Super Tuesday - most polling booths close at 7pm EST
665 replies, posted
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;49846643]Avoiding war and conflict is not possible. We need to continue to show force around the world to protect our interests. Why did we liberate Kuwait? To protect oil reserves for our allies.
Some things can't be solved through diplomacy, and this is why Sanders foreign policy is a complete failure. The stance he wants to take on foreign policy will put us in an even weaker position than we are already in against expansionist adversaries like Russia and China.[/QUOTE]
If your "interests" must be enforced militarily around the world, maybe it's a sign that they aren't justified interests and your country is the big mean one.
"Avoiding war and conflict is not possible. We need to continue to show force around the world to protect our interests. We can't show weakness to imperialist adversaries like USA" -Russians and the Chinese probably, talking about liberating Ukraine/Tibet.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;49850768]If your "interests" must be enforced militarily around the world, maybe it's a sign that they aren't justified interests and your country is the big mean one.
"Avoiding war and conflict is not possible. We need to continue to show force around the world to protect our interests. We can't show weakness to imperialist adversaries like USA" -Russians and the Chinese probably, talking about liberating Ukraine/Tibet.[/QUOTE]
not true in the slightest
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49850776]not true in the slightest[/QUOTE]
ok go on
[QUOTE=Talishmar;49850768]If your "interests" must be enforced militarily around the world, maybe it's a sign that they aren't justified interests and your country is the big mean one.
"Avoiding war and conflict is not possible. We need to continue to show force around the world to protect our interests. We can't show weakness to imperialist adversaries like USA" -Russians and the Chinese probably, talking about liberating Ukraine/Tibet.[/QUOTE]
How does liberating Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion make us "the big mean one"?
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;49850830]How does liberating Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion make us "the big mean one"?[/QUOTE]
It necessarily does not, but consider that liberation of Kuwait is just one part in a war caused by a global conflict, in turn caused by such aggressive foreign politics.
Whether the liberation of Kuwait caused more help or harm, I do not know, but either way it's not a defense for numerous military operations over the decades that definitely caused harm.
California will be an important sate for Sanders. It's worth a lot of delegates, and it's relatively progressive. If he wins big there, it'll make a yuge difference. The last major polls I could find there show Hillary quite far ahead, but those were taken in October/November, before his huge surge in support.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;49850768]If your "interests" must be enforced militarily around the world, maybe it's a sign that they aren't justified interests and your country is the big mean one.
"Avoiding war and conflict is not possible. We need to continue to show force around the world to protect our interests. We can't show weakness to imperialist adversaries like USA" -Russians and the Chinese probably, talking about liberating Ukraine/Tibet.[/QUOTE]
The Russians and the Chinese have had this mentality long before we became a world power/a superpower, and they're apparently going to stick with it for the foreseeable future. They were and they are in the wrong for what they've done in the Ukraine and in Tibet, and that's just all there is to it.
Us not standing up to them is a sign of weakness-- especially where the Russians are concerned. Why do you think Putin has done half the shit he's done since the invasion of Georgia? It's about pushing the West's buttons: "How much can we get away with before they'll retaliate, or are they so feeble and scared that they won't ever retaliate?" The Cold War never ended; it just took a hiatus, and now we're right back to it again. And China meanwhile has been doing the same thing (pushing our buttons) with their naval expansionism and campaign/threats against Japan.
Avoiding war and conflict is not possible. Large-scale operations should be avoided to the last minute, and these aren't usually needed in the first place, but sometimes they are. And we just have to accept that. Sorry if you can't, but we don't care. Sorry if you think we're in the wrong for it, but we still don't care. We're usually not. If sanctions don't work, if nonviolent methods don't work, then fighting and violence is what it will take. Preferably by means of proxy warfare since, you know, this is the 21st century, and having a conventional slugout fest between a superpower and another major power is a really destructive idea.
[editline]2nd March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Talishmar;49850901]It necessarily does not, but consider that liberation of Kuwait is just one part in a war caused by a global conflict, in turn caused by such aggressive foreign politics.
