Politics 2017 part V

[Guard Dog]

If compelled to chose between the screaming monkey tribes I tend to favor the Republicans. I worked on the campaign of Don Garlits when he ran for Congress and I had a tremendous amount of respect for the man who recruited me into politics former Florida State Rep Jon McKay. But I've always been struck the hypocrisy of the Republicans. They tend to favor smaller government and more liberty until they actually get the power to make good on these ideals. Then they tend to do the opposite.

 

The Democrats on the other hand make no secret of their inclinations. They are anti-liberty, anti-choice, anti-individual. Their brand is a soft form of authoritarianism. Sometimes it's "benevolent" (as they see it) others it's heavy handed. Even the few instances where they do support liberty, Gay Marriage for example, they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to it and their support is tepid at best. 

[Namutree]

Think about America. Remember that they majority of its congressmen are millionaires. Remember that the vast majority of its media is owned by very few companies. Remember that the president, millionaire himself, appoints family members to top political positions, that he fires those who investigate against him, that he shames the press, refuses to answer critical questions, that he propagates lies to further his agenda, that he considers democratic decision making processes a hindrance. And then tell me that America is a democracy.

America is a representative republic; not a democracy (thankfully). In republics it is normal for representatives to be among the higher ups in a society. Why would you want an incompetent to represent you? Also, Trump is a billionaire, not millionaire.

[Zoraptor]

 

That in mind China's abstention is a change from their previous policy of consistently vetoing measures taking a harder stance on Syria.

 

They didn't veto a previous resolution on Aleppo early last year (not sure on the exact date, but definitely an abstention) which was written by France. It's something like 6-2 veto vs abstention, so not really a consistent policy, and I'm pretty sure it's actually 2-2 over the last year or so. An abstention when you're the only one likely to veto it- per the US abstention on Israel late last year- or voting for it would be significant, an abstention when you know it won't pass anyway means very little as there are no consequences.

 

zor's alternative world. am not certain what inspires such dogged pursuit o' Gromnir.

 

Bro, you restarted things, it's only a page or so back so you can easily check- and not in the right thread either. If you're so concerned go to the correct thread, and post your proof/ evidence as you were asked for, and were asked for well before you 'disappeared'. You'll notice that others don't get the SAD! treatment, because they actually bothered to post relevant sources, even if I mostly disagreed with said sources.

 

As for the Iran deal, your evidence to refute the ~2014 Israeli and US (especially ironic, since for the CW attacks you rely on a WH Pr dept release, and think that's gospel) intelligence assessments that Iran was not seeking nukes was something from ~2004, ~ a decade earlier. Not exactly a convincing rebuttal.

[Gromnir]

more zor alternate world.  a number o' pages ago we responded to gd regarding the cruise missile strike effectiveness compared to wild pigs.  only in zor's bizzaro world would such be seen as some kinda misplaced and inappropriate resurrection o' an off-topic subject.  'course we did mention how the attack were a lesson to russia as much as syria, so is understandable why you would be unable to restrain self. russia is apparent sore spot for zor given previous humblings? 'course even if you did see some kinda door to the perpetrator o' the syrian chemical weapon attack as being opened by Gromnir comments, am not sure how that compelled you to wanna revisit a host o' other temporal remote topics. 

 

as for complete mischaracterization o' the iran deal, we relied heavily 'pon your own sources (2013) to refute notions o' iran's nuclear program being limited only to peaceful civilian power applications, seeing as your source indicated iran had nowhere near the number or kind o' reactors necessary to produce civilian nuclear fuel.  instead, such reactors were having plausible value, 'ccording to your source, from the pov o' weapons development.

 

further sources were provided which identified clear patterns o' iranian nuclear weapon development efforts including rand from 2012, iaea evidence o' nuclear weapons related info on Iranian scientist laptop in 2005, the 2011 iaea findings, etc.

 

*shrug*

 

am thinking we (over)indulged this most recent zor cry for attention. is periodic amusing to have Sherman set the way-back machine to previous years and abandoned threads, but as zor points out correct, we is low-energy.  simply do not have the wherewithal to continue to repeat the already extreme repetitive multi-page threads. our exhaustion threshold is indeed limited.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 13, 2017 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

Yeah yeah, the US only showed the same number of actual tomahawk strikes as Russia said happened. Easy to disprove Russia's claims, just show proper satellite imagery of the 59 hits claimed, but they didn't. No evidence provided of the Syrians making the CW attack that sparked the whole thing, again, low energy SAD!

 

And you failed utterly on Iran, since you had to show explicitly military non dual use technologies such as triggers being developed, and had to disprove a proper Intelligence Assessment from the US plus one from Israel as well. Ironic, since the white paper on the Khan Sheikhoun CW attack isn't even from the IC (written by the White House instead, favourite tactic in the lead up to Gulf War 2 and we know how those turned out), yet you think that's great.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

In republics it is normal for representatives to be among the higher ups in a society. Why would you want an incompetent to represent you? 

 

It sounds like you imagine those categories as mutually incompatible. How charming!

[redneckdevil]

Looks like Britain will have another chance at free trade with China's silk road.

[Blarghagh]

Closed for length. Make a new one if you wish.