If you don't see a problem with it, that's for you to deal with. I see it as the country's top problem and her as one of the worst violators
I can understand how its a touchy subject but could you give some reasonable explanation on how the Geneva Conventions killed your 6 brothers?
I see it as a problem, but push legislation to get money out of the political process. Don't act like politicians are horrible people for playing the game as it's currently set up. 99% of the people who tried a campaign on that high horse will be defeated. And now you've got a government full of corporate shill republicans just to make a point.
Isn't the whole concept of MAD weakened the larger the nuclear club becomes? Seems like the more nations with nukes, the less likely deterrence is sustainable. How would you rework NATO?
All were killed while either providing aid to injured enemy combatants or while unable to return fire for fear of civilian casualties. I was in Iraq in 2004 before we really knew what we were dealing with.
Yes. MAD requires all actors to be rational. The more states that join the club, the more likely you are to have one that will behave irrationally. Additionally, when the US is faced with launching a second strike strike against a state like Iran for example, the decision becomes a global one. Does the US destroy the world or just let itself suffer unimaginable tragedy knowing that the entire world will unite destroy Iran afterward? Would the first strike from a nation like Iran even be immediately traceable or is it more likely to be something smuggled into the country and detonated without attribution? Also, the only time NATO invoked article 5 was to come to the defense of the US after 9/11. Seems like it's a pretty important part of America's national security.
1. I'm not sure what you mean. Can you explain the logic? Genuine question. 2. I'm honestly not sure what the solution is to NATO. I do like the premise of it for the most part. I just don't like the idea of countries not abiding by the guidelines of it being able to pull us into combat that may not be in our best interests, especially given that we would inevitably have to be the largest contingent of the NATO force in said hypothetical combat.
Palin ran with it though. McCain and the GOP tolerating her bullshit gave rise to Trumpism. 2016 doesn't happen if the GOP denounced Palin in 2008.
I'm sorry for your loss, but I will have to disagree with you. Also, I don't know if it'll give you any peace, but if you study counter insurgency now, they really shit on the early days of Iraq.
Seemed like you were defending Trump's signal of being ok with, or even encouraging, nuclear proliferation. If you weren't, my b. Disregard. Otherwise, AlternativeFactsRule explained it better than I could. And the whole point of NATO was to ensure the US had the biggest, baddest military on the block and to prevent the mobilization of large Euro land armies. We're necessarily going to have the largest contingent, that was by design. I agree we should hold our allies accountable for hitting their spending goals, but weakening NATO in any way right now with Putin eyeing the Baltics is dumb.
Sorry to hear that. Sounds like you had shitty ROE's. Never thought signatories were required to give enemy aid at risk to themselves, though.
Everything was fucked up in the early days. Most of the higher ups were too scared of doing the wrong thing to do the right thing given the situation. Fucked up man. I got lucky.
That crazy wing was there before Palin. Palin happened because they existed and the GOP crumbled to them. If it wasn't her, it would be someone else.
yeah that goes back a long way and for whatever reason the clintons seem to really stimulate the conservative conspiratorial mind
member when the president tried to have a bunch of women who had accused his opponent's husband of rape sit front row during a debate
Why do you keep saying this? Do you believe the FBI was wrong in suggesting no charges be brought against her? Nothing she sent was classified at the time she sent it. Colin Powell said he did the same thing.
Yeah I don't get it. I have a bunch of relatives in Michigan, generally they lean right but don't vote just based on R normally. They hated trump, but voted for him just because the other candidate was Hillary. No other reason.
From a guy who hates talking politics on here And only 'pops in and out' even though it seems to be exclusively popping in
Him saying to the WaPo Ossoff's not a progressive, while admitting he knows little about the guy, isn't innocuous. https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...cd6118e1409_story.html?utm_term=.f2c9d508d763 https://newrepublic.com/article/142152/bernie-sanderss-unity-tour-failed
Mishandling classified information is not treason. Here is the code for classified information: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798 Please quote the statute you believe she violated. Please also provide any reasonable evidence that can result in a conviction of treason.
