• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
If being totally honest, yes with a but.

All Presidents are war criminals, by a strict definition.

Reagan was a war criminal, but no buts necessary. His history is horrific, utterly despotic, in its inequities. He was a lunatic and enable lunatic passions.

Bush 43 was a war criminal, in that his military unnecessarily bombed Iraqi troops as they retreated and his actions fucked over the Kurds by pulling all resources on them after promising support.

Clinton was a war criminal, but he couldn't go into Rawanda due to domestic issues concerning the aftermath of Somalia. He bombed civilian targets trying to hit bin Laden. He authorized incursions into Kosovo.

Bush 45 was a war criminal, because duh. Every fucking action he took overseas fit into criminality. He may have been an unwitting moron or a decisive war criminal depending on your interpretations of his beliefs, but he led to hundreds of thousands of dead people regardless. Add in Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, etc.

Obama was a war criminal, in drone strikes that hit civilian populations and his continuation of Bush's wars.

Trump, we hardly need to discuss.

And this ignores 90% of what these men did.

Sanders, if elected, would end up a war criminal by definition.

Honestly I think this is fairly true. Sanders would probably have an appropriate level of cynicism about the ability of American military force to create positive change, but he's just one man. The military-industrial complex is chock full of people who believe very earnestly that we have a responsibility to use our military force to create positive change, because that's the kind of person who spends forty years in the military and rises to general or whatever. I think Sanders would do much better at reining in the American military. But I think, if judged by the same standard, he'll probably end up a war criminal too. The boulder is too large.
 

Kid Heart

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,087
Warren falling is extremely disappointing. Unless she drops out before my state is up I'll still be voting for her though. Hopefully she can turn things around with a good debate in a few weeks.
 

Blue Skies

Banned
Mar 27, 2019
9,224
Biden's numbers look great for someone who's literally done nothing for them.

he has this.
I hope everyone's ready for the bull shit that's gonna happen once he wins.
The only difference between him and Clinton is that there's no way Biden loses the general.

shouldeve been Beto.
 

Deleted member 2426

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,988
The ABC poll seems to be harsh on Bernie when it comes to black support. Last poll he was at 6% (lol). Now he is at 15% but the difference with Biden got bigger: from 33 to 36%. Bernie's plan should be to keep the distance between his and Biden's black support between 10-15%.

Other than that, it is possible that there will be an exodus of white liberals and electability-minded moderates from Biden to Bernie if the latter wins IW-NH-NV.

In that case we could see a situation where Biden would end up in a similar position to Jesse Jackson in 1988.


I think Pete should just drop out, polling lower than a fucking joke candidate is absolutely inexcusable.

Also Yang getting more 18-39 black voters than Warren is also absolutely unacceptable

Seems to me that ABC is having weird numbers with black voters since their last poll but I don't want to get into unskew territory lol
 

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,279
Biden's numbers look great for someone who's literally done nothing for them.

he has this.
I hope everyone's ready for the bull shit that's gonna happen once he wins.
The only difference between him and Clinton is that there's no way Biden loses the general.

Man I really wish I had that confidence.
 

sphagnum

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,058
How?

Like, literally, how?

Take Clinton. Was he a war criminal for not going into Rwanda? Or was he a war criminal for going into Kosovo?

You can't have it both ways. One, inaction, led to war crimes. One, action, led to fighting war crimes.

You can't be a war criminal by not engaging in military action. War crimes are actual defined things. You can debate the morality or effectiveness of not doing something, but that's a separate matter.

Don't use the military unless there's an actual, direct threat to the country, and don't get into wars unless you're attacked or it's part of a UN coalition. Follow international law. Destroy the military industrial complex and the American imperial project.
 

III-V

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,827
Biden's numbers look great for someone who's literally done nothing for them.

he has this.
I hope everyone's ready for the bull shit that's gonna happen once he wins.
The only difference between him and Clinton is that there's no way Biden loses the general.

shouldeve been Beto.
I would argue there was a vagina of a diff. And I disagree, Clinton was a far better candidate. If she had not run then she would likely be front runner today.
 

Ogodei

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,256
Coruscant
If being totally honest, yes with a but.

All Presidents are war criminals, by a strict definition.

