[Nevyn]

Mentalist, on 18 March 2016 - 02:09 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 18 March 2016 - 01:19 PM, said:

Andorion, on 18 March 2016 - 12:12 PM, said:

I never understand how USA does not see that oil is a very short term gain, and that taking a tougher stance on SA could cut terror funding in half. Seriously, how do Ivy league trained policymakers fuck up this bad?

This is unfortunately how they operate, living on borrowed sunlight because it's still making the rich rich (and that's the corporate bottom line)...and Canada is no stranger to such mentalities either, as the whole Alberta oil sands thing proves (literally sifting goddamned oil out of sandy deposits in northern Alberta). I will admit that a big PART of the issue has been put forth by some scientists that IF we were to just cut off oil supplies, society could not handle the immediate wobble it creates. It would, in effect, be chaos. The real path is through a slow switching to alternate sources of energy (example: like getting families to start buying Tesla electric cars...AKA making it affordable for the average joe who drives to do so; I think the sedan is moderately affordable but the new SUV (the Model X) is over $100,000) so that we are all weaned off oil and it doesn't destroy the economy in the process. The problem is that no one currently in power gives a shit about that day when we finally run out of ancient sunlight (oil). They care about dollar bills. The finite nature of oil means that day is indeed coming (general consensus puts it at about 35ish years from now?), and without the slow switch that is required...the above chaotic scenario WILL occur. Until then, places like SA will remain super important to the US and other countries who depend on oil. We should have been tapping into alternate energy on the large scale in the 1990's...but the pace is glacial...and the only reason I can come up with is "oil=money".

This. But here's my even more pessimistic take. Even if we go green energy-wise, we're still hooked on carbohydrates (oil and gas), because it's where plastics come from. As well as things like cosmetics, apparently. Basically, our civilization is based on consumption of hydrocarbons. When the crash comes it'll be really bad.

carbohydrates? lol. Damn saudi bread

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 18 March 2016 - 02:12 PM

[Andorion]

Nevyn, on 18 March 2016 - 01:17 PM, said:

Andorion, on 18 March 2016 - 12:12 PM, said:

I never understand how USA does not see that oil is a very short term gain, and that taking a tougher stance on SA could cut terror funding in half. Seriously, how do Ivy league trained policymakers fuck up this bad?

As for Pakistani nukes, USA has the Special Forces muscle to infiltrate and neutralise the Pak nuclear arsenal. They should do that. A state half under thrall of ISIS level ideologues is no place for nukes

With respect, those both seem like overly simplistic notions.

The US cutting off Saudi Arabia does not cut off the Saudis money. They still have lots of money, and many other customers for their oil. It just shuts the american oil companies out of the profits and turns an official ally into who knows what.

As for doing special forces raids on the nuclear arsenal of another country the US is not officially at war with, at minimum you'd be looking at a massive international backlash. And that is assuming you managed to commit your act of war with 100% efficiency and before anything could be launched, and you had perfect intelligence on where Pakistani nukes were (hopefully not the same spies tracking WMDs in Iraq).

Then you also get into unintended consequences. Pakistan did not develop nukes because of the west, they have ages old regional conflicts. So what do China and India then do with a country that can't punch back?

And how much recruiting does ISIS do in a country the US has stripped of its nukes, and another the US has tried to shut off economically?

SA is an "official" ally. Yet it plays a huge role in Islamic radicalization. Oil money pays for the training of radical Wahabbi/Salaffi clerics who are then sent abroad to preach hatred. Oil is not sustainable. Increase investments in alternate source, wean the globe off oil, and with oil SA has nothing.

As for Pakistan I am not calling for unilateral attacks. But given the condition of the country, terrorists taking over nuclear facilities, or a breach within the army cannot be ruled out. In such circumstances such an attack becomes necessary.

Even terrorist access to fissionable material or just the warheads is dangerous. A detonation in the Punjab would destroy prime land of both countries

[Mentalist]

It's a tad ironic how similar I find Ando's arguments for US intervention in Pakistan with those of Ukrainians who want to see NATO boots on Russian soil.

Incidentally, Saudis are investing big into petrochemical industry- a Saudi-Japanese joint venture plant in SA currently provides over half of Japan's plastics.


Edited to veer back on topic: I think I asked this before, but how would Bernie handle foreign policy when the rules start going ou the window?

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 18 March 2016 - 04:48 PM

[HoosierDaddy]

Mentalist, on 18 March 2016 - 04:46 PM, said:

It's a tad ironic how similar I find Ando's arguments for US intervention in Pakistan with those of Ukrainians who want to see NATO boots on Russian soil.

Incidentally, Saudis are investing big into petrochemical industry- a Saudi-Japanese joint venture plant in SA currently provides over half of Japan's plastics.


Edited to veer back on topic: I think I asked this before, but how would Bernie handle foreign policy when the rules start going ou the window?