Thankfully she didn't have foreign agents working to undermine the election and our government just to help the bullshit foundation #crooked#lockherup#maga
we’ll start with the misdemeanors and then we’re going to push right on through to the lighter treasons
I'm sorry for your loss(es) BetterCallSaul but blaming deaths on "the Geneva convention" is really stupid. As if, without an international framework we would be just fine with murdering civilians, because we are incapable of having our own ideals and beliefs about the value of life. Never mind the outrageous degree to which those civilian casualties actually hurt our mission.
Damn, I missed the monthly election argument. I am disappoint. Ossoff's stance on Medicare for all troubles me, but I donated to his campaign and was cheering him on. I'm not sure how much we can hold the campaign rhetoric to him though. If he comes out as too liberal he'll likely lose the runoff. I'm going to withhold judgement on him til we see his voting record should he beat Handel.
Corey Booker is on Neil Degrasse Tysons podcast talking about the relationship between science and policies. Pretty good
How about he talks about him turning his back on the most vulnerable Americans by voting against importing prescription medication from Canada...
So anyone else ready to shoot themselves over Tom Perez deciding abortion is the baseline issue that gets the ideological purity test?
Every time the issue of influence that large donors have on the party he changes the subject. Big tent doesn't have to mean that influence should be able to be bought. But that is too difficult of a subject to broach, so hey, let's talk about women's reproductive rights...
Seems like most of us agree that he's playing so hard to the centrist R base in the district. MA, I don't disagree with you that sexism played a huge role against Hillary but we'll see how much of it is alive and well and affects voters. Ossoff is running against Karen Handel, a GOP woman who has lost many elections. If what you say is true then he really shouldn't have to worry about winning this runoff, but I seriously doubt that is actually the case.
Donald Trump committed numerous crimes before office and has been violating the emoluments clause of the constitution since day 1. Not too mention using the office of the president to directly enrich both his and Ivanka's businesses. Then you have his numerous lies he feeds everyone, he begged a foreign power to hack his political opponent (on top of saying he would lock her up), his son in law who is basically running the country omitted meetings with foreign officials from his security clearance paperwork (this is a crime), handled classified information in public in front of guests at his resort (oh yea, the resort that doesn't keep visitor logs so we have no idea who is meeting with him), falsely accused the previous administration of wiretapping him, etc etc. The list goes on and on. Oh yea, numerous GOP members and people Trump chose to be in his cabinet used personal, unsecured emails to conduct official government business. Basically the same fucking shit your dumb ass rails on Clinton for. And fuck off saying the Geneva Conventions need to go (6 brothers of yours would still be here if we weren't involving ourselves in every conflict on the planet. Don't blame the standards that civilized countries hold themselves too). I've lost people I knew, one of my best friends had people die in his arms, my family lost people in previous wars. Every one of us still knows that the conventions need to be in place and need to be upheld. If you think we should be on the same level as enemies that don't stick to them, well you're fucking stupid. Let's start ignoring them and see how many new terrorists we create. Real genius move, sounds like something that would come straight from Trump's brain. Just own the fact that you are a brainwashed, will support and spin everything he does, Trump supporter. Nothing you have ever tried to say on this board has shown any different.
The litmus test on sexism in that race is not whether she wins or loses, rather whether there is a reliable analysis that can measure whether a statistically significant number of reliable/registered GOP male voters simply stayed home rather than go vote for her. It's difficult to judge in an off-year runoff, but I suppose the turnout in the 2014 midterm and last week's primary would be useful in the analysis.
And when has a county in NATO ever pulled us into a conflict? Haven't we been the start of basically every conflict NATO has been involved in? I wonder if Saul could name the first and only time Article 5 has ever been invoked, and who it was protecting when it was invoked? Without googling it.
It shouldn't be difficult imo. We can very easily compare the turnouts between 4/18 and 6/20. Not all of the R voters who stayed home may be doing so for sexist reasons, but there seems to be a consensus that almost every person who voted for an R candidate will unite behind Handel. I'd be shocked if many Gray and Moody votes are going to vote for Ossoff now. So, if the turnout is significantly less, to me that is going to be very telling.