Things are beyond fucked up in the Philippines at the moment. Maybe they should be more worried about their own President actively setting up a dictatorship and apparently trying to collude with China while he's at it, which is scary. Given the current situation, US intervention might actually be a good thing for their future. It could go either way though. I'm sure most of these protestors are the same people who support their completely fucked up, maniacal leader.
When's the last time the US intervened and left a place better off?
We're not talking about military intervention, are we? I haven't seen anything to suggest that. This is all just about diplomatic measures.
The US solve anything diplomatically?
Well they did manage to keep the Cold War from turning into WWIII. That was pretty good. And the Berlin Wall coming down was a pretty big deal that took some US diplomacy. Then there was the Iranian hostage crisis. And there is constant diplomatic measures happening with China - so far so good I suppose. US diplomacy also played a pretty strong role in the end of Apartheid in South Africa, no? Also, the US had a key role in ending that war in Angola (not that Angola maintained the peace, but that wasn't America's fault as far as I know). And yeah, there are dozens and dozens of other examples. People don't pay much attention to diplomacy. They are too focused on more in-your-face things I think. But yes, the US has a long and rich history of using diplomacy to quell tensions, major and minor. As with most things, people only get informed when things go wrong. When everything goes well and things don't explode, we never give it a second thought.
I think the treat mutual destruction prevented WW3...anyways on with your Hillary and American love in ... lol.
What do you mean? I have never expressed love for Hillary. Oh, you're doing the "if you hate Trump you must love Hillary" thing too. K. (weak reply btw)
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Things are beyond fucked up in the Philippines at the moment. Maybe they should be more worried about their own President actively setting up a dictatorship and apparently trying to collude with China while he's at it, which is scary. Given the current situation, US intervention might actually be a good thing for their future. It could go either way though. I'm sure most of these protestors are the same people who support their completely fucked up, maniacal leader.
When's the last time the US intervened and left a place better off?
We're not talking about military intervention, are we? I haven't seen anything to suggest that. This is all just about diplomatic measures.
The US solve anything diplomatically?
Well they did manage to keep the Cold War from turning into WWIII. That was pretty good. And the Berlin Wall coming down was a pretty big deal that took some US diplomacy. Then there was the Iranian hostage crisis. And there is constant diplomatic measures happening with China - so far so good I suppose. US diplomacy also played a pretty strong role in the end of Apartheid in South Africa, no? Also, the US had a key role in ending that war in Angola (not that Angola maintained the peace, but that wasn't America's fault as far as I know). And yeah, there are dozens and dozens of other examples. People don't pay much attention to diplomacy. They are too focused on more in-your-face things I think. But yes, the US has a long and rich history of using diplomacy to quell tensions, major and minor. As with most things, people only get informed when things go wrong. When everything goes well and things don't explode, we never give it a second thought.
Iran is a good current time example. If we had McCain/Romney, chances are pretty good we would've invaded. If things with them improve over time, both internally and in relations with other countries, you can use that as a gold star for diplomacy.
Things are beyond fucked up in the Philippines at the moment. Maybe they should be more worried about their own President actively setting up a dictatorship and apparently trying to collude with China while he's at it, which is scary. Given the current situation, US intervention might actually be a good thing for their future. It could go either way though. I'm sure most of these protestors are the same people who support their completely fucked up, maniacal leader.
When's the last time the US intervened and left a place better off?
We're not talking about military intervention, are we? I haven't seen anything to suggest that. This is all just about diplomatic measures.
The US solve anything diplomatically?
Well they did manage to keep the Cold War from turning into WWIII. That was pretty good. And the Berlin Wall coming down was a pretty big deal that took some US diplomacy. Then there was the Iranian hostage crisis. And there is constant diplomatic measures happening with China - so far so good I suppose. US diplomacy also played a pretty strong role in the end of Apartheid in South Africa, no? Also, the US had a key role in ending that war in Angola (not that Angola maintained the peace, but that wasn't America's fault as far as I know). And yeah, there are dozens and dozens of other examples. People don't pay much attention to diplomacy. They are too focused on more in-your-face things I think. But yes, the US has a long and rich history of using diplomacy to quell tensions, major and minor. As with most things, people only get informed when things go wrong. When everything goes well and things don't explode, we never give it a second thought.
