Honestly I'm just confused how anyone reads that and thinks they're putting all the blame on Obama.
Because that's what the sentence says. It says the expansion of presidential powers to make war is Obama's. It's pretty silly given the long term trend at work.
I think there is room to recognize both a trend and to recognize the personal responsibility each president has in needing to avert the growth of said trend, and to then project that into our choices moving forward in determining candidates who will be more likely to avert the chance of that trend progressing ever further.
Some like deeper dive into the criticism of Warren's foreign policy in that article would be neat, more so than complaints that they're too mean to Obama. Like is there really nothing in there that troubles you at all? Her comments and votes on Israel are awful.
He did try to limit the AUMF and Congress blocked it. Drone use was expanded under his administration, though you could make an argument that Bush was only limited because the technology was still emerging while he was in office. You could also make an argument that Obama’s policy towards Russia could have been harsher, especially after Bush’s weak response to the invasion of Georgia, which only embolden Putin to take Crimea. The sanctions are fierce to be sure, but Obama put too much faith the GOP put country over party.
Obviously Obama’s foreign policy is better than Bush and Trump, but I want more than just Obama’s with a fresh coat of paint.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Honestly I'm just confused how anyone reads that and thinks they're putting all the blame on Obama.
Because that's what the sentence says. It says the expansion of presidential powers to make war is Obama's. It's pretty silly given the long term trend at work.
I think there is room to recognize both a trend and to recognize the personal responsibility each president has in needing to avert the growth of said trend, and to then project that into our choices moving forward in determining candidates who will be more likely to avert the chance of that trend progressing ever further.
PRIMARY
I think an article worth taking seriously would not pretend like it was the responsibility of one President or ignore that Congress bears an equal (if not arguably larger) portion of the blame.
Some like deeper dive into the criticism of Warren's foreign policy in that article would be neat, more so than complaints that they're too mean to Obama. Like is there really nothing in there that troubles you at all? Her comments and votes on Israel are awful.
If there are points brought up that find particularly compelling there’s nothing stopping you from pulling them out.
To be completely honest, I’m not a socialist like that author and so I really don’t feel the need to read his article.
+5
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Honestly I'm just confused how anyone reads that and thinks they're putting all the blame on Obama.
Because that's what the sentence says. It says the expansion of presidential powers to make war is Obama's. It's pretty silly given the long term trend at work.
The blame primarily lies with a Congress that by and large does not want to get involved with war making powers at all. I haven't read the article. Has anybody read the full thing? Do they cover that?
The quote actually links to this article from The Intercept.
Feel free to critique it. I'm no expert, but it seems true that Obama did significantly expand presidential powers to make war. He wasn't the only one to do so, of course. But I think reading the Jacobin article as claiming so is uncharitable. It feels like a pretty natural way of pointing out that the last president helped make the office of president the most powerful yet.
+4
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I see this "Why focus on the Democrats and not the Republicans?" complaint all the time, and it is always baffling. What, do you think a socialist magazine thinks Republicans aren't bad? Do you think they refrain from criticizing the GOP because they agree with them, rather than because there would be zero point to it? Are you incapable of understanding a critique unless it also includes a critique of everybody else?
look, if you want a "DISCLAIMER: Democrats are not as bad as Republicans" banner on every article, say so. but don't just refuse to engage with things until you get that banner.
+4
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Honestly I'm just confused how anyone reads that and thinks they're putting all the blame on Obama.
Because that's what the sentence says. It says the expansion of presidential powers to make war is Obama's. It's pretty silly given the long term trend at work.
The blame primarily lies with a Congress that by and large does not want to get involved with war making powers at all. I haven't read the article. Has anybody read the full thing? Do they cover that?
The quote actually links to this article from The Intercept.
Feel free to critique it. I'm no expert, but it seems true that Obama did significantly expand presidential powers to make war. He wasn't the only one to do so, of course. But I think reading the Jacobin article as claiming so is uncharitable. It feels like a pretty natural way of pointing out that the last president helped make the office of president the most powerful yet.
