Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/03/15 04:01:09
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: What's the gaffe, exactly? It's a statement of policy.
It's a bit like Obama's comment that after years of economic decline with no government support, a lot of people in small Pennsylvanian towns got bitter and started focusing on guns and religion to vent their frustration. It's just a basic statement of reality, but Republicans committed to repeating that it was a horrible gaffe over and over again, and the base was happy to accept that. Even though, you know, the comment was anything but. People will believe what they want to believe.
Anyhow, this thing about concern for coal mining because of all the jobs in the sector is a simple con. The jobs dissapeared from coal mining decades ago. Peak employment around 250,000, and now there's about 70 to 80k.
Where was the concern about jobs in the sector then? Was there a single Republican plan to fight automation and open cut methods, because they were destroying jobs? Nope, because coal mines were making more money with less employees, and you better believe that's what matters.
But hey, lets just watch people believe what they want to believe. Let's watch them hand on their heart claim they really believe those 70,000 jobs must be protected, and that Republicans really care about those 80,000 jobs, even though they didn't care about the last 170,000 jobs.
Let's watch them claim that replacing coal with green tech is a terrible, scary jobs destroyer.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/03/15 04:11:49
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: What's the gaffe, exactly? It's a statement of policy.
HRC said... wrote:Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?
But, yeah... feth their livelihood.
You must have heard that completely differently than I did.... What I heard her say was that she was gonna invest in, and get "Green Power" into "Coal Country" to basically replace the jobs that will be lost when she gets coal shut down.
2016/03/15 05:11:52
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: What's the gaffe, exactly? It's a statement of policy.
HRC said... wrote:Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?
But, yeah... feth their livelihood.
... that's not a gaffe, though. I'm increasingly starting to think maybe you don't know what that means. Or maybe I don't know what it means.
A gaffe is when Obama said he visited all 57 states, for example. You know he doesn't actually think there are 57 states. You know what he meant.
Increasingly, politicians try to frame as "gaffes" when they try to walk back something - rather than admit they were wrong or stupid, they pretend they misstated what they meant, which is now... whatever it now is. But that's not a gaffe either.
However, the way you're using the phrase is wholly new to me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/15 05:12:27
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/03/15 05:25:49
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: It *is* a job destroyer... and politicians always want to push green tech.
So you're now concerned for the 80,000 people employed in coal? Where you as concerned when automation and open cut methods cut 180,000 jobs out of the sector?
But, green tech "isn't there yet" on a mass scale.
One of the things we've learnt in the last decade is that trying to replace large plant old tech energy with new large plant green energy is the wrong way of looking at things. Green tech is different, and should be deployed as it makes best sense to deploy it, regardless of how we built the sector in the past. The strength of many green technologies is they can be deployed in small scale. S purely in terms of
Also, the ultimate greenie gets the shaft... which is Nuclear power.
I think there's a lot to like about nuclear, but the reason we've seen little new nuclear development isn't because it's been given the political shaft. That's just an easy line repeated in conservative circles.
The problem is that any new nuclear plant is a massive undertaking. We're talking a few billion dollars, and a development time of five or more years once you commit to the project. If you want to put a few billion in to a project that won't start any repayment for five years, you want to be really confident about what energy demands will be for life of the project. And there's no such certainty at all right now. Back when most nuclear plants were built there was a great deal of confidence about the growth in electricity usage, and the tech base was pretty stable. Now there's a lot of uncertainty about what tech will look like in five years - what if battery tech takes the next step and we can use roof panels to charge batteries with little or no need for the grid? Would you want to sink a billion dollars in to nuclear plant, when break even is maybe 20 years away, are you confident that your plant will still be needed in 2036?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/03/15 08:26:24
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
A new major reactor plant costs £18-24 billion, plus inevitable cost overrun, plus additional costs if you want to site it in a new area (surveys, etc.). We're just trying to get a project started in the UK.