I think the treat mutual destruction prevented WW3...anyways on with your Hillary and American love in ... lol.
What do you mean? I have never expressed love for Hillary. Oh, you're doing the "if you hate Trump you must love Hillary" thing too. K. (weak reply btw)
Every example you provided has a rebuttal. At least some of us have the courage and disgust to admit that both candidates are a joke...
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Things are beyond fucked up in the Philippines at the moment. Maybe they should be more worried about their own President actively setting up a dictatorship and apparently trying to collude with China while he's at it, which is scary. Given the current situation, US intervention might actually be a good thing for their future. It could go either way though. I'm sure most of these protestors are the same people who support their completely fucked up, maniacal leader.
When's the last time the US intervened and left a place better off?
We're not talking about military intervention, are we? I haven't seen anything to suggest that. This is all just about diplomatic measures.
The US solve anything diplomatically?
Well they did manage to keep the Cold War from turning into WWIII. That was pretty good. And the Berlin Wall coming down was a pretty big deal that took some US diplomacy. Then there was the Iranian hostage crisis. And there is constant diplomatic measures happening with China - so far so good I suppose. US diplomacy also played a pretty strong role in the end of Apartheid in South Africa, no? Also, the US had a key role in ending that war in Angola (not that Angola maintained the peace, but that wasn't America's fault as far as I know). And yeah, there are dozens and dozens of other examples. People don't pay much attention to diplomacy. They are too focused on more in-your-face things I think. But yes, the US has a long and rich history of using diplomacy to quell tensions, major and minor. As with most things, people only get informed when things go wrong. When everything goes well and things don't explode, we never give it a second thought.
I think the treat mutual destruction prevented WW3...anyways on with your Hillary and American love in ... lol.
What do you mean? I have never expressed love for Hillary. Oh, you're doing the "if you hate Trump you must love Hillary" thing too. K. (weak reply btw)
Every example you provided has a rebuttal. At least some of us have the courage and disgust to admit that both candidates are a joke...
Is that how you see yourself?? Courageous? There is nothing I'm not admitting. I simply focus more on Trump because I think he is the worse of the two (obviously, since I've said it probably 100 times before). Okay, so let's see this rebuttal, along with proof that the USA has never ever used diplomacy successfully (I mean come on man. It's a pretty ludicrous claim. You come off as an extremist when you make claims like that).
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Not in the least, lol. What's there to be a fan about? Besides the fact that she's not Trump and has a massive amount of experience and self-control? And the way she stares straight into the camera at the debates with that look, like, "can't you fucking believe this guy is saying this shit?". I admit that makes me giggle. But no, not a fan. Honestly, I'm fairly indifferent about her just because of the current circumstances. I see no point in spending a lot of my time focusing on what sucks about her. She's the only option and I accept that because she's not THAT bad an option (I have never felt particularly concerned about the email thing).
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
NewsWorldMiddle East Saudi Arabia ‘deliberately targeting impoverished Yemen’s farms and agricultural industry’
Increasing evidence suggests Kingdom is not merely bombing civilians in neighbouring country, but systematically targeting infrastructure survivors will need to avoid starvation when the war is over
Things are beyond fucked up in the Philippines at the moment. Maybe they should be more worried about their own President actively setting up a dictatorship and apparently trying to collude with China while he's at it, which is scary. Given the current situation, US intervention might actually be a good thing for their future. It could go either way though. I'm sure most of these protestors are the same people who support their completely fucked up, maniacal leader.
When's the last time the US intervened and left a place better off?
We're not talking about military intervention, are we? I haven't seen anything to suggest that. This is all just about diplomatic measures.
The US solve anything diplomatically?