I see this "Why focus on the Democrats and not the Republicans?" complaint all the time, and it is always baffling. What, do you think a socialist magazine thinks Republicans aren't bad? Do you think they refrain from criticizing the GOP because they agree with them, rather than because there would be zero point to it? Are you incapable of understanding a critique unless it also includes a critique of everybody else?
look, if you want a "DISCLAIMER: Democrats are not as bad as Republicans" banner on every article, say so. but don't just refuse to engage with things until you get that banner.
Why am I in any way obligated to read it in the first place? I get it, the socialist party is basically never satisfied with what the Democratic Party does. Or at least it sure seems that way, and I’m just not particularly in the mood to read yet another article telling me how much the rest of us suck.
That’s not to say that I don’t want to hear criticism of Democrats when they deserve it, and parts of Obama’s foreign policy deserve it. But I don’t have any sort of responsibility to read that article.
don't understand how the people we, at best, try to ignore, and at worst, actively undermine more aggressively than actual fascists, have nothing but criticism for us
Is Jacobin even a good source for the socialist zeitgeist, if you want to know what 'socialists on the street' are thinking about candidates and whatnot?
I was under the impression that it had a brocialist rep?
I see this "Why focus on the Democrats and not the Republicans?" complaint all the time, and it is always baffling. What, do you think a socialist magazine thinks Republicans aren't bad? Do you think they refrain from criticizing the GOP because they agree with them, rather than because there would be zero point to it? Are you incapable of understanding a critique unless it also includes a critique of everybody else?
look, if you want a "DISCLAIMER: Democrats are not as bad as Republicans" banner on every article, say so. but don't just refuse to engage with things until you get that banner.
The issue I have, inasmuch as you could call it an "issue" and not "vague feeling of annoyance", is that focusing heavily on how unacceptably awful the left but-not-socialist politics of the United States are seems to create a Loudness War effect; if less-interventionist foreign policy or more wonkish healthcare proposals or whatever are painted as unacceptably or apocalyptically bad, if the amplitude is already maxed out, it's sets up a situation in which it's impossible to believe that Republicans are viewed as meaningfully worse because you can't really go far below 0% acceptable or much worse than apocalyptic. Usage of this sort of rhetoric makes me wonder whether the people doing so would actually pull the lever for anybody but Sanders in the general election, because voting for somebody who is "unacceptable" certainly doesn't seem to square.
I have this similar vague feeling of annoyance from leftist content creators who I generally agree with and who spread a message of positivity and cooperation, but who seem to primarily follow and signal boost this sort of apocalyptic and negative rhetoric against Warren in particular. So my issue is less "what about Republicans" and more "do people actually believe that Warren is so close to as bad as the Republicans that she justifies being treated in a way that rhetorically casts her as identical to them?"
This is also-also why I find the dirtbag left, or whatever they're called, distasteful; by treating everybody in disagreement with them as a nearly equal enemy, they come across as less sincerely looking to create a socialist/communist/whatever society and more as looking for targets they can feel righteous about attacking.
Some like deeper dive into the criticism of Warren's foreign policy in that article would be neat, more so than complaints that they're too mean to Obama. Like is there really nothing in there that troubles you at all? Her comments and votes on Israel are awful.
If there are points brought up that find particularly compelling there’s nothing stopping you from pulling them out.
To be completely honest, I’m not a socialist like that author and so I really don’t feel the need to read his article.
God forbid you read a criticism of a candidate that doesn't come from a liberal? You guys found the first thing you could quibble with and are using it as an excuse to not grapple with her foreign policy.
Is Jacobin even a good source for the socialist zeitgeist, if you want to know what 'socialists on the street' are thinking about candidates and whatnot?
I was under the impression that it had a brocialist rep?
Its fine. Some socialists like it, some don't, some have opinions, some don't. Basically how it is with any media.
As far as Marathon's point, I think it was more of a generic "pull out the sections you want to talk about when referring to a link" request than anything.