Green tech can be deployed like Sky TV satellite dishes. Nearly everyone can have a few solar panels on their roof, and a windmill on their chimney. (I can't because I live in a listed building.)
On a larger scale, when car parks and major roads are built or renewed, geothermal plant can be added during construction. You can even have this plant put into your garden if it's large enough.
All this, combined with passive improvements like better insulation and low energy light bulbs to cut demand, can make a surprising amount of difference to the overall energy strategy.
Frazzled wrote: What you believe is not relevant. What is, is.
I have not equated protests with violent assaults. I said I have no sympathy for those attempting to shout down the rights of others, which is what this is. That they are getting smacked around seems entirely expected. Just like it would be expected that if you try to take a bone from a vicious attack poodle, its going to bite you.
Sorry, but I expect better of a person than a dog. It is NEVER appropriate for a protester to be assaulted.
Escort them out of private events sure...but it should never be expected that they are met with violence.
I'm not saying its appropriate. I'm saying its reality, on a global basis. There is the way things ought to be, and the way things are.
Kids these days, thinking what should be, is reality.
-Socrates
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yeah, I'm going it have to agree on that. Protesting is never "provoking physical response". If they aren't trying to hurt you, I don't care if they are calling your mother a whore, violence is never the answer.
Living in a world where you deny reality and human nature is a dangerous proposition.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/15 11:24:42
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2016/03/15 11:48:24
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Basically, he's saying Trump isn't "an accident" and that people from the Establishment "shocked" that he came to this really have no reason to be.
In short, Trump is the monster created by Republican party's policies for all those years, and that everything that he's saying bluntly at the face of the world is what was tacit in what all Republican party made until now.
Here is the article translated in english with Google Trad for those who'd like (sure, mock it if you want, I don't care)
The Republicans of the establishment who are horrified by the rise of Donald Trump might want to take a moment to remember the bug heard everywhere - this point that Marco Rubio could not help repeating during a crucial debate, exposing catastrophic mockery and sending his campaign in a death spiral.
That's what it looked: "We must end this story that Barack Obama does not know what he does He knows exactly what he does.". The clear implication, even if the grammar is not correct is that all these negative things that happened under President Obama as Republicans assumptions - including the influence of the so-called reduced America in the world - are the result of a deliberate effort to weaken the country.
In other words, the darling of the establishment for the GOP nomination, the man Time magazine that began one day cover with the title "The Republican Savior" was just deliberately use this paranoid style of American politics. He suggested, albeit evasively, that the president was a traitor.
And today the establishment is shocked to see a candidate to play roughly the same role, but not evasive, this leading candidate for the Republican nomination for president.
Why ?
The truth is that the path to "Trumpism" began long ago, when the conservative movement - ideological warriors on the right - have taken over the GOP. And it was really a stranglehold. Person claiming a career in the party dares question the dominant aspects of ideology, for fear of being not only deal with first order challenges but also face excommunication.
One can see the persistent power of orthodoxy in the way all the surviving candidates for the Republican nomination, including Trump, dutifully offered huge tax cuts for the rich, even though a large majority of voters, including many Republicans, want rather see a tax increase for the rich.
But how can a slave out of an unpopular ideology - or at least an ideology that voters do not like if they learned more about him - can he win the elections? Obstruction assistance. But demagogy and appeals to tribalism help more. The coded messages about race and suggestions that Democrats are anti-American or even traitors assets are not things that happen like that, they are an integral part of the political strategy of the Republicans.
During the Obama years, Republican leaders have mounted volume on this strategy to 11 (although it was not terrible either during the Clinton years). Republicans avoided the establishment, in general, ie in the state that the president was a Kenyan atheist, socialist and Islamist terrorists friend - although, as the quote from Rubio, it was not away - but they encouraged tacitly those who did, and accept their financial support. And now they are paying the price.