Well they did manage to keep the Cold War from turning into WWIII. That was pretty good. And the Berlin Wall coming down was a pretty big deal that took some US diplomacy. Then there was the Iranian hostage crisis. And there is constant diplomatic measures happening with China - so far so good I suppose. US diplomacy also played a pretty strong role in the end of Apartheid in South Africa, no? Also, the US had a key role in ending that war in Angola (not that Angola maintained the peace, but that wasn't America's fault as far as I know). And yeah, there are dozens and dozens of other examples. People don't pay much attention to diplomacy. They are too focused on more in-your-face things I think. But yes, the US has a long and rich history of using diplomacy to quell tensions, major and minor. As with most things, people only get informed when things go wrong. When everything goes well and things don't explode, we never give it a second thought.
Iran is a good current time example. If we had McCain/Romney, chances are pretty good we would've invaded. If things with them improve over time, both internally and in relations with other countries, you can use that as a gold star for diplomacy.
If we had McCain an invasion wouldn't have been necessary. The Iranian green revolution would have received support and the Mullahs might have fallen by the hands of their own people. That along with a real and sustained Arab spring backstopped by a permanent US presence in Iraq would have paved the way for a more peaceful middle east.
The US has called for an end to airstrikes by a Saudi-led coalition in Yemen at a UN security council meeting, but critics pointed out that Washington continues to supply arms and provide other military support to Saudi Arabia.
Hypocrisy in action: DEMOCRATS - Super delegates = okay, Electoral college = not so much
That's weird, because I remember pretty much everyone, including Democrats, bitching like crazy about super delegates during the primaries. It was one of the biggest issues for democrats during that time...
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Hypocrisy in action: DEMOCRATS - Super delegates = okay, Electoral college = not so much
That's weird, because I remember pretty much everyone, including Democrats, bitching like crazy about super delegates during the primaries. It was one of the biggest issues for democrats during that time...
Only the Dems who were backing Bernie. It sure seemed like the Dems backing Hillary were perfectly fine with the super delegates, and explained that that was how the system worked.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Hypocrisy in action: DEMOCRATS - Super delegates = okay, Electoral college = not so much
That's weird, because I remember pretty much everyone, including Democrats, bitching like crazy about super delegates during the primaries. It was one of the biggest issues for democrats during that time...
Only the Dems who were backing Bernie. It sure seemed like the Dems backing Hillary were perfectly fine with the super delegates, and explained that that was how the system worked.
I recall that they didn't actually support super delegates, but simply acknowledged that is indeed how the system is currently set up, which is true.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Hypocrisy in action: DEMOCRATS - Super delegates = okay, Electoral college = not so much
That's weird, because I remember pretty much everyone, including Democrats, bitching like crazy about super delegates during the primaries. It was one of the biggest issues for democrats during that time...
Only the Dems who were backing Bernie. It sure seemed like the Dems backing Hillary were perfectly fine with the super delegates, and explained that that was how the system worked.
I recall that they didn't actually support super delegates, but simply acknowledged that is indeed how the system is currently set up, which is true.
This post I completely agree with. I just don't think Hillary supporters were actually bitching about the super delegates at all. mrussel1 was probably the most consistent champion of Hillary, and I don't think I ever heard him bitch about them. He acknowledged their existence and their role numerous times in discussions with Bernie supporters, but I don't recall that he (or any of the other Hillary faithful) actually bitched about them. I know Brian, Free, and others did, which is why I felt that the distinction was important.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Hypocrisy in action: DEMOCRATS - Super delegates = okay, Electoral college = not so much
That's weird, because I remember pretty much everyone, including Democrats, bitching like crazy about super delegates during the primaries. It was one of the biggest issues for democrats during that time...
Only the Dems who were backing Bernie. It sure seemed like the Dems backing Hillary were perfectly fine with the super delegates, and explained that that was how the system worked.
I recall that they didn't actually support super delegates, but simply acknowledged that is indeed how the system is currently set up, which is true.