Some like deeper dive into the criticism of Warren's foreign policy in that article would be neat, more so than complaints that they're too mean to Obama. Like is there really nothing in there that troubles you at all? Her comments and votes on Israel are awful.
If there are points brought up that find particularly compelling there’s nothing stopping you from pulling them out.
To be completely honest, I’m not a socialist like that author and so I really don’t feel the need to read his article.
God forbid you read a criticism of a candidate that doesn't come from a liberal? You guys found the first thing you could quibble with and are using it as an excuse to not grapple with her foreign policy.
“When Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they’re using their civilian population to protect their military assets,” she said at a town hall meeting on August 20, 2014. “And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself.”
She went on to defend $225 million in emergency funds granted by the US for Israel’s “Iron Dome” project.
“I think the vote was right, and I’ll tell you why I think the vote was right,” she said. “America has a very special relationship with Israel. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world where there aren’t many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that part of the world.”
In 2016, in advance of a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements, Warren signed an AIPAC-sponsored letter urging Obama to veto “one-sided” resolutions. Gillibrand and Booker also signed that letter, while Sanders did not.
None of that gives anyone pause? Her votes on defense authorization bills under Trump? She backed Brennan's CIA nomination.
+3
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
edited October 2019
Okay, from that Jacobin article:
And in March 2018, Warren indicated that Trump — a president who has casually threatened “to totally destroy North Korea,” should be more aggressive: “I’m very worried that Donald Trump will go into these negotiations and Kim Jong-un will simply take advantage of him.”
That sentence is such a ridiculous misrepresentation of what actually happened between Trump and North Korea I feel embarrassed for the author. That is some Fox News level bullshit.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+50
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I see this "Why focus on the Democrats and not the Republicans?" complaint all the time, and it is always baffling. What, do you think a socialist magazine thinks Republicans aren't bad? Do you think they refrain from criticizing the GOP because they agree with them, rather than because there would be zero point to it? Are you incapable of understanding a critique unless it also includes a critique of everybody else?
look, if you want a "DISCLAIMER: Democrats are not as bad as Republicans" banner on every article, say so. but don't just refuse to engage with things until you get that banner.
Why am I in any way obligated to read it in the first place? I get it, the socialist party is basically never satisfied with what the Democratic Party does. Or at least it sure seems that way, and I’m just not particularly in the mood to read yet another article telling me how much the rest of us suck.
That’s not to say that I don’t want to hear criticism of Democrats when they deserve it, and parts of Obama’s foreign policy deserve it. But I don’t have any sort of responsibility to read that article.
Nobody is under any obligation to read any article linked in here. However, posting to say "I'm not going to read that article" is not really conducive to discussion.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I see this "Why focus on the Democrats and not the Republicans?" complaint all the time, and it is always baffling. What, do you think a socialist magazine thinks Republicans aren't bad? Do you think they refrain from criticizing the GOP because they agree with them, rather than because there would be zero point to it? Are you incapable of understanding a critique unless it also includes a critique of everybody else?
look, if you want a "DISCLAIMER: Democrats are not as bad as Republicans" banner on every article, say so. but don't just refuse to engage with things until you get that banner.
Why am I in any way obligated to read it in the first place? I get it, the socialist party is basically never satisfied with what the Democratic Party does. Or at least it sure seems that way, and I’m just not particularly in the mood to read yet another article telling me how much the rest of us suck.
That’s not to say that I don’t want to hear criticism of Democrats when they deserve it, and parts of Obama’s foreign policy deserve it. But I don’t have any sort of responsibility to read that article.
Nobody is under any obligation to read any article linked in here. However, posting to say "I'm not going to read that article" is not really conducive to discussion.
I apologize, I wasn’t trying to just post that I wasn’t willing to read it. Mostly explaining why I hadn’t when Styro started asking why we weren’t discussing it more in depth.
I'm theoretically in favor of being interventionist world police with our fingers in all the pies.
If there's going to be a shady hegemonic world power, it may as well be the US if the only alternatives are China and/or Russia.
