All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[Tendrin]

Funny when supposed anti-Trump people, regurgated a series of right wing talking points and then tell us why they won't vote for this or that Democrat..

It's even funnier when they shout about Bill Clinton's history while an actual rapist sits in the white house.

[Tuck]

Questions over the whens and hows and whys of any form interventionism is fine. If you're a complete non-interventionist, be prepared to watch mass murder unfold and be content with washing your hands of it from your supposed moral high ground.

Non-interventionism isn't a moral position though. There's no moral high ground to be claiming to stand on.

And this pretty much goes back to my original amusement at the anti-Gabbard progressive tilt. Since when is non-interventionism an unacceptable positioin progressive circles? There was a time, not too long ago, that progressives wouldn't shut the hell up about it.

[Tendrin]

Non-interventionism isn't a moral position though. There's no moral high ground to be claiming to stand on.

And this pretty much goes back to my original amusement at the anti-Gabbard progressive tilt. Since when is non-interventionism an unacceptable positioin progressive circles? There was a time, not too long ago, that progressives wouldn't shut the hell up about it.

It depends on what kind of interventionism you're talking about. Military engagements? Yeah, we could pull back from most of that and it would be good. But none of that means declaring 'Assad didn't gas his own people' despite all evidence to the contrary because that makes doing nothing more palatable. Finding excuses to do nothing is something people are good at.


And choosing 'doing nothing' is a moral stance., depending on what you're deciding to do nothing over and what's within your power to do.

Gabbard's 'non internveitonism' isn't the root of disdain for her.

[numberthirty]

It's even funnier when they shout about Bill Clinton's history while an actual rapist sits in the white house.

Since that came up...

Caught part of the CBS national news earlier. Unless I completely misunderstood the way they reported it, the woman who is involved in the documents that were unsealed(Virginia Giuffre) said that she never had sex with Trump and never witnessed him having sex with anyone.

While that is obviously just one woman, it did stick out that they seem to have had a specific discussion.

Edit: This piece looks that way as well...

- http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...out-trump.html

What the Unsealed Jeffrey Epstein Documents Reveal About Donald Trump

A: “Donald Trump was also a good friend of Jeffrey’s.” That part is true. “He didn’t partake in any” of — “any sex with any of us but he flirted with me.” It’s true that he didn’t partake in any sex with us, but it’s not true that he flirted with me. Donald Trump never flirted with me.

Then the next sentence is, “he’d laugh and tell Jeffrey, ‘you’ve got the life.’” I never said that to her.”


Q: When you say “he didn’t partake in any sex with any of us,” who is “us”?


A: Girls. Just —


Q: How do you know who Donald Trump — Trump had sex with?


A: Oh, I didn’t physically see him have sex with any of the girls, so I can’t say who he had sex with in his whole life or not, but I just know it wasn’t with me when I was with other girls.”

She added that she knew Trump through her work at Mar-a-Lago, and her father would chat with him when they saw each other. But she said she could not recall ever being with Trump and Epstein at the same time, or seeing Trump at any of Epstein’s properties. She only knew about their relationship because “Jeffrey told me that Donald Trump is a good friend of his.”

Well, not exactly "Never Anyone..." but she did rule herself out and say where she did not see Trump.

[Tendrin]

Since that came up...

Caught part of the CBS national news earlier. Unless I completely misunderstood the way they reported it, the woman whose involved in the documents that were unsealed(Virginia Giuffre) said that she never had sex with Trump and never witnessed him having sex with anyone.

While that is obviously just one woman, it did stick out that they seem to have had a specific discussion.

Okay, sure.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...trump-recapped

[Tuck]

And choosing 'doing nothing' is a moral stance., depending on what you're deciding to do nothing over and what's within your power to do.

If it's case-by-case, sure. But that presents its own problem that it is literally impossible to intervene everywhere someone is requesting help.

If your policy is just "don't" then that's the policy. If anything, it is meant - at least in part - to prevent you from playing God.

[Tendrin]

If it's case-by-case, sure. But that presents its own problem that it is literally impossible to intervene everywhere someone is requesting help.

If your policy is just "don't" then that's the policy. If anything, it is meant - at least in part - to prevent you from playing God.

'Don't has consequences too. Just ask the Rwandans.

[Celgress]

'Don't has consequences too. Just ask the Rwandans.

The people of the Middle East don't want Western troops there they see our presence as a "crusade". Other parts of the world want our help so I say give it to them.

[Tuck]

'Don't has consequences too. Just ask the Rwandans.

Even in an interventionist view, most people get "don'ts". You're just picking who gets relief and who doesn't.

And that's assuming you don't make it worse with your culturally contingent view of universals.

[Tuck]

The people of the Middle East don't want Western troops there they see our presence as a "crusade". Other parts of the world want our help so I say give it to them.

Honestly, I don't think it's that cut-and-dried. There are people in the Middle East who want us to help. They just might be a minority of those needing help in a given situation.

[Celgress]

Honestly, I don't think it's that cut-and-dried. There are people in the Middle East who want us to help. They just might be a minority of those needing help in a given situation.

Perhaps, still, we don't have clean hands in that part of the world. Most of our interventions thus far have ended in disaster as arguably has our unwavering support of allies like the House of Saud and the Israelis. I can only think of one intervention the Gulf War that didn't end badly for all involved.

[Tendrin]

Even in an interventionist view, most people get "don'ts". You're just picking who gets relief and who doesn't.

And that's assuming you don't make it worse with your culturally contingent view of universals.

Yeah, this is true to an extent.

[TriggerWarning]

Funny when supposed anti-Trump people, regurgated a series of right wing talking points and then tell us why they won't vote for this or that Democrat..

Which of my points isn't true? They may be right wing talking points now but they are also true and why Clinton and now Warren is unelectable.

Fact: Juanita Broadrick and others accused Bill Clinton of rape even before he ran for president. Guess it doesn't count because it was before #metoo.

Fact: Elizabeth Warren claimed to have Native American Heritage. Also Fact: its less than 1% as shown by her own DNA tests meaning she is no more Native American than most extremely white people. Fact: She claimed Native American heritage on at least one college application even though she had previously denied doing so.

Fact: Hilary Clinton's sole earned on her own merit accomplishment is becoming a lawyer. Yay for her but its not presidential worthy. After that she married up to a star brighter than her own. She had zero qualifications other than being a name brand politician, aka how George W Bush also got elected.

[Tendrin]

Ohhhhhhhhhh boy.

[PwrdOn]

Questions over the whens and hows and whys of any form interventionism is fine. If you're a complete non-interventionist, be prepared to watch mass murder unfold and be content with washing your hands of it from your supposed moral high ground. But it's instructive to me that every time I discuss Tulsi's apologism for Assad, I get told 'wel you must want to invade Syria', as if those are our only options.

The problem with "humanitarian intervention" is that it's never more than a pretext for military actions that serve the usual objectives of resource extraction and power projection. The next time that American society shows genuine concern for the well-being of an oppressed people in a far away land will be the first time, and the entire world knows this, which is why we have such trouble finding reliable allies even though you'd think that impoverished freedom fighters would gladly welcome an infusion of American cash and weapons. Our proxies have pretty much figured out that they can only count on American support as long as the conflict remains active, once things settle down then American forces will leave and the funding will dry up, which means that these fighters have a perverse incentive to keep the war going in perpetuity so that they can continue to get paid.