Who knows? He's non-interventionist, neo-isolation. He has no foreign policy. When shit goes out the window he doesn't know because in Bernie-land everything is going to be fine no matter what. Because Bernie.

[worry]

On the contrary, hope (practical or pie-in-the-sky) is the last reason to vote for any candidate. There is no scenario where we're not already doomed. It's too late for all that. Humanity's days are numbered, and the focus of all elections this century should be aimed at a kind of species-wide hospice care. Delay the inevitable, sure, but maximizing humanitarian endeavors is the only loving option in our final century or two.

[worry]

Here's an article for my man HD though. https://newrepublic....2/hillary-voter

I wouldn't call it a defense of Clinton in terms of policy, but it's very much a counter to the popular media narrative (or lack thereof) regarding her campaign and her supporters. If there's such an enthusiasm gap, why is she crushing it? I suppose that might also be a palliative to those worried about Trump as well.

[Terez]

She's not exactly crushing it; she's losing a lot of states, some by big margins, to a non-charismatic old man who is a self-proclaimed socialist and who only knows how to talk about one thing. She definitely has enthusiastic supporters. On my social media they're mostly middle-aged women and gay men. The Hillarygays are her most ardent supporters by far. This probably says more about my circle of friends than it does about anything else, though. Most of the Hillary voters I know are less enthusiastic about Hillary than they are about hating Bernie supporters.

[worry]

I DID say it was for HD. But I also think this is a lot of the case:

Terez, on 18 March 2016 - 11:11 PM, said:

This probably says more about my circle of friends than it does about anything else, though.

And hey, it's more or less true with my social circles too, which skews young gen-x/millennial. I just don't think this virulent hatred or distrust of Hillary goes nearly as deep in the Democratic Party constituency as the narrative would have us think. Attitudes towards the establishment in general are changing, of course, but we're at the start of that change. And I'm with you in terms of feeling like a vote for Hillary to some degree means having blood on your hands. But I also don't think most Americans (of all political stripes) know or care that much about foreign policy except in the broad strokes. The fact that she was so clearly and partisanly excoriated over and over re: Benghazi -- and got through it a champ -- matters; the destruction of Libya generally, or Honduras, frankly don't register. And if in terms of domestic policy she's on the more-Obama train, most Dems are fine with that.

[HoosierDaddy]

Zoolanderis Derake, on 18 March 2016 - 10:59 PM, said:

Here's an article for my man HD though. https://newrepublic....2/hillary-voter

I wouldn't call it a defense of Clinton in terms of policy, but it's very much a counter to the popular media narrative (or lack thereof) regarding her campaign and her supporters. If there's such an enthusiasm gap, why is she crushing it? I suppose that might also be a palliative to those worried about Trump as well.

Terez, on 18 March 2016 - 11:11 PM, said:

She's not exactly crushing it; she's losing a lot of states, some by big margins, to a non-charismatic old man who is a self-proclaimed socialist and who only knows how to talk about one thing. She definitely has enthusiastic supporters. On my social media they're mostly middle-aged women and gay men. The Hillarygays are her most ardent supporters by far. This probably says more about my circle of friends than it does about anything else, though. Most of the Hillary voters I know are less enthusiastic about Hillary than they are about hating Bernie supporters.

Zoolanderis Derake, on 18 March 2016 - 11:31 PM, said:

I DID say it was for HD. But I also think this is a lot of the case:

Terez, on 18 March 2016 - 11:11 PM, said:

This probably says more about my circle of friends than it does about anything else, though.

And hey, it's more or less true with my social circles too, which skews young gen-x/millennial. I just don't think this virulent hatred or distrust of Hillary goes nearly as deep in the Democratic Party constituency as the narrative would have us think. Attitudes towards the establishment in general are changing, of course, but we're at the start of that change. And I'm with you in terms of feeling like a vote for Hillary to some degree means having blood on your hands. But I also don't think most Americans (of all political stripes) know or care that much about foreign policy except in the broad strokes. The fact that she was so clearly and partisanly excoriated over and over re: Benghazi -- and got through it a champ -- matters; the destruction of Libya generally, or Honduras, frankly don't register. And if in terms of domestic policy she's on the more-Obama train, most Dems are fine with that.

It's funny that we are debating this. I'm so far left that I'd fall over politically, but we're all talking politics. Terez, I think you don't realize how much the Right hates the Clintons.

I love Bernie the man. I don't think he's presidential. I'd vote him over any R though.

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on 19 March 2016 - 12:20 AM, said:

Terez, I think you don't realize how much the Right hates the Clintons.

What makes you say that? I mean, I did say a while back that they hate Hillary even more than they hate Obama (difficult as that might be to imagine after the last 8 years).

[amphibian]

Briar King, on 19 March 2016 - 02:07 AM, said:

Haha my 8 yr old son was just randomly talking about the game I bought him last time at store. He said for next game he really wishes they had Mortal Kombat vs Presidents. Then he said he'd beat up Obama. I about pissed myself thinking about it. He's 8 ffs and saying this stuff!