It'd be nice if we could ditch the shady part and maybe stop murdering innocent people then fudging the numbers to ourselves. And supporting and empowering the shittiest actors in certain regions at the expense of our own reputation and the well-being of said regions.
“When Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they’re using their civilian population to protect their military assets,” she said at a town hall meeting on August 20, 2014. “And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself.”
She went on to defend $225 million in emergency funds granted by the US for Israel’s “Iron Dome” project.
“I think the vote was right, and I’ll tell you why I think the vote was right,” she said. “America has a very special relationship with Israel. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world where there aren’t many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that part of the world.”
In 2016, in advance of a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements, Warren signed an AIPAC-sponsored letter urging Obama to veto “one-sided” resolutions. Gillibrand and Booker also signed that letter, while Sanders did not.
None of that gives anyone pause? Her votes on defense authorization bills under Trump? She backed Brennan's CIA nomination.
That's shitty, yes. But to connect it to my point above, the way in which you discuss this ("None of that gives anyone pause?") comes across as at least equally interested in righteous outrage against people who disagree with you as it does in actual discussion. It is not possible (and, imo, not useful) to discard the rhetorical style from the substance of the disagreement. I'd be perfectly happy digging into an article with some points highlighted by somebody who wanted to be critical of whoever, but I'm going to be far less enthused about digging into an article where my impression is that the person discussing it has already decided to be really mad at me.
E: To connect it to the mod post, if you wish for people to read Jacobin and seriously consider its points, it is unlikely you will do that by posturing in a way that indicates you view the people you are talking to as enemies.
“When Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they’re using their civilian population to protect their military assets,” she said at a town hall meeting on August 20, 2014. “And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself.”
She went on to defend $225 million in emergency funds granted by the US for Israel’s “Iron Dome” project.
“I think the vote was right, and I’ll tell you why I think the vote was right,” she said. “America has a very special relationship with Israel. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world where there aren’t many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that part of the world.”
In 2016, in advance of a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements, Warren signed an AIPAC-sponsored letter urging Obama to veto “one-sided” resolutions. Gillibrand and Booker also signed that letter, while Sanders did not.
None of that gives anyone pause? Her votes on defense authorization bills under Trump? She backed Brennan's CIA nomination.
That's shitty, yes. But to connect it to my point above, the way in which you discuss this ("None of that gives anyone pause?") comes across as at least equally interested in righteous outrage against people who disagree with you as it does in actual discussion. It is not possible (and, imo, not useful) to discard the rhetorical style from the substance of the disagreement. I'd be perfectly happy digging into an article with some points highlighted by somebody who wanted to be critical of whoever, but I'm going to be far less enthused about digging into an article where my impression is that the person discussing it has already decided to be really mad at me.
E: To connect it to the mod post, if you wish for people to read Jacobin and seriously consider its points, it is unlikely you will do that by posturing in a way that indicates you view the people you are talking to as enemies.
I don't view anyone as enemies. Its, well no baffling, but extremely frustrating when people talk about specific issues and quotes and provide links about how Warren has a less than good foreign policy record and platform and we're treated to a ton of quibbling about how the article mentions Obama!
Foreign policy quite simply does not get taken seriously enough in terms of the actual cost of human lives.
+5
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I feel the most important foreign policy issues right now are proper opposition to Russia, taking climate change seriously, fixing our relationships with the nations that are supposed to be our allies, getting the Iran situation back under control, and reestablishing coherent trade policies. And I think all the main dem nominees - including Biden for the most part - would accomplish this. Which is why i'm more interested in domestic policy.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
“When Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they’re using their civilian population to protect their military assets,” she said at a town hall meeting on August 20, 2014. “And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself.”
She went on to defend $225 million in emergency funds granted by the US for Israel’s “Iron Dome” project.
“I think the vote was right, and I’ll tell you why I think the vote was right,” she said. “America has a very special relationship with Israel. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world where there aren’t many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that part of the world.”
In 2016, in advance of a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements, Warren signed an AIPAC-sponsored letter urging Obama to veto “one-sided” resolutions. Gillibrand and Booker also signed that letter, while Sanders did not.