This post I completely agree with. I just don't think Hillary supporters were actually bitching about the super delegates at all. mrussel1 was probably the most consistent champion of Hillary, and I don't think I ever heard him bitch about them. He acknowledged their existence and their role numerous times in discussions with Bernie supporters, but I don't recall that he (or any of the other Hillary faithful) actually bitched about them. I know Brian, Free, and others did, which is why I felt that the distinction was important.
Fair enough (I bitched about them too FWIW, lol), though I didn't just mean just people on the AMT. For clarity, when people say stuff like "democrats" think a certain way, are we just talking about people on the AMT?? Or democrats in general or on average?? Anytime there is a such a sweeping generalization, I think about the AMT, but also about the things I saw on the news, other social media platforms, various editorials, etc.... What are others basing their vast generalizations on?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Hypocrisy in action: DEMOCRATS - Super delegates = okay, Electoral college = not so much
That's weird, because I remember pretty much everyone, including Democrats, bitching like crazy about super delegates during the primaries. It was one of the biggest issues for democrats during that time...
Only the Dems who were backing Bernie. It sure seemed like the Dems backing Hillary were perfectly fine with the super delegates, and explained that that was how the system worked.
I recall that they didn't actually support super delegates, but simply acknowledged that is indeed how the system is currently set up, which is true.
This post I completely agree with. I just don't think Hillary supporters were actually bitching about the super delegates at all. mrussel1 was probably the most consistent champion of Hillary, and I don't think I ever heard him bitch about them. He acknowledged their existence and their role numerous times in discussions with Bernie supporters, but I don't recall that he (or any of the other Hillary faithful) actually bitched about them. I know Brian, Free, and others did, which is why I felt that the distinction was important.
Fair enough (I bitched about them too FWIW, lol), though I didn't just mean just people on the AMT. For clarity, when people say stuff like "democrats" think a certain way, are we just talking about people on the AMT?? Or democrats in general or on average?? Anytime there is a such a sweeping generalization, I think about the AMT, but also about the things I saw on the news, other social media platforms, various editorials, etc.... What are others basing their vast generalizations on?
Ha, ok. I was just thinking about discussions here. But I do agree that I did hear plenty of bitching about the super delegates outside the AMT.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Hypocrisy in action: DEMOCRATS - Super delegates = okay, Electoral college = not so much
That's weird, because I remember pretty much everyone, including Democrats, bitching like crazy about super delegates during the primaries. It was one of the biggest issues for democrats during that time...
Only the Dems who were backing Bernie. It sure seemed like the Dems backing Hillary were perfectly fine with the super delegates, and explained that that was how the system worked.
I recall that they didn't actually support super delegates, but simply acknowledged that is indeed how the system is currently set up, which is true.
This post I completely agree with. I just don't think Hillary supporters were actually bitching about the super delegates at all. mrussel1 was probably the most consistent champion of Hillary, and I don't think I ever heard him bitch about them. He acknowledged their existence and their role numerous times in discussions with Bernie supporters, but I don't recall that he (or any of the other Hillary faithful) actually bitched about them. I know Brian, Free, and others did, which is why I felt that the distinction was important.
Fair enough (I bitched about them too FWIW, lol), though I didn't just mean just people on the AMT. For clarity, when people say stuff like "democrats" think a certain way, are we just talking about people on the AMT?? Or democrats in general or on average?? Anytime there is a such a sweeping generalization, I think about the AMT, but also about the things I saw on the news, other social media platforms, various editorials, etc.... What are others basing their vast generalizations on?
Ha, ok. I was just thinking about discussions here. But I do agree that I did hear plenty of bitching about the super delegates outside the AMT.
What happened to @mrussel1 btw?? I haven't seen him around I don't think. Has he checked out of the AMT in disgust (as I did for a few days), or did he get banned or something??
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Hypocrisy in action: DEMOCRATS - Super delegates = okay, Electoral college = not so much
That's weird, because I remember pretty much everyone, including Democrats, bitching like crazy about super delegates during the primaries. It was one of the biggest issues for democrats during that time...