Because the underlying assumption behind the strategy of the establishment is that you could fool the voters again and again encouraged to vote for Republicans, rage against "Those Guys", then ignored after elections when the party was pursuing his true priorities in favor of plutocrats. Trump arrives today, that turns these coded messages perfectly audible cries by all, who said at the base of the voters she can have what promises without being cheated. And the establishment is destroyed by the monster he created.
Things are different on the other side of the chessboard.
I still see people suggest an equivalence between Trump and Bernie Sanders. But even if the two men are the challenges to the establishment of their party, these establishments are not the same. The Democratic Party is, and a political scientist described it, "a coalition of social groups" ranging from family planning to teachers unions, rather than a monolithic ideology; there is nothing comparable to this multitude of institutions on the other side who want to establish purity.
In fact, Sanders movement, with its requirements for purity and contempt for the compromises and half measures, not like the Trump insurgents but much more the ideologues who have control over the GOP, becoming the establishment Trump bring back into question. And yes, we are beginning to see signs of this movement in the ugliness that has long been the procedure of the right: personal attacks scathing against anyone who questions the foundation of the campaign, more demagoguery in the countryside herself. Compare Twitter accounts of Sanders and Clinton and you will see what I mean.
But back to the Republicans we must end this story that the Trump phenomenon is a kind of unpredictable intrusion into classical political Republicans. Instead, the GOP has spent decades to encourage and exploit the same rage that now bears Trump to the appointment. It was inevitable that the establishment loses sooner or later the control of that rage.
Donald Trump is not an accident. His party has what he deserves.
Not really Republican friendly indeed, but Krugman is known for not really be kind with Democrats either. Here, he's quite harsh with Sanders as well. He's an economist first.
About Green Tech, well of course the "old jobs" would be destroyed. Strange that the part where new jobs would be created as soon as another technology is replacing the older one is missing from some affirmations here.
But well, it's a matter of point of view, as always.
Funny to see the usual suspects are still blattering the same false arguments to try to "defend" their point. Just show your true nature and get done with it.
Let's be clear; no matter the justification, using violence to make your point right doesn't make it right by itself. Also, freedom of speech doesn't mean shutting the other up because he's saying things that don't please you.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/03/15 12:08:31
2016/03/15 12:35:44
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze: Exactly my point. It looks like both the trumpers and anti-Trumpers are being gak heads and just escalating things. I am not sure if either side is particularly defensible, but it all doesn't seem to be hurting Trump politically. Which means the anti-trump group may want to rethink their strategy.
Wait, so if someone says things you disagree with, you won't defend their right to free speech? That sounds a bit selective. Isn't that the whole point of free speech protections? Don't forget that even vile speech like that promoted by the KKK is protected because once you start designating between "good" protected speech and "bad" unprotected speech based on content, you start down a dangerous path.
-James
2016/03/15 12:37:02
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Frazzled wrote: What you believe is not relevant. What is, is.
I have not equated protests with violent assaults. I said I have no sympathy for those attempting to shout down the rights of others, which is what this is. That they are getting smacked around seems entirely expected. Just like it would be expected that if you try to take a bone from a vicious attack poodle, its going to bite you.
Sorry, but I expect better of a person than a dog. It is NEVER appropriate for a protester to be assaulted.
Escort them out of private events sure...but it should never be expected that they are met with violence.
I'm not saying its appropriate. I'm saying its reality, on a global basis. There is the way things ought to be, and the way things are.
Kids these days, thinking what should be, is reality.
-Socrates
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yeah, I'm going it have to agree on that. Protesting is never "provoking physical response". If they aren't trying to hurt you, I don't care if they are calling your mother a whore, violence is never the answer.
Living in a world where you deny reality and human nature is a dangerous proposition.
Isn't this the same kind of logic that says women who wear short skirts deserved to get sexually assaulted?
2016/03/15 13:10:59
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: What's the gaffe, exactly? It's a statement of policy.
HRC said... wrote:Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?
But, yeah... feth their livelihood.