None of that gives anyone pause? Her votes on defense authorization bills under Trump? She backed Brennan's CIA nomination.
That's shitty, yes. But to connect it to my point above, the way in which you discuss this ("None of that gives anyone pause?") comes across as at least equally interested in righteous outrage against people who disagree with you as it does in actual discussion. It is not possible (and, imo, not useful) to discard the rhetorical style from the substance of the disagreement. I'd be perfectly happy digging into an article with some points highlighted by somebody who wanted to be critical of whoever, but I'm going to be far less enthused about digging into an article where my impression is that the person discussing it has already decided to be really mad at me.
E: To connect it to the mod post, if you wish for people to read Jacobin and seriously consider its points, it is unlikely you will do that by posturing in a way that indicates you view the people you are talking to as enemies.
I don't view anyone as enemies. Its, well no baffling, but extremely frustrating when people talk about specific issues and quotes and provide links about how Warren has a less than good foreign policy record and platform and we're treated to a ton of quibbling about how the article mentions Obama!
Foreign policy quite simply does not get taken seriously enough in terms of the actual cost of human lives.
Maybe use better words and arguments then.
For instance, don't call it quibbling.
For instance, saying those who disagree with you aren't taking FP seriously is a dead end statement leading to hostile back-and-forth.
if i didn't engage with the people who had already decided to hate me, a socialist, i would do very little engaging
as soon as you get outside the liberal consensus the hostility becomes so overwhelming and omnidirectional that you stop registering it. so all of this "how dare a jacobin article be mean to me personally" becomes very hard to sympathise with
edit: this line of "i would agree with you if you just used nicer rhetoric" is concern trolling. there's real disagreements about foreign policy here, it's not just about being polite to each other. we're not on the same side in this area and we shouldn't pretend there isn't a conflict
if i didn't engage with the people who had already decided to hate me, a socialist, i would do very little engaging
as soon as you get outside the liberal consensus the hostility becomes so overwhelming and omnidirectional that you stop registering it. so all of this "how dare a jacobin article be mean to me personally" becomes very hard to sympathise with
There isn’t a single person here who hates you, even less so because you’re a socialist.
Maybe we could all work to view each other as allies here.
if i didn't engage with the people who had already decided to hate me, a socialist, i would do very little engaging
as soon as you get outside the liberal consensus the hostility becomes so overwhelming and omnidirectional that you stop registering it. so all of this "how dare a jacobin article be mean to me personally" becomes very hard to sympathise with
There isn’t a single person here who hates you, even less so because you’re a socialist.
Maybe we could all work to view each other as allies here.
we're not allies though. you guys believe in american imperialism, a thing i oppose
if i didn't engage with the people who had already decided to hate me, a socialist, i would do very little engaging
as soon as you get outside the liberal consensus the hostility becomes so overwhelming and omnidirectional that you stop registering it. so all of this "how dare a jacobin article be mean to me personally" becomes very hard to sympathise with
There isn’t a single person here who hates you, even less so because you’re a socialist.
Maybe we could all work to view each other as allies here.
we're not allies though. you guys believe in american imperialism, a thing i oppose
Having a difference of belief means you and someone else disagree.
You can still be an ally with someone you disagree with. You don’t need to take it to this level of hostility over this kind of difference.
if i didn't engage with the people who had already decided to hate me, a socialist, i would do very little engaging
as soon as you get outside the liberal consensus the hostility becomes so overwhelming and omnidirectional that you stop registering it. so all of this "how dare a jacobin article be mean to me personally" becomes very hard to sympathise with
edit: this line of "i would agree with you if you just used nicer rhetoric" is concern trolling. there's real disagreements about foreign policy here, it's not just about being polite to each other. we're not on the same side in this area and we shouldn't pretend there isn't a conflict
Then state them clearly instead doing what you're doing. If I was talking about just being polite this thread would be locked from reports long ago, so maybe try a little harder.