Reagan was a war criminal, but no buts necessary. His history is horrific, utterly despotic, in its inequities. He was a lunatic and enable lunatic passions.

Bush 43 was a war criminal, in that his military unnecessarily bombed Iraqi troops as they retreated and his actions fucked over the Kurds by pulling all resources on them after promising support.

Clinton was a war criminal, but he couldn't go into Rawanda due to domestic issues concerning the aftermath of Somalia. He bombed civilian targets trying to hit bin Laden. He authorized incursions into Kosovo.

Bush 45 was a war criminal, because duh. Every fucking action he took overseas fit into criminality. He may have been an unwitting moron or a decisive war criminal depending on your interpretations of his beliefs, but he led to hundreds of thousands of dead people regardless. Add in Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, etc.

Obama was a war criminal, in drone strikes that hit civilian populations and his continuation of Bush's wars.

Trump, we hardly need to discuss.

And this ignores 90% of what these men did.

Sanders, if elected, would end up a war criminal by definition.

I'd argue that Kosovo was justified, if an overcorrection for what the world allowed to happen in Bosnia. It was quite clear that something like that was going to happen again, if Milosevic weren't stopped.

Now, the Total War kind of approach against Yugoslav targets was not the best approach morally, but force did need to be applied in that situation, it was obvious where things were going, like with the armed intervention against Qaddafi in Libya.

You can't be a war criminal by not engaging in military action. War crimes are actual defined things. You can debate the morality or effectiveness of not doing something, but that's a separate matter.

Don't use the military unless there's an actual, direct threat to the country, and don't get into wars unless you're attacked or it's part of a UN coalition. Follow international law. Destroy the military industrial complex and the American imperial project.

The argument in Rwanda is that it was a violation of the Responsibility to Protect. It's like that Good Samaritan law in the Seinfeld finale, but with deadly serious stakes. If you have the ability to act to prevent genocide, you must do so. Ability being key there, as World War III to liberate the Uighurs from the Xinjiang camps is probably not justified, but the Interahamwe were very poorly armed, even the Tutsi rebel army was able to make short work of them once they got the French to get out of the way.
 

Alpheus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,670
If being totally honest, yes with a but.

All Presidents are war criminals, by a strict definition.

Reagan was a war criminal, but no buts necessary. His history is horrific, utterly despotic, in its inequities. He was a lunatic and enable lunatic passions.

Bush 43 was a war criminal, in that his military unnecessarily bombed Iraqi troops as they retreated and his actions fucked over the Kurds by pulling all resources on them after promising support.

Clinton was a war criminal, but he couldn't go into Rawanda due to domestic issues concerning the aftermath of Somalia. He bombed civilian targets trying to hit bin Laden. He authorized incursions into Kosovo.

Bush 45 was a war criminal, because duh. Every fucking action he took overseas fit into criminality. He may have been an unwitting moron or a decisive war criminal depending on your interpretations of his beliefs, but he led to hundreds of thousands of dead people regardless. Add in Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, etc.

Obama was a war criminal, in drone strikes that hit civilian populations and his continuation of Bush's wars.

Trump, we hardly need to discuss.

And this ignores 90% of what these men did.

Sanders, if elected, would end up a war criminal by definition.
These are basically my thoughts as well on the matter. All presidents no matter how pure you might think are inevitably sullied by the demands of the office in a world as it is today.
 

Blue Skies

Banned
Mar 27, 2019
9,224
I would argue there was a vagina of a diff. And I disagree, Clinton was a far better candidate. If she had not run then she would likely be front runner today.
Nah.
peopel hate Hillary.The conspiracies have seeped into the modern culture. She has no chance.
meanwhile, Biden is only hated for being a mainstream politician.
I think he wins it, and he gets a senate majority, andhe makes politics boring again.
 

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,279
Biden would steamroll trump I think we all know that. The only thing in contention is:
If democrats are in such a good position: how far should we push?

Do we all know that? This feels like trapping ourselves into 2016 rhetoric again. I won't consider anything certain until the numbers are in on election day.
 

Double 0

Member
Nov 5, 2017
7,472
As a Warren supporter, I'm going to continue to do the work till she wins or drops out. Right now, she's the only one I actually have faith in, despite knowing her even winning the general is gonna be a fight.