Whether the liberation of Kuwait caused more help or harm, I do not know, but either way it's not a defense for numerous military operations over the decades that definitely caused harm.[/QUOTE]
This means nothing. The liberation of Kuwait was a necessary event because Hussein and the Iraqis invaded it and sparked an international incident in doing so. They were out to make up for their embarrassing losses during the war with Iran, and they had no justification for doing what they did. They thought they could get away with it, Hussein was entirely to blame because of his strongman dictator mentality which led him (incorrectly) to believe he was invincible, and we absolutely wrecked them/him for it.
Our only mistake was that we didn't do away with him then. The possibility of going back in 2003 would never have existed if we'd done so in the first place back then. And I'm sorry, but when it comes to "aggressive foreign politics", I don't understand how with Afghanistan anybody could have possibly been against that, given it was controlled by the Taliban, and al-Qaeda meanwhile (you know, those guys who were responsible for the September 11th attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people) was using it as a stronghold/sanctuary. Iraq was questionable; Afghanistan was not.
[QUOTE=rilez;49850638]Hillary is ahead right now, and closer to the nomination. He's not out, but he will need big wins in the North. He also needs to swing the black vote, or he won't be competitive enough to make up the delegate difference.
ST was better news for Hillary than Sanders, but he's not out. Media coverage has been pretty brutal so far, though.
[editline]2nd March 2016[/editline]
He's polling well in Utah and Wisconsin. He could pick up Pennsylvania too. He needs to improve his numbers in Ohio, Florida, New York and California.
[editline]2nd March 2016[/editline]
And honestly, being able to win swing states is more important than being able to win the south, at least when it comes to the GE...[/QUOTE]
I think it can be concluded that Super Tuesday for Bernie was rocky and difficult, [I]but[/I] he did manage to survive it as hard a time as he will have in the future.
If he can get a landslide victory in PA, that'll give him a large number of delegates, it's the 5th largest state in terms of them.
I hope Sanders wins, purely because I've developed a good impression of him. But then I developed a good Bowie impression and shortly after he died and a good Nelson Mandela impression too and he died shortly after as well...
Maybe I should stop doing impressions...
[QUOTE=FlandersNed;49850717]I would like to vote, but I'm in Australia. How do I go about nominating Bernie as candidate?[/QUOTE]
FVAP.gov
[editline]2nd March 2016[/editline]
This is the official voting assistance website for citizens living abroad.
it's easy to forget that it's not as simple as winning the most states. Wherever Bernie 'loses' he still picks up a whole bunch of delegates. He's not out of this race yet.
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;49851433]it's easy to forget that it's not as simple as winning the most states. Wherever Bernie 'loses' he still picks up a whole bunch of delegates. He's not out of this race yet.[/QUOTE]
Which is still less than what Hillary gets with each win.
If Sanders gets 30% of the vote in a state, yeah he gets delegates. But only 30% of them.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49851503]Which is still less than what Hillary gets with each win.
If Sanders gets 30% of the vote in a state, yeah he gets delegates. But only 30% of them.[/QUOTE]
The South was always going to be a tough patch for Bernie. He made it through with enough delegates that he can win without absolutely destroying Hillary everywhere else.
He's still behind where he needs to be to be "winning" but he can make up for it by winning unexpected states, or by winning expected states by wide margins. If he wins California by 70% instead of 51%, that alone might make up for last night.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49851503]Which is still less than what Hillary gets with each win.
If Sanders gets 30% of the vote in a state, yeah he gets delegates. But only 30% of them.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but what I'm saying is at this point he's down delegates in the south, but he can make up for them where he's more popular.
I saw Bernie downtown yesterday
It's weird how that used to be a common thing now it's sort of surreal
[QUOTE=Glitchman;49851718]I saw Bernie downtown yesterday
It's weird how that used to be a common thing now it's sort of surreal[/QUOTE]
When I was studying American politics, we went on a college trip to DC and we met him back when he was an obscure senator nobody had heard of. He was of interest because of his independence, and his outspoken democratic socialism. He didn't have any particular ambition, he was happy doing his bit as a leftist senator. It's surreal.