Right, but you unsurprisingly ignored the second half of that statement where she said that even though the coal jobs will be gone, new jobs will be there for those workers.
But hey, I guess imagine big, scary Hillary Clinton rolling into town and firing all of the coal miners that you didn't care about until she mentioned them. Oppose her policies all you want, but for feths sake be honest about about it.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/03/15 13:33:40
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jmurph wrote: Ouze: Exactly my point. It looks like both the trumpers and anti-Trumpers are being gak heads and just escalating things. I am not sure if either side is particularly defensible, but it all doesn't seem to be hurting Trump politically. Which means the anti-trump group may want to rethink their strategy.
Wait, so if someone says things you disagree with, you won't defend their right to free speech? That sounds a bit selective. Isn't that the whole point of free speech protections? Don't forget that even vile speech like that promoted by the KKK is protected because once you start designating between "good" protected speech and "bad" unprotected speech based on content, you start down a dangerous path.
Saying you don't like something, or even that the ideas are idiotic is not limiting someone else's Free Speech. It is using your own Free Speech as well. Free Speech simply means free from government interference. It doesn't mean free from other people thinking you're an idiot.
2016/03/15 14:18:28
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: What's the gaffe, exactly? It's a statement of policy.
HRC said... wrote:Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?
But, yeah... feth their livelihood.
Right, but you unsurprisingly ignored the second half of that statement where she said that even though the coal jobs will be gone, new jobs will be there for those workers.
But hey, I guess imagine big, scary Hillary Clinton rolling into town and firing all of the coal miners that you didn't care about until she mentioned them. Oppose her policies all you want, but for feths sake be honest about about it.
When has a President ever truly delivered on such promise?
Just admit that this is another of those cases where the government attempts to pick winners and losers in an industry.
Ok first, forgive my mispelling as I am typing this on my phone and it is rather unforgiving.
Secondly with all the talk of coal I felt the need to way in.
I work in a coal mine that is facing its end of days. We have had two major layoffs, and now the miners left have been cut back to four day shifts a week, this includes the longwall, the mines big money maker.
Many of the bosses and their cronies have gotten their west virginia certification. Its only a matter of time before this place is shuttered.
Now the owner of this mine, whom I will not name, is well known for being an donkey-cave on the national stage. First in the fact he dropped a mountain on a bunch of miners outwest and second in making attending a Romney rally mandatory for a lot of guys who just finished a 12 hour shift.
Some time ago he began buying up mass tracts of widely believed useless farmland. Flashforward some odd years and he now owns most of the oil and gas rights in the region.
He recently bought several mines in west virginia that offers him better tax breaks and subsidies. The mines are also newer while the mine I work in is over 30 years old and pretty damn deep but still have a good bit of life in it.
And yet, even though these facts are pretty common knowledge. This gak talks out of his ass about how this is all the faults of the oil and gas co and democrats.
This anti union piece of scum is nothing but two faced liar worried about lining his own pocket, the stories of safety hazards, book fudging, and general fuckery of his employees I could tell you would turn your hair white.
So the next time someone tells you the democrats are killing coal, make sure they dont own a mine first.
2016/03/15 14:37:39
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: It *is* a job destroyer... and politicians always want to push green tech.
So you're now concerned for the 80,000 people employed in coal? Where you as concerned when automation and open cut methods cut 180,000 jobs out of the sector?
See that? That's moving the goal-post. I hope you have enough gretchins to pull it.
Here's the problem. This is a candidate (much like Obama) who wants to push Green Technologies.
That's fine.
However, I draw the line when it's pushed without any goddamn consideration of such impact. You don't simply "replace jobs" 1-to-1 that these politician insinuates. These miners isn't going to suddenly mine coals one day, then get trained/skilled to work in the green sector.
That simply dumbassery.
It's politically dumb for HRC because coal is a big industry in W. Virginia, PA and IL. The GOP only have to play that one snippet in a 30-second ad.