Biden could win it all, and thankfully that article posted earlier assuaged some of fears. But I would only trust Biden if he wins the Senate.

Bernie... He's disappointed me a lot. And the faith I had in him in 2016 is long gone. If he miraculously won the Senate and Presidency, I still don't think the Democrats would work with him enough to get even a quarter of his agenda done.
 

Madison

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,388
Lima, Peru
Biden would steamroll trump I think we all know that.
Hard disagree. I think that a 500 million republicans ads on Biden"s corruption (real or not) would hurt him. And as we have seen, he is not the best at responding to pushback. The GOP machine will run hard and you need someone prepared to respond to that without challenging the reporter to do push ups.

Its possible that he somehow survives the onslaught because The United States is a sexist and racist country but I dont have this faith on Biden.
 

Craymond

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,282
Portland

III-V

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,827
Nah.
peopel hate Hillary.The conspiracies have seeped into the modern culture. She has no chance.
meanwhile, Biden is only hated for being a mainstream politician.
I think he wins it, and he gets a senate majority, andhe makes politics boring again.
Q: Why do you think there are pursuing lil' Joe? A: Because that's the fastest way to "gotcha" uncle Joe. The will create a narrative and feed it to the morons, just like Hillary.
 

Blue Skies

Banned
Mar 27, 2019
9,224
Do we all know that? This feels like trapping ourselves into 2016 rhetoric again. I won't consider anything certain until the numbers are in on election day.
Look, we can't cherry-pick polls. In this cycle we've gone from "warrens up" aka she might win this, to "Pete's up" aka he might win this", to "bernies up" aka he might win this, but meanwhile Biden's been OVER all three of those the whole time.
The mainstream democrats, aka the people who always vote, just want to beat Trump, and that means we need a safe candidate.
 

Pwnz

Member
Oct 28, 2017
14,279
Places
Biden's numbers look great for someone who's literally done nothing for them.

he has this.
I hope everyone's ready for the bull shit that's gonna happen once he wins.
The only difference between him and Clinton is that there's no way Biden loses the general.

shouldeve been Beto.

I think most of us, especially non Bernie fans, accepted that Biden had this many months ago. The aggregate for the primary polls tells a pretty clear story and a gold standard pollster like ABC WaPo with RVs even more favorable to Biden. I just dont want to rain on the surge parade, let them have their fun.

Biden is like a poor man's Obama. It'll be status quo with respect to Obama but undoing Trump is something I'll take. He will surround himself with qualified people, work with the Senate as much as possible, and I hope he allows the courts the pursue incarceration of the Trump White House and empire.

I hope he's 1 term but we'll see. We may have a poorly timed recession during his 1st term.

What had me sane during this "trial" is that it will lock the president election to the dems by saying a 2% of Trump supporters. He will be acquitted but he will be out in months.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2017
6,850
That ABC/Wapo poll is proof that Klob is purely a media signal boosted candidate. How does a candidate who is polling 3% nationally get the NYT endorsement? You'd think some semblance of viability has to go into the equation. Kamala had better numbers than that even in her lowest point and she got destroyed in the press.

Fetch just isn't going to happen. The media just needs to let Klob go. She's had more than enough opportunities, good press, good debates and yet she still hasn't surged aside from a modest boost in Iowa that still leaves her in a distant 5th place.
 

patientzero

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,729
You can't be a war criminal by not engaging in military action. War crimes are actual defined things. You can debate the morality or effectiveness of not doing something, but that's a separate matter.

Don't use the military unless there's an actual, direct threat to the country, and don't get into wars unless you're attacked or it's part of a UN coalition. Follow international law. Destroy the military industrial complex and the American imperial project.

So, no direct danger. So, Uyghurs don't count? Armenians in 1914-1923 don't count?

What about current Palestinians?

Would you support intervention between current Israel and current Palestine? Is there any way that doesn't turn into "war"?

The argument in Rwanda is that it was a violation of the Responsibility to Protect. It's like that Good Samaritan law in the Seinfeld finale, but with deadly serious stakes. If you have the ability to act to prevent genocide, you must do so. Ability being key there, as World War III to liberate the Uighurs from the Xinjiang camps is probably not justified, but the Interahamwe were very poorly armed, even the Tutsi rebel army was able to make short work of them once they got the French to get out of the way.