Only the Dems who were backing Bernie. It sure seemed like the Dems backing Hillary were perfectly fine with the super delegates, and explained that that was how the system worked.
I recall that they didn't actually support super delegates, but simply acknowledged that is indeed how the system is currently set up, which is true.
This post I completely agree with. I just don't think Hillary supporters were actually bitching about the super delegates at all. mrussel1 was probably the most consistent champion of Hillary, and I don't think I ever heard him bitch about them. He acknowledged their existence and their role numerous times in discussions with Bernie supporters, but I don't recall that he (or any of the other Hillary faithful) actually bitched about them. I know Brian, Free, and others did, which is why I felt that the distinction was important.
Fair enough (I bitched about them too FWIW, lol), though I didn't just mean just people on the AMT. For clarity, when people say stuff like "democrats" think a certain way, are we just talking about people on the AMT?? Or democrats in general or on average?? Anytime there is a such a sweeping generalization, I think about the AMT, but also about the things I saw on the news, other social media platforms, various editorials, etc.... What are others basing their vast generalizations on?
Ha, ok. I was just thinking about discussions here. But I do agree that I did hear plenty of bitching about the super delegates outside the AMT.
What happened to @mrussel1 btw?? I haven't seen him around I don't think. Has he checked out of the AMT in disgust (as I did for a few days), or did he get banned or something??
Hypocrisy in action: DEMOCRATS - Super delegates = okay, Electoral college = not so much
That's weird, because I remember pretty much everyone, including Democrats, bitching like crazy about super delegates during the primaries. It was one of the biggest issues for democrats during that time...
Only the Dems who were backing Bernie. It sure seemed like the Dems backing Hillary were perfectly fine with the super delegates, and explained that that was how the system worked.
I recall that they didn't actually support super delegates, but simply acknowledged that is indeed how the system is currently set up, which is true.
This post I completely agree with. I just don't think Hillary supporters were actually bitching about the super delegates at all. mrussel1 was probably the most consistent champion of Hillary, and I don't think I ever heard him bitch about them. He acknowledged their existence and their role numerous times in discussions with Bernie supporters, but I don't recall that he (or any of the other Hillary faithful) actually bitched about them. I know Brian, Free, and others did, which is why I felt that the distinction was important.
Fair enough (I bitched about them too FWIW, lol), though I didn't just mean just people on the AMT. For clarity, when people say stuff like "democrats" think a certain way, are we just talking about people on the AMT?? Or democrats in general or on average?? Anytime there is a such a sweeping generalization, I think about the AMT, but also about the things I saw on the news, other social media platforms, various editorials, etc.... What are others basing their vast generalizations on?
Ha, ok. I was just thinking about discussions here. But I do agree that I did hear plenty of bitching about the super delegates outside the AMT.
What happened to @mrussel1 btw?? I haven't seen him around I don't think. Has he checked out of the AMT in disgust (as I did for a few days), or did he get banned or something??
Hey PJ_Soul... I'm alive, well and unbanned. On election night I was flying to Phoenix, then straight to Orlando for a Disney trip with the kids, on to Miami, then home for a night before two days in Charlottesville for a wedding. I'm finally home. The good news about all the traveling and work is that I can pretend nothing happened. But I will get in the mix again as soon as I have time. I hope you and everyone else is doing well.
Hypocrisy in action: DEMOCRATS - Super delegates = okay, Electoral college = not so much
That's weird, because I remember pretty much everyone, including Democrats, bitching like crazy about super delegates during the primaries. It was one of the biggest issues for democrats during that time...
Only the Dems who were backing Bernie. It sure seemed like the Dems backing Hillary were perfectly fine with the super delegates, and explained that that was how the system worked.
I recall that they didn't actually support super delegates, but simply acknowledged that is indeed how the system is currently set up, which is true.