Please don't construe this as, hurr-hurr ignore whembly 'cuz he hates anything Clinton. Just for once, acknowledge that this is a goof.
It's one thing the say, "we need to invest in green technologies and help the industry to become competetive vs legacy-power industry"... but, it's a goddamn different thing when you say:
Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?
I'm just pointing out that the Ads starts writing themselves .
But, green tech "isn't there yet" on a mass scale.
One of the things we've learnt in the last decade is that trying to replace large plant old tech energy with new large plant green energy is the wrong way of looking at things. Green tech is different, and should be deployed as it makes best sense to deploy it, regardless of how we built the sector in the past. The strength of many green technologies is they can be deployed in small scale. S purely in terms of
Sure... but Clinton, or most other politicians for that matter, don't talk in these terms. Nor, once in their power, do that really push this.
There's very little opportunity for grafts. (which is a pretty damn cynical view, but I don't believe I'm far off).
Also, the ultimate greenie gets the shaft... which is Nuclear power.
I think there's a lot to like about nuclear, but the reason we've seen little new nuclear development isn't because it's been given the political shaft. That's just an easy line repeated in conservative circles.
The problem is that any new nuclear plant is a massive undertaking. We're talking a few billion dollars, and a development time of five or more years once you commit to the project. If you want to put a few billion in to a project that won't start any repayment for five years, you want to be really confident about what energy demands will be for life of the project. And there's no such certainty at all right now. Back when most nuclear plants were built there was a great deal of confidence about the growth in electricity usage, and the tech base was pretty stable. Now there's a lot of uncertainty about what tech will look like in five years - what if battery tech takes the next step and we can use roof panels to charge batteries with little or no need for the grid? Would you want to sink a billion dollars in to nuclear plant, when break even is maybe 20 years away, are you confident that your plant will still be needed in 2036?
A) Biggest hurdle is getting new license.
B) It's a great investment opportunity if there wasn't such a high barrier to overcome the startup regulation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lonestarr777 wrote: Ok first, forgive my mispelling as I am typing this on my phone and it is rather unforgiving.
Secondly with all the talk of coal I felt the need to way in.
I work in a coal mine that is facing its end of days. We have had two major layoffs, and now the miners left have been cut back to four day shifts a week, this includes the longwall, the mines big money maker.
Many of the bosses and their cronies have gotten their west virginia certification. Its only a matter of time before this place is shuttered.
Now the owner of this mine, whom I will not name, is well known for being an donkey-cave on the national stage. First in the fact he dropped a mountain on a bunch of miners outwest and second in making attending a Romney rally mandatory for a lot of guys who just finished a 12 hour shift.
Some time ago he began buying up mass tracts of widely believed useless farmland. Flashforward some odd years and he now owns most of the oil and gas rights in the region.
He recently bought several mines in west virginia that offers him better tax breaks and subsidies. The mines are also newer while the mine I work in is over 30 years old and pretty damn deep but still have a good bit of life in it.
And yet, even though these facts are pretty common knowledge. This gak talks out of his ass about how this is all the faults of the oil and gas co and democrats.
This anti union piece of scum is nothing but two faced liar worried about lining his own pocket, the stories of safety hazards, book fudging, and general fuckery of his employees I could tell you would turn your hair white.
So the next time someone tells you the democrats are killing coal, make sure they dont own a mine first.
I won't defend that guy as it sounds like he epitomize the worst of the worst owner one can have...
But, it's a different conversation on whether how a company is operated vs. whether or not our government allows such an industry.
FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised that it *is* the natural gas/oil industries donating to politicians to push the coal industries out.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/15 14:44:22
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/15 14:56:52
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jmurph wrote: Ouze: Exactly my point. It looks like both the trumpers and anti-Trumpers are being gak heads and just escalating things. I am not sure if either side is particularly defensible, but it all doesn't seem to be hurting Trump politically. Which means the anti-trump group may want to rethink their strategy.