Also he was late to the meeting because he was busy debating the veterans bill, so we got to ride the underground train from the senate office to the capital building to meet him there. Now that was surreal.
Also, funnily enough, as part of the same course we studied UK politics, and most years students would go on a trip to London to meet Jeremy Corbyn back when he was also an obscure leftist MP nobody had heard of. He's now part of a similar phenomenon here: a resurging leftist opposition against the establishment (though Corbyn is a fair bit more left wing than Sanders, like the Attlee to your FDR). My year group didn't go on that trip though because of budget cuts, but it would have been weird to have met both of them.
[QUOTE=Buck.;49850557]So... Is it over for Bernie now?[/QUOTE]
Well, Hillary has half of the delegates she needs, with only 1/4 of all the states.
It's safe to assume it's over for him
[QUOTE=proch;49851939]Well, Hillary has half of the delegates she needs, with only 1/4 of all the states.
It's safe to assume it's over for him[/QUOTE]
Thats not how this works
[QUOTE=Govna;49851011]The Russians and the Chinese have had this mentality long before we became a world power/a superpower, and they're apparently going to stick with it for the foreseeable future. They were and they are in the wrong for what they've done in the Ukraine and in Tibet, and that's just all there is to it.
Us not standing up to them is a sign of weakness-- especially where the Russians are concerned. Why do you think Putin has done half the shit he's done since the invasion of Georgia? It's about pushing the West's buttons: "How much can we get away with before they'll retaliate, or are they so feeble and scared that they won't ever retaliate?" The Cold War never ended; it just took a hiatus, and now we're right back to it again. And China meanwhile has been doing the same thing (pushing our buttons) with their naval expansionism and campaign/threats against Japan.
Avoiding war and conflict is not possible. Large-scale operations should be avoided to the last minute, and these aren't usually needed in the first place, but sometimes they are. And we just have to accept that. Sorry if you can't, but we don't care. Sorry if you think we're in the wrong for it, but we still don't care. We're usually not. If sanctions don't work, if nonviolent methods don't work, then fighting and violence is what it will take. Preferably by means of proxy warfare since, you know, this is the 21st century, and having a conventional slugout fest between a superpower and another major power is a really destructive idea.
[/quote]
That's the problem I'm trying to point out here. Everyone thinks it's okay to step on some toes because others do it or will do it too. You think war is an inevitability because they think war is inevitable. They think war is an inevitability because you think war is inevitable. All while claiming they really want peace and stability but no, that's impossible because "them others".
You can say that Chinese and Russian military operations have been purely unjustifiable and use that as an excuse to keep warfaring. They will say your military operations have been purely unjustifiable and use that as an excuse to keep warfaring.
Somebody has got to end the cycle.
China and Russia are aggressive world powers and that's a huge problem. You think it's going to help if USA decides to also be aggressive and agitate them more? Of course you don't, but you think it's inevitable. The only thing standing in the way of global cooperation is people who think like you. "We must have war because that is how it is"
[QUOTE=Govna;49851011]
This means nothing. The liberation of Kuwait was a necessary event because Hussein and the Iraqis invaded it and sparked an international incident in doing so. They were out to make up for their embarrassing losses during the war with Iran, and they had no justification for doing what they did. They thought they could get away with it, Hussein was entirely to blame because of his strongman dictator mentality which led him (incorrectly) to believe he was invincible, and we absolutely wrecked them/him for it.
Our only mistake was that we didn't do away with him then. The possibility of going back in 2003 would never have existed if we'd done so in the first place back then. And I'm sorry, but when it comes to "aggressive foreign politics", I don't understand how with Afghanistan anybody could have possibly been against that, given it was controlled by the Taliban, and al-Qaeda meanwhile (you know, those guys who were responsible for the September 11th attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people) was using it as a stronghold/sanctuary. Iraq was questionable; Afghanistan was not.[/QUOTE]
Justifying individual conflicts is pretty easy when the area has already been destabilized by war. Liberation of Kuwait was most likely a good move, but it was a war and I consider wars and death bad. What caused the mess in the first place? Cold war proxy war and dickwaving.