That's uhhh something you probably should watch in the future.

Most of the people saying they'd beat up Obama are doing it because they're saying/thinking racist stuff. If your kid is picking up on that and saying it to get a rise out of you/other people, that's not something you wanna encourage.

[Terez]

Tammy Duckworth wrote a piece for Politico about how her existence as a symbol of the costs of war is part of what motivates her to run for office.

http://www.politico....d-at-war-119243

One thing I didn't know about her:

Tammy Duckworth said:

I had been pursuing a Ph.D. in political science when my National Guard unit was sent to Iraq.

[worry]

On a topic other than the elections, I've been wondering: have I just been sequestered in California, or have red states increasingly been passing preemption laws outright banning cities and towns from passing very specific issue progressive local ordinances? I mean obviously there's always been the strata of governments, but it seems like they've really been laying it on heavy to stop things like local minimum wage hikes, or gun safety, and of course states banning localities from passing LGBT protections.

So am I crazy or is this real? It seems like they've been doing it in a frenzy -- perhaps most blatantly in the face of the min wage hike argument, and blue states & cities doing the right thing. Or just since Obama's been president (not unlike gun-stockpiling folks)? Is it just the next natural step from allowing industries to write legislation templates for legislators to Mad Lib their local info? And isn't it a weird, nakedly hypocritical flip from the states' rights argument against federal supremacy & the more localized govt = better?

[Terez]

Yeah, I dunno. I don't think this question has been discussed enough for me to get an idea how the Republicans justify it. One could argue that they hate the federal government (and especially the UN) but they're okay with state governments acting as federal governments. We're a federation of nation-states; they see states as being just the right level of "local" for that kind of enforcement.

Lots of people in Phoenix didn't get to vote today because the lines were so stupidly long. Utah results are coming in; Bernie and Cruz are leading.

[Terez]

Jeb endorsed Cruz.

[worry]

Here's a very recent, and pretty exemplary instance of what I'm talking about (for those who might be curious): http://www.huffingto...4b0c3ef5217676c

It's an ostensibly "anti-discrimination" law passed at state level that includes the basics, like race and gender, but deliberately leaves out LGBTQ protection. It also goes on to outright ban cities/counties/etc from passing their own anti-discrimination laws, thus fully carving out that hole leaving LGBTQ people in the lurch. It's deliberate. It also goes out of its way to exclude veterans as well -- not as a thoughtless byproduct of vague language, but in another deliberate dead zone. And to establish the connective tissue to other such laws, it does indeed ban cities from increasing minimum wage. This seems to be (at least to me) happening more frequently than ever, and not by a little. It screams of desperate do-it-while-we-can legislating of the worst sort PLUS the full mechanization of legislating by interest group.

[worry]

So in "The election has reached a new low even though you keep thinking that's impossible" news: an anti-Trump Super PAC released an ad criticizing Trump's wife's modeling work. He responded on Twitter with a veiled threat re: Cruz's wife, which is most likely about her history with depression: http://nymag.com/sci...ceful-move.html Ugliness is exacerbated by Trump fans (and Trump himself of course). Ted Cruz has responded by calling Trump a "sniveling coward" https://twitter.com/...085924343721984

[HoosierDaddy]

Zoolanderis Derake, on 23 March 2016 - 04:05 AM, said:

On a topic other than the elections, I've been wondering: have I just been sequestered in California, or have red states increasingly been passing preemption laws outright banning cities and towns from passing very specific issue progressive local ordinances? I mean obviously there's always been the strata of governments, but it seems like they've really been laying it on heavy to stop things like local minimum wage hikes, or gun safety, and of course states banning localities from passing LGBT protections.

So am I crazy or is this real? It seems like they've been doing it in a frenzy -- perhaps most blatantly in the face of the min wage hike argument, and blue states & cities doing the right thing. Or just since Obama's been president (not unlike gun-stockpiling folks)? Is it just the next natural step from allowing industries to write legislation templates for legislators to Mad Lib their local info? And isn't it a weird, nakedly hypocritical flip from the states' rights argument against federal supremacy & the more localized govt = better?

There is a reason that gerrymandering has worked. Republicans have long realized that the population and demography are not their friend nationally.

The "small government" party simply wants to tighten laws at a more local level than nationally. And it's been working beautifully, thanks to gerrymandering.

[worry]

Absolutely. The "small government" thing has always been a euphemism for consolidated rather than diffuse power, just as "states' rights" is a euphemism for a-constitutional (racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-poor) oligarchies.

I'm just saying that there is currently a big wave of this preemption, like a concerted and mechanized national GOP effort to ban cities (often blue bastions in a sea of red) from doing the right thing. It's an escalating tactic du jour.

[amphibian]

There are rumors that the identity of one of Ted Cruz's girlfriends will hit the news tomorrow. Having an affair isn't a huge deal to me, but it is to much of the country.