Wait, so if someone says things you disagree with, you won't defend their right to free speech? That sounds a bit selective. Isn't that the whole point of free speech protections? Don't forget that even vile speech like that promoted by the KKK is protected because once you start designating between "good" protected speech and "bad" unprotected speech based on content, you start down a dangerous path.
That's right, I am not going to defend this moron's right to free speech on a message board on the Internet. I am not saying he doesn't have a right to it, I'm just not going to defend it. An in no way is my saying that impairing his freedom of speech. He doesn't need my help to get free airtime and speak freely whenever he wants because the media likes the ratings he brings. He is doing fine by himself.
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2016/03/15 15:03:54
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yeah, I'm going it have to agree on that. Protesting is never "provoking physical response". If they aren't trying to hurt you, I don't care if they are calling your mother a whore, violence is never the answer.
Living in a world where you deny reality and human nature is a dangerous proposition.
Just because people do these things, doesn't make it right.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2016/03/15 15:06:18
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Clinton: 'We didn't lose a single person' in Libya
By ELIZA COLLINS 03/15/16 07:22 AM EDT
Hillary Clinton on Monday defended the intervention in Libya that she championed as secretary of state, telling MSNBC's Chris Matthews that the United States "didn't lose a single person."
“Libya was a different kind of calculation. And we didn't lose a single person. We didn't have a problem in supporting our European and Arab allies in working with NATO,” the former secretary of state said during an MSNBC town hall on Monday night.
Clinton may have been referring strictly to the U.S.-backed overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, which indeed saw no loss of American lives and cost just around $1 billion. But her comments ignore the 2012 attacks at the U.S. mission and CIA outpost in Benghazi, which killed four people including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
Ousting Qaddafi was worth it, Clinton said.
“Now, is Libya perfect? It isn't. But did they have two elections that were free and fair where they voted for moderates. Yes, they did. So you know, changing from a dictator who has hollowed out your country to something resembling a functioning state and even hopefully more of a democratic one doesn't happen overnight,” she said. “And we've got to continue to support the Libyan people, to give them a chance, because otherwise you see what has happened in Syria, with the consequences of millions of people flooding out of Syria, with more than 250,000 people killed, with terrorist groups like ISIS taking up almost -- huge blocks of territory, as big as some of the states in that area.”
Groups affiliated with the Islamic State have carved out large swathes of territory in Libya as well, forcing the United States to conduct airstrikes there in mid-February. U.S. officials estimate that ISIL boasts some 6,500 fighters across a 150-mile stretch of Libya's Mediterranean coastline, according to the New York Times.
Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty are unable to comment.
Spoiler:
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/15 15:17:56
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I would assume that she is making a distinction between the military campaign and the period afterwards when the attack occurred.
The difference between "casualties of the Iraq war" and "A guy that got killed in Iraq in 2009 whilst on holiday" (Yes, I am aware that they weren't on holiday)
Goliath wrote: I would assume that she is making a distinction between the military campaign and the period afterwards when the attack occurred.
The difference between "casualties of the Iraq war" and "A guy that got killed in Iraq in 2009 whilst on holiday" (Yes, I am aware that they weren't on holiday)
We never declared war on Libya so there's no distinction between casualties of war and post war activities. Clinton didn't clarify her remarks as being limited to just the military operation and she went on to talk about the US involvement in supporting the post Qaddafi government to prevent an opportunity for ISIS or a similar entity to seize power which absolutely includes the period of time in 2012 when our ambassador and security forces were killed in Benghazi. She was obviously speaking about the entirety of our involvement in LIbya and our involvement in Libya did not occur without the loss of US citizens' lives.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/03/15 15:43:19
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: What's the gaffe, exactly? It's a statement of policy.
HRC said... wrote:Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?
But, yeah... feth their livelihood.
Right, but you unsurprisingly ignored the second half of that statement where she said that even though the coal jobs will be gone, new jobs will be there for those workers.