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;49850950]California will be an important sate for Sanders. It's worth a lot of delegates, and it's relatively progressive. If he wins big there, it'll make a yuge difference. The last major polls I could find there show Hillary quite far ahead, but those were taken in October/November, [B]before his huge surge in support.[/B][/QUOTE]
This is ALWAYS the excuse. Bernie Sanders has apparently moved to a form of existence beyond what we consider time, because his huge surge in support has both already happened and has yet to happen. Every month, Hillary is ahead, and the excuse is always "Well that was before the large increase in his support."
Face it, Bernie will not get the DNC nomination. I thought the DNC would just ignore everyone and choose Hillary, but no, she is actually destroying him at the polls.
Bernies still got a good chance, we still got more than half the states to go.
Well, there are 35 states left to vote. It's not over yet. Bernie did better than most were expecting. I really hope he wins California.
[QUOTE=Ridge;49852215]she is actually destroying him at the polls.[/QUOTE]
pretty easy to say this when the majority of states that voted yesterday were her deep south stronghold states
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;49852280]pretty easy to say this when the majority of states that voted yesterday were her deep south stronghold states[/QUOTE]
She's going to get New York, too. She was a senator there, and so is her daughter. California is Bernie's only hope.
[QUOTE=Ridge;49852215]This is ALWAYS the excuse. Bernie Sanders has apparently moved to a form of existence beyond what we consider time, because his huge surge in support has both already happened and has yet to happen. Every month, Hillary is ahead, and the excuse is always "Well that was before the large increase in his support."
Face it, Bernie will not get the DNC nomination. I thought the DNC would just ignore everyone and choose Hillary, but no, she is actually destroying him at the polls.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that polls taken in October/November were way off, and his poll number have improved and he's turned huge victories into ties since then - my post was saying that he'll do a lot better in California than a poll in October/November said he would.
It's like you skim read my post, and just saw the words 'huge surge'
Stop trying to misunderstand what people are saying.
The reality is he did better than expected (not better than what a lot of the people on here expected though) in states that should have been hopeless for him.
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;49852485]I'm saying that polls taken in October/November were way off, and his poll number have improved and he's turned huge victories into ties since then - my post was saying that he'll do a lot better in California than a poll in October/November said he would.
It's like you skim read my post, and just saw the words 'huge surge'
Stop trying to misunderstand what people are saying.
The reality is he did better than expected (not better than what a lot of the people on here expected though) in states that should have been hopeless for him.[/QUOTE]
I have to completely agree with you on all of this. His polls don't look well most states because for whatever reason they haven't conducted a lot of them.
On another note, I predict he might win CA with 60-65% if he lays that long
What the fuck is wrong with conservatives in this country, voting for Donald trump. I used to be convinced that trump supporters were nut job evangelicals in flyover states but I guess conservatives in this country are a lot more racist than I had thought
okay when is the next big polling day?
[QUOTE=Ridge;49852289]She's going to get New York, too. She was a senator there, and so is her daughter. California is Bernie's only hope.[/QUOTE]
There's a high chance Bernie will concede before California votes, they along with 5 other states are the last to vote and that's all the way in June.
[editline]2nd March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=ThePanther;49852260]Well, there are 35 states left to vote. It's not over yet. Bernie did better than most were expecting. I really hope he wins California.[/QUOTE]
How previous states vote affects the decision of voters in future primary states.
Believe it or not, not everyone picks a candidate the moment they're declared running and stick to them to the bitter end.
There are many undecided voters and the previous primaries will affect their decision.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49852886]What the fuck is wrong with conservatives in this country, voting for Donald trump. I used to be convinced that trump supporters were nut job evangelicals in flyover states but I guess conservatives in this country are a lot more racist than I had thought[/QUOTE]
People voting for a candidate doesn't equate to those people agreeing with everything that candidate says.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.