Clinton ever gave us. And don't think for a minute that Trump is unable to win reelection, Dems made the same stupid assumption in 2000, as well. Hentropy (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Garland is a mixed bag, and ultimately I oppose his appointment. Rather than try to appoint a more liberal justice, Hillary has said she'll do whatever Obama tells her to without question, which I don't like. I would much rather Barack Obama serve on the court. He was at the top of his class in Harvard Law School, with a law degree and practiced constitutional law for many years. He's also probably more liberal than Garland. Just a thought. In absence of that, just pick someone really liberal and left-wing to break court ties. PBfreespace (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Clinton has not said that she would appoint Garland, only that she supports his current appointment (which of course she does). I imagine she will choose someone quite different if she actually wins, someone younger and more liberal. Garland was always just a political pawn to try to make Republicans look bad for not giving him a fair hearing, issues that no one is talking about because we're too preoccupied with internal Democratic party primary rules. Hentropy (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
"I imagine she will choose someone quite different if she actually wins, someone younger and more liberal." BULLSHIT! Hillary is a centrist all the way, and will not pick a young person or a liberal. She is less liberal than Obama. PBfreespace3 (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
She's more liberal than Obama or equally as liberal as him by literally every metric that matters, which we have presented to you and your ilk about a hundred times already. Do you litterally keep your head in your ass? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Iraq War. Syria intervention against Assad. She is more right-wing than Obama on these things. In other words, no U! PBfreespace3 (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
You mean these two very specific things that are actually part of the past and thus aren't going to change her present positions and won't have any influence on who she picks for the Supreme Court? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Personally I'm not sure where this whole "foreign policy liberalism" comes from. Going to war or not going to war is not a right-left wing decision, and has nothing do with "liberalism" or "conservatism" in any context. "Liberal" Democrats started every major war in the 20th Century, and Republicans were isolationists for much of that time. Military support for allies and our interests overseas has long been a part of the Democratic platform. The Iraq War was sold on a bill of lies and distortions, and was quite popular for the first couple of years, so blaming Democrats for that is simply giving into neo-neo-right-wing propaganda that Iraq was somehow all the liberals fault and a "real conservative" never would have done it. Hentropy (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think a similar thread has been raised in the saloon bar. Asking whether or not hawkishness or dovishness are inherently left or right. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] BREAKING: Syrian Army besieges rebel-held East Aleppo

This really is a huge development in the Syrian Civil War, both diplomatically as well as strategically. If the government can pull off a victory here (which would take over a year with thousands of casualties), it would make Assad's faction unable to be removed. Full control over this city means the government regains an aura of legitimacy it didn't have 3 years ago, and makes Assad a permanent feature of Syria's future. Thoughts on this? PЬFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

"Legitimacy"? What do you mean by that? Also, the easiest way to remove Assad from power is assassination. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Assassination requires us to actually be officially opposed to the Assad regime, which we are not. We want Assad to step down, but we do not support his opposition either. This was always going to be the result in the long run as long as Syria had material support from Russia, the rebels were never going to be able to win unless they did it quickly in the beginning. Our inability to choose a side, even if it's no side, in Syria has led to the now 5-year-long civil war there. Taking no side also means doing nothing about Daesh, as well, something that most Americans aren't ready to hear either. Hentropy (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Who said "we" are doing the assassinating? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not even matter of who pulls the trigger, really. It's a question of whether we actually WANT him dead/gone. One of his Alawite lackies would just step up and continue the regime and potentially be even more brutal, Russia might do a more serious invasion of Syria to put down the "terrorists" who killed a sovereign world leader, and nothing would change unless we make the decision to fight either Assad forces or the Opposition. Hentropy (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Strongman or terrorist friendly power vacuum. Thanks for making those the only choices competing Russian and American geopolitical interests. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the initial portion of the Iraq War in slow-motion. We have the option of stopping the fall of a Ba'athist government, preventing an even worse sectarian civil war, and stopping part of the country from falling under the control of a lunatic theocracy. We have the choice of stopping Iraq 2.0. If we halted all support for the rebels, the Assad government would end up winning and Syria would begin the process towards reunification. PBfreespace (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools