The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

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.

**Co'tor Shas**

Ah, so that's the problem. I'm talking about the social concepts.

**A Town Called Malus**

CptJake wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
CptJake wrote:
One of the left's big heroes, Che, was very racist.

I think you are conflating 'college students who wear t-shirts' with 'the left'. Many on the left, in fact the majority of them in the US, aren't Communist radicals who are ok with killing the opposition. It is more of one of those things the right imagines about the left than is actually all that true.

Those college kids are taught by a left leaning group of professors for the most part, and like it or not, Che is an icon of the left. Hell, they still make movies romanticizing his life.

Do they?
Do they, really?

I never said all/most/many on the left in the US are communist radicals okay with killing the opposition. What I did say, and stand by, is that racism is not a right wing trait, and that there are racists spanning the political left-right spectrum.

If you try and equate "Black Lives Matter" to racism, I might have to laugh at you. For a year.

Did I do that? No.

As for movies

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Just out of curiosity but have you actually seen either of those films or read the books they are based on? They do not, in my opinion, romanticise Che.

They are both based on his own actual words, with The Motorcycle Diaries being based on the book of the same name, Che Part 1 being based on his memoirs from the cuban revolutionary war and Che Part 2 being based on the diary which he kept during his time in Bolivia.

I've seen all three films and read the source material and the films are accurate portrayals of said source material. If the film showed him single handedly defeating 200 Bolivian special forces soldiers before being captured then I think you may have had a point about it being romanticised. But it doesn't.

Showing an accurate depiction of parts of his life is not romanticising him. It is just showing him as he was during those times, an at times brutal man who fought for what he passionately believed in.

**AlmightyWalrus**

BrotherGecko wrote:
Liberalism is a philosophy that makes use of ideas in the left wing of political ideology.

"The left" of conservatism, certainly, but on the right wing compared to socialism or social liberalism. The "left-right" dichotomy is rather annoying in that way.

**Co'tor Shas**

It's because people use them to describe political parties, and since we have only two are large amount of differing viewpoints get crammed into them.

**BrotherGecko**

Co'tor Shas wrote:Ah, so that's the problem. I'm talking about the social concepts.

Yep, the social spectrum is fairly clear cut inside a single culture. Most Americans are probably socially liberal, to include Republicans. Yet Americans are probably fairly conservative socially compaired to other cultures. Social spectrum only works with in a culture or a single state/nation.

The ideological spectrum is relatively universal.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote:
Liberalism is a philosophy that makes use of ideas in the left wing of political ideology.

"The left" of conservatism, certainly, but on the right wing compared to socialism or social liberalism. The "left-right" dichotomy is rather annoying in that way.

Of course, as it is a linear spectrum. There are other ways to describe the spectrum with out the right-left but it is probably the easiest to describe. Liberalism is definitely closer to the right then social democracy is though lol.

Co'tor Shas wrote:It's because people use them to describe political parties, and since we have only two are large amount of differing viewpoints get crammed into them.

There is a problem when people vote towards parties because of that parties over arching social ideals while not knowing the rest. So Dems are almost completely liberalist or neoliberalists which has a lot of baggage past social freedoms. There is a reason why Dems voted for the Iraq War (they believed knocking down Saddam and installing an open market would create democracy) and why they push so hard for free trade agreements. Neoconservatives are similar to neoliberals except they believe in American unilateralism and not international concensus when taking action.

Americans keep voting in people they don't like because they are focused on one aspect of politics. They see liberal or conservative and don't notice the whole philosophy held by the politician. People who want social freedoms exclusively should probably vote for Bernie Sanders or social democrats if they are liberal and Rand Paul or libertarians if they are conservative.

**Ouze**

Some hot fire from Obama:

Obama rips into 2016 GOP field, mocks their debate complaints
By Kevin Liptak, CNN White House Producer
Updated 9:44 AM ET, Tue November 3, 2015

(CNN)President Barack Obama tore into Republican presidential candidates Monday night at a Democratic fundraising event in New York, saying their complaints about CNBC's debate moderation aren't an encouraging preview for their governing abilities.

"Have you noticed that everyone of these candidates say, 'Obama's weak. Putin's kicking sand in his face. When I talk to Putin, he's going to straighten out,'" Obama said, impersonating a refrain among Republican candidates that he's allowed Russian President Vladimir Putin too much leeway.

"Then it turns out they can't handle a bunch of CNBC moderators at the debate. Let me tell you, if you can't handle those guys, then I don't think the Chinese and the Russians are going to be too worried about you," Obama said.

Republicans widely decried the GOP primary debate sponsored by the financial news network last week, saying the questions lacked substance and the moderators failed to adhere to agreed-upon standards. An effort to insist upon debate reforms, however, appeared uncertain Monday evening.

In 2007, when he was pursuing the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama had his own issues with debate hosts: Fox News. He, along with candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, skipped out of a Fox News-Congressional Black Caucus co-hosted debate, spurred by pressure from the liberal Moveon.org, which claimed Fox News was biased against Democrats.

Obama, launching a series of darts on the Republican slate of candidates, said Monday they "occupy a different reality" on issues like health care, climate change and the economy.

"According to them everything was really good in 2008," he said. "When we were going through the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes, unemployment and uninsured rates were up, we were hopelessly addicted to foreign oil and (Osama) bin Laden was still on the loose. This apparently was the golden age that I messed up."

Obama was speaking ahead of a performance of the musical "Hamilton," an audacious hip-hop telling of Alexander Hamilton's life.

"They're so glum," he said of the 2016 GOP field. "They're really so frustrated ... Everybody here's got a list of things we've got to tackle. But maybe what makes us a little different as Democrats is we try to base our analysis on facts."

Referring to GOP Sen. Jim Inhofe's use of a snowball on the Senate floor to question the existence of climate change -- a recurring element of Obama's criticism of Republicans -- the President said only "that's crazy."

"I was going to quote Kanye but I can't, because this is a family audience," he said. "But it's cray."

Brutal.

**whembly**

Nah... to me it's:
Man who whined about FoxNews for 7 years accuses Republicans of being thin-skinned.

Or... what this guy says:

‏@seanmdav
Obama's forpol record:
Two lost wars
Iranian nukes
Russian reset of Ukraine borders
Syrian civil war

No wonder he wants to talk about CNBC.

I mean, really dude.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fox-backed-democrat-debate-called-off/

Fox News and a black political group say they will not hold a Sept. 23 Democratic presidential debate in Detroit, which the leading candidates already were planning to skip.

A new date had not yet been set, Fox News spokesman Michael Murphy said Thursday.

The campaigns of U.S. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards had said they would not participate in the debate. Opponents have criticized Fox as biased against Democrats.

You don't say eh?

**AlmightyWalrus**

How was the US supposed to "win" Afghanistan and Iraq?

**whembly**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How was the US supposed to "win" Afghanistan and Iraq?

The will.

Like we did for Japan/Germany

**Co'tor Shas**

And wasn't the agreement meaning Iran won't have nukes?

I fully agree he messed up in Ukraine and Syria though.

**Frazzled**

sorry but Roosevelt was way better at making fun of Republicans...like a boss!

**Kanluwen**

whembly wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How was the US supposed to "win" Afghanistan and Iraq?

The will.

Like we did for Japan/Germany

I don't think you quite understand the difference between the Second World War and the "wars" in Iraq/Afghanistan.

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
And wasn't the agreement meaning Iran won't have nukes?

Sure, if you ignore what the Iranian are saying.

I fully agree he messed up in Ukraine and Syria though.

Eh... the issue is that they don't know WTF they're doing. It shows.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How was the US supposed to "win" Afghanistan and Iraq?

The will.

Like we did for Japan/Germany

I don't think you quite understand the difference between the Second World War and the "wars" in Iraq/Afghanistan.

I don't think you understand what "The will" means.

**Co'tor Shas**

What are they saying? I wasn't too invested in it so I may have missed something.

**Kanluwen**

whembly wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How was the US supposed to "win" Afghanistan and Iraq?

The will.

Like we did for Japan/Germany

I don't think you quite understand the difference between the Second World War and the "wars" in Iraq/Afghanistan.

I don't think you understand what "The will" means.

I suggest you read up on WWII. Simply saying that the US could have "won" Afghanistan and Iraq if we had "the will" to is grossly misunderstanding the differences between a World War and going after international terrorist groups.

**whembly**

Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How was the US supposed to "win" Afghanistan and Iraq?

The will.

Like we did for Japan/Germany

I don't think you quite understand the difference between the Second World War and the "wars" in Iraq/Afghanistan.

I don't think you understand what "The will" means.

I suggest you read up on WWII. Simply saying that the US could have "won" Afghanistan and Iraq if we had "the will" to is grossly misunderstanding the differences between a World War and going after international terrorist groups.

Um...Iraq and Afghanistan were not "terrorist groups". They were nation-states that we had opportunities to engage in "nation-building". To be fair, its the only way to win... otherwise, it'll always turn out like it did.

**Co'tor Shas**

I think to build any nations you first need a populous willing to go along with it. The populous in Iran and Afghanistan seem, less than receptive.

**Prestor Jon**

whembly wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How was the US supposed to "win" Afghanistan and Iraq?

The will.

Like we did for Japan/Germany

I don't think you quite understand the difference between the Second World War and the "wars" in Iraq/Afghanistan.

I don't think you understand what "The will" means.

I suggest you read up on WWII. Simply saying that the US could have "won" Afghanistan and Iraq if we had "the will" to is grossly misunderstanding the differences between a World War and going after international terrorist groups.

Um...Iraq and Afghanistan were not "terrorist groups". They were nation-states that we had opportunities to engage in "nation-building". To be fair, its the only way to win... otherwise, it'll always turn out like it did.

Even if we had been willing to drop nukes on Afghanistan and Iraq and carpet bombed their industrial and population centers until they offered their unconditional surrender we still wouldn't have had the political will or popular support for committing to rebuilding both nations and maintaining an active and large military presence in the countries for 60+ years as we did with Germany and Japan. Plus the differences between prewar Japan and Germany and the post war Japan and Germany that we created were much smaller than the degree of change we would have had to engineer in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even if we had had a better plan for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan (and the one we used was still very successful) we were still going to screw up the post conflict reconstruction. Leaving now was better than wasting more time, lives and treasure over there before eventually leaving later with the same failure to enact the changes we wanted to put in place.

**CptJake**

Kanluwen wrote:

Have you actually read the list of people in your own link?
You have a list of the "Top 25 Political Icons". He's in the same list as Gandhi, Genghis Khan(I question his and Cleopatra's inclusion on this list, along with anyone pre-French Revolution), Churchhill, and Hitler.

Whether you agree with his politics or not, he was a political figure.

Yes I read the list. I'll note Reagan is on it. Do you think the leftists hold Reagan as an iconic figure? I submit, no, they do not, the right does.
The list does not give two gaks about political sides, it is a list of Iconic politicians. To make that list you must be perceived as an iconic figure, correct? So, in your opinion, which side made Che an icon, and a big enough icon that he makes the list?

**Spinner**

CptJake wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

Have you actually read the list of people in your own link?
You have a list of the "Top 25 Political Icons". He's in the same list as Gandhi, Genghis Khan(I question his and Cleopatra's inclusion on this list, along with anyone pre-French Revolution), Churchhill, and Hitler.

Whether you agree with his politics or not, he was a political figure.

Yes I read the list. I'll note Reagan is on it. Do you think the leftists hold Reagan as an iconic figure? I submit, no, they do not, the right does.
The list does not give two gaks about political sides, it is a list of Iconic politicians. To make that list you must be perceived as an iconic figure, correct? So, in your opinion, which side made Che an icon, and a big enough icon that he makes the list?

Which side made Hitler an icon, and a big enough icon to make the list?

It doesn't seem to care much about US politicking so much as world influence.

(That wasn't a Godwin! Honest!)

**CptJake**

Spinner wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

Have you actually read the list of people in your own link?
You have a list of the "Top 25 Political Icons". He's in the same list as Gandhi, Genghis Khan(I question his and Cleopatra's inclusion on this list, along with anyone pre-French Revolution), Churchhill, and Hitler.

Whether you agree with his politics or not, he was a political figure.

Yes I read the list. I'll note Reagan is on it. Do you think the leftists hold Reagan as an iconic figure? I submit, no, they do not, the right does.
The list does not give two gaks about political sides, it is a list of Iconic politicians. To make that list you must be perceived as an iconic figure, correct? So, in your opinion, which side made Che an icon, and a big enough icon that he makes the list?

Which side made Hitler an icon, and a big enough icon to make the list?

It doesn't seem to care much about US politicking so much as world influence.

(That wasn't a Godwin! Honest!)

Not a lot of Hitler shirts and posters being sold at this point though, are there?

But honestly, all this is nothing but deflecting from my main point, I still do not see racism as a right vs left trait. There are racists across the political spectrum but there seem to be posters here who view it as a right wing phenomenon.

**LordofHats**

CptJake wrote:

Not a lot of Hitler shirts and posters being sold at this point though, are there?

I wish...

**CptJake**

LordofHats wrote:
CptJake wrote:

Not a lot of Hitler shirts and posters being sold at this point though, are there?

I wish...

Funny that your example is a lame attempt at mocking Che shirts....

Spoiler:

Kind of makes my point.

**LordofHats**

I'm more surprised anyone is actually making Hitler T-Shirts than anything. I mean, I guess Neo-Nazi's, but "Hitler was right Donuts are awesome." The feth is that about XD

**MrDwhitey**

Not entirely on topic, but in response to Hitler tshirts, isn't he more of an icon in India?

**Kanluwen**

whembly wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How was the US supposed to "win" Afghanistan and Iraq?

The will.

Like we did for Japan/Germany

I don't think you quite understand the difference between the Second World War and the "wars" in Iraq/Afghanistan.

I don't think you understand what "The will" means.

I suggest you read up on WWII. Simply saying that the US could have "won" Afghanistan and Iraq if we had "the will" to is grossly misunderstanding the differences between a World War and going after international terrorist groups.

Um...Iraq and Afghanistan were not "terrorist groups". They were nation-states that we had opportunities to engage in "nation-building". To be fair, its the only way to win... otherwise, it'll always turn out like it did.

And what was the justification for going to war with Afghanistan?
That they refused to hand over Al-Qaeda's leadership. It wasn't Afghanistan that attacked the United States--it was Al-Qaeda.
Iraq was accused of supporting Al-Qaeda and also of attempting to develop a WMD program.

So once again:
Comparing the Second World War to Iraq/Afghanistan is nothing but an attempt at trying to set up the argument of "See, back then people had gumption! Not like these weak-willed lilies today!"

I'm well aware of the circumstances surrounding both Iraq/Afghanistan and WWII. That's why I am harping so heavily upon the nonsense that you are espousing here. Simply saying that it was a matter of "will" is like saying that it was "will" that won the Cold War.

**BrotherGecko**

whembly wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How was the US supposed to "win" Afghanistan and Iraq?

The will.

Like we did for Japan/Germany

I don't think you quite understand the difference between the Second World War and the "wars" in Iraq/Afghanistan.

I don't think you understand what "The will" means.

I suggest you read up on WWII. Simply saying that the US could have "won" Afghanistan and Iraq if we had "the will" to is grossly misunderstanding the differences between a World War and going after international terrorist groups.

Um...Iraq and Afghanistan were not "terrorist groups". They were nation-states that we had opportunities to engage in "nation-building". To be fair, its the only way to win... otherwise, it'll always turn out like it did.

To be fair nation building was always going to fail. The moment Bush's hanger ons convinved him he could build democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan was the moment we lost. Lost years ago so don't put that one on Obama's head. Syria and Ukraine are Obama's failure for sure. Syria is failing because of the notion of nation building in Syria. Ukraine is failing because nobody wants a shooting war between the US and Russia. If the choice is war between US and Russia or Russia annexing Ukraine....Ukraine can pound sand, realistically of course. Obama would be better off saying your on your own Ukraine and how can we help in Syria Putin? But that doesn't make us feel good even when that is by far the best decisions to be made.

To reiterate, Bush lost Iraq/Afghanistan and Obama got the bill. An that is the real, no spin, bull partisan face saving. Repubicans screwed the pooch by letting themselves become infested with Neocon ideologues.

**Co'tor Shas**

For a second there I thought you said necron ideologues. I then thought of Dick Cheney.

**streamdragon**

Frazzled wrote:sorry but Roosevelt was way better at making fun of Republicans...like a boss!

Bull Moose Party 2016!

**LordofHats**

I vote we revive the Free Soilers! What is a a agricorp but a modern plantation stealing all the good land from hard working family farmers