This post I completely agree with. I just don't think Hillary supporters were actually bitching about the super delegates at all. mrussel1 was probably the most consistent champion of Hillary, and I don't think I ever heard him bitch about them. He acknowledged their existence and their role numerous times in discussions with Bernie supporters, but I don't recall that he (or any of the other Hillary faithful) actually bitched about them. I know Brian, Free, and others did, which is why I felt that the distinction was important.
Fair enough (I bitched about them too FWIW, lol), though I didn't just mean just people on the AMT. For clarity, when people say stuff like "democrats" think a certain way, are we just talking about people on the AMT?? Or democrats in general or on average?? Anytime there is a such a sweeping generalization, I think about the AMT, but also about the things I saw on the news, other social media platforms, various editorials, etc.... What are others basing their vast generalizations on?
Ha, ok. I was just thinking about discussions here. But I do agree that I did hear plenty of bitching about the super delegates outside the AMT.
What happened to @mrussel1 btw?? I haven't seen him around I don't think. Has he checked out of the AMT in disgust (as I did for a few days), or did he get banned or something??
Hypocrisy in action: DEMOCRATS - Super delegates = okay, Electoral college = not so much
That's weird, because I remember pretty much everyone, including Democrats, bitching like crazy about super delegates during the primaries. It was one of the biggest issues for democrats during that time...
Only the Dems who were backing Bernie. It sure seemed like the Dems backing Hillary were perfectly fine with the super delegates, and explained that that was how the system worked.
I recall that they didn't actually support super delegates, but simply acknowledged that is indeed how the system is currently set up, which is true.
This post I completely agree with. I just don't think Hillary supporters were actually bitching about the super delegates at all. mrussel1 was probably the most consistent champion of Hillary, and I don't think I ever heard him bitch about them. He acknowledged their existence and their role numerous times in discussions with Bernie supporters, but I don't recall that he (or any of the other Hillary faithful) actually bitched about them. I know Brian, Free, and others did, which is why I felt that the distinction was important.
Fair enough (I bitched about them too FWIW, lol), though I didn't just mean just people on the AMT. For clarity, when people say stuff like "democrats" think a certain way, are we just talking about people on the AMT?? Or democrats in general or on average?? Anytime there is a such a sweeping generalization, I think about the AMT, but also about the things I saw on the news, other social media platforms, various editorials, etc.... What are others basing their vast generalizations on?
Ha, ok. I was just thinking about discussions here. But I do agree that I did hear plenty of bitching about the super delegates outside the AMT.
What happened to @mrussel1 btw?? I haven't seen him around I don't think. Has he checked out of the AMT in disgust (as I did for a few days), or did he get banned or something??
Hey PJ_Soul... I'm alive, well and unbanned. On election night I was flying to Phoenix, then straight to Orlando for a Disney trip with the kids, on to Miami, then home for a night before two days in Charlottesville for a wedding. I'm finally home. The good news about all the traveling and work is that I can pretend nothing happened. But I will get in the mix again as soon as I have time. I hope you and everyone else is doing well.
Comments
(weak reply btw)
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
There is nothing I'm not admitting. I simply focus more on Trump because I think he is the worse of the two (obviously, since I've said it probably 100 times before).
Okay, so let's see this rebuttal, along with proof that the USA has never ever used diplomacy successfully (I mean come on man. It's a pretty ludicrous claim. You come off as an extremist when you make claims like that).
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Maybe we could drop clusters of food instead of cluster bombs.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/24/us-led-sanctions-targeting-syria-risk-adjudication-as-war-crimes/
Saudi Arabia ‘deliberately targeting impoverished Yemen’s farms and agricultural industry’
Increasing evidence suggests Kingdom is not merely bombing civilians in neighbouring country, but systematically targeting infrastructure survivors will need to avoid starvation when the war is over
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/31/us-calls-for-end-to-saudi-airstrikes-in-yemen
The US unjustly kills people both home and abroad but words cause major protests.
Rigged primary vs fair presidential election.
47% of voters don't bother to vote vs antiquated electoral college system.
Anyone have anymore examples?
DEMOCRATS - Super delegates = okay, Electoral college = not so much
Ted Cruz