So, let's say a Sanders' foreign policy, supporting total and I mean total human rights, calls for allowing Uyghurs to not only have rights but an active voice in Chinese policy. And China says, "No, they go into death camps." Non-intervention fulfills human rights because it is non-interventionist? Or because it prevents war, which is a practical issue. Because, should wars not be fought to advance rights? If not, why?

If Sanders is faced with a choice - defend Uyghurs and incur World War 3 at the expense of humanity, or decline and thus support war crimes/genocide but prevent WW3? What do you choose?
 

Deleted member 24149

Oct 29, 2017
2,150
With Obama stumping for Biden across the country. Yes. I don't have the slightest doubt.
Obama stumped the hell for Hillary to the point that on November 8th my feed was filled with people showing me the Obama mean tweet video where he said Trump would never go down as president.
 

Pwnz

Member
Oct 28, 2017
14,279
Places
I wouldn't be so sure about Biden beating Trump.

Trump won with such razor thin margins in states where Biden is more favorable and in general Trump is polling worse before the trial's impact or the DNC unifying behind a candidate.
www.realclearpolitics.com

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - General Election: Trump vs. Biden

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - General Election: Trump vs. Biden

Also, Biden's favorables with African Americans and bbn other minorities are high, and if their turn out in other special elections in recent history, they are hyper motivated to vote.
 

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,279
I don't think enough people will be disgusted by Trump to turn in mass numbers if they voted for him in 2016. His cult fanbase is just too strong. This election will be largely about reaching out to the non-voters and moderates.
 

Blue Skies

Banned
Mar 27, 2019
9,224
I understand wanting a different candidate than Biden, I myself want Warren, but the reality is that Biden came in as the front runner, has experienced a whole year of attacks, and is still the frontrunner.
Yes, If someone else wins more than half of the first four states Biden MIGHT be in trouble, but there will still be 46 states left to go.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
So, no direct danger. So, Uyghurs don't count? Armenians in 1914-1923 don't count?

What about current Palestinians?

Would you support intervention between current Israel and current Palestine? Is there any way that doesn't turn into "war"?



So, let's say a Sanders' foreign policy, supporting total and I mean total human rights, calls for allowing Uyghurs to not only have rights but an active voice in Chinese policy. And China says, "No, they go into death camps." Non-intervention fulfills human rights because it is non-interventionist? Or because it prevents war, which is a practical issue. Because, should wars not be fought to advance rights? If not, why?

If Sanders is faced with a choice - defend Uyghurs and incur World War 3 at the expense of humanity, or decline and thus support war crimes/genocide but prevent WW3? What do you choose?

I mean, in this situation can't we put together a multilateral coalition to intervene? While not a UN action specifically, because of the security council, this would still show a general international desire to protect which would seem to go a long way towards sphagnum's suggested requirements here.
 

Pwnz

Member
Oct 28, 2017
14,279
Places
I understand wanting a different candidate than Biden, I myself want Warren, but the reality is that Biden came in as the front runner, has experienced a whole year of attacks, and is still the frontrunner.
Yes, If someone else wins more than half of the first four states Biden MIGHT be in trouble, but there will still be 46 states left to go.

I'm in the same boat. Was Beto, then Warren, and now I see the writing on the wall and accept it. We should avoid trashing each other's candidates and unify with whomever is the nominee.
 

Alpheus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,670
Warren..... :( is this drop really ONLY about her explaining how she'd pay for M4A?
Yup. She's a female candidate on top of telling ppl the truth about how it was gonna play out and people noped out quick cuz female candidates are held to a different standard as are their fuck-ups be they perceived fuck ups or real ones.
 

ChippyTurtle

Banned
Oct 13, 2018
4,773
I would like to vote for Bernie despite being a moderate cause, fuck it why not, his electability polls are rising.

But...whos his running mate? I dont mind Bernie but I wanna know who enters if he croaks. Might just vote for Biden on that basis.
 

No Depth

Member
Oct 27, 2017
18,360
So Warren is down and Monday we get the GOP poisoning the airwaves with their mendacious bullshit. Sigh...

When is that Berserk Bloodmoon thing happening? I'll take the demon wasteland over this timeline.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.