But hey, I guess imagine big, scary Hillary Clinton rolling into town and firing all of the coal miners that you didn't care about until she mentioned them. Oppose her policies all you want, but for feths sake be honest about about it.
When has a President ever truly delivered on such promise?
Is you building this straw man an admission that your purposefully ignored most of what she said in attempt to make it seem like she is promising to roll into town and fire all the coal miners and leave them jobless?
Just admit that this is another of those cases where the government attempts to pick winners and losers in an industry.
There is nothing for me to admit here, Whembly. I'm not even arguing in favor of her policy, I'm just arguing against your bull gak spinning of what she said.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/03/15 15:47:05
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: What's the gaffe, exactly? It's a statement of policy.
HRC said... wrote:Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?
But, yeah... feth their livelihood.
Right, but you unsurprisingly ignored the second half of that statement where she said that even though the coal jobs will be gone, new jobs will be there for those workers.
But hey, I guess imagine big, scary Hillary Clinton rolling into town and firing all of the coal miners that you didn't care about until she mentioned them. Oppose her policies all you want, but for feths sake be honest about about it.
When has a President ever truly delivered on such promise?
Is you building this straw man an admission that your purposefully ignored most of what she said in attempt to make it seem like she is promising to roll into town and fire all the coal miners and leave them jobless?
Just admit that this is another of those cases where the government attempts to pick winners and losers in an industry.
There is nothing for me to admit here, Whembly. I'm not even arguing in favor of her policy, I'm just arguing against your bull gak spinning of what she said.
Oh... so repeating what she said WORD. FOR. WORD. is bs.
Keep on circling that wagon bro.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/15 16:26:52
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: What's the gaffe, exactly? It's a statement of policy.
HRC said... wrote:Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?
But, yeah... feth their livelihood.
Right, but you unsurprisingly ignored the second half of that statement where she said that even though the coal jobs will be gone, new jobs will be there for those workers.
But hey, I guess imagine big, scary Hillary Clinton rolling into town and firing all of the coal miners that you didn't care about until she mentioned them. Oppose her policies all you want, but for feths sake be honest about about it.
When has a President ever truly delivered on such promise?
Is you building this straw man an admission that your purposefully ignored most of what she said in attempt to make it seem like she is promising to roll into town and fire all the coal miners and leave them jobless?
Just admit that this is another of those cases where the government attempts to pick winners and losers in an industry.
There is nothing for me to admit here, Whembly. I'm not even arguing in favor of her policy, I'm just arguing against your bull gak spinning of what she said.
Oh... so repeating what she said WORD. FOR. WORD. is bs.
Keep on circling that wagon bro.
It is if you ignore history, context, and all of the words spoken. All of which you did. So, yeah. Its b.s.
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2016/03/15 16:31:21
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: What's the gaffe, exactly? It's a statement of policy.
HRC said... wrote:Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?
But, yeah... feth their livelihood.
Right, but you unsurprisingly ignored the second half of that statement where she said that even though the coal jobs will be gone, new jobs will be there for those workers.
But hey, I guess imagine big, scary Hillary Clinton rolling into town and firing all of the coal miners that you didn't care about until she mentioned them. Oppose her policies all you want, but for feths sake be honest about about it.
When has a President ever truly delivered on such promise?
Is you building this straw man an admission that your purposefully ignored most of what she said in attempt to make it seem like she is promising to roll into town and fire all the coal miners and leave them jobless?
Just admit that this is another of those cases where the government attempts to pick winners and losers in an industry.
There is nothing for me to admit here, Whembly. I'm not even arguing in favor of her policy, I'm just arguing against your bull gak spinning of what she said.
Oh... so repeating what she said WORD. FOR. WORD. is bs.
Keep on circling that wagon bro.
It is if you ignore history, context, and all of the words spoken. All of which you did. So, yeah. Its b.s.
Even one of her defenders implicitly acknowledges that her answers were... less than graceful:
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/15 16:32:50
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
. 
.