When we actually talk about FP, which has happened a little in the past many pages, there have been* disagreements and it was completely fine. We don't have to 100% agree at all.
if i didn't engage with the people who had already decided to hate me, a socialist, i would do very little engaging
as soon as you get outside the liberal consensus the hostility becomes so overwhelming and omnidirectional that you stop registering it. so all of this "how dare a jacobin article be mean to me personally" becomes very hard to sympathise with
There isn’t a single person here who hates you, even less so because you’re a socialist.
Maybe we could all work to view each other as allies here.
we're not allies though. you guys believe in american imperialism, a thing i oppose
Leaving aside that your post appears to be directed at me after I agreed that expansion of military aid sent to other goverments was a bad thing, sure, you can decide that we're enemies.
What are you going to do with that decision made, and what do you think I'm going to do with the information you think I'm an enemy? What's the end goal of making that "relationship" explicit, w.r.t. convincing people here of your views?
if i didn't engage with the people who had already decided to hate me, a socialist, i would do very little engaging
as soon as you get outside the liberal consensus the hostility becomes so overwhelming and omnidirectional that you stop registering it. so all of this "how dare a jacobin article be mean to me personally" becomes very hard to sympathise with
There isn’t a single person here who hates you, even less so because you’re a socialist.
Maybe we could all work to view each other as allies here.
we're not allies though. you guys believe in american imperialism, a thing i oppose
Leaving aside that your post appears to be directed at me after I agreed that expansion of military aid sent to other goverments was a bad thing, sure, you can decide that we're enemies.
What are you going to do with that decision made, and what do you think I'm going to do with the information you think I'm an enemy? What's the end goal of making that "relationship" explicit, w.r.t. convincing people here of your views?
just because we're not allies doesn't mean we're "enemies", the relationship between socialists and liberals is much more complex than that
all i'm doing is trying to be honest about the fact that a conflict exists. i don't think that ignoring it is going to be especially conducive to discussion. whether the fact of conflict makes us mad at each other or not is kind of irrelevant - the conflict exists, we're going to get mad about it, pretending it doesn't exist will in no way prevent us from getting mad about it
If I don't read an article I try my best not to comment on it. That's how you get burned: misleading excerpts and headlines.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
if i didn't engage with the people who had already decided to hate me, a socialist, i would do very little engaging
as soon as you get outside the liberal consensus the hostility becomes so overwhelming and omnidirectional that you stop registering it. so all of this "how dare a jacobin article be mean to me personally" becomes very hard to sympathise with
There isn’t a single person here who hates you, even less so because you’re a socialist.
Maybe we could all work to view each other as allies here.
we're not allies though. you guys believe in american imperialism, a thing i oppose
Leaving aside that your post appears to be directed at me after I agreed that expansion of military aid sent to other goverments was a bad thing, sure, you can decide that we're enemies.
What are you going to do with that decision made, and what do you think I'm going to do with the information you think I'm an enemy? What's the end goal of making that "relationship" explicit, w.r.t. convincing people here of your views?
just because we're not allies doesn't mean we're "enemies", the relationship between socialists and liberals is much more complex than that
all i'm doing is trying to be honest about the fact that a conflict exists. i don't think that ignoring it is going to be especially conducive to discussion. whether the fact of conflict makes us mad at each other or not is kind of irrelevant - the conflict exists, we're going to get mad about it, pretending it doesn't exist will in no way prevent us from getting mad about it
I agree that a conflict exists. However, I disagree that getting mad is necessary or guaranteed, and think that going in pre-emptively mad and viewing people as hating you or people who can't possibly be allies is self-defeating and abrasive. "People in this discussion may disagree and are passionate" does not mean you have to go in pre-emptively assuming everybody disagrees with you and will hate you for your beliefs, or whatever it is you're doing. Believe me or not, I'm being honest when I say I think that's an ineffective strategy.
Also, to be clear, you have made the assumption that I am a liberal who disagrees with your foreign policy positions. I do not think that is an accurate assessment, which is part of why I think the strategy of going in hot under the assumption everybody is going to be angry is a bad one.
if i didn't engage with the people who had already decided to hate me, a socialist, i would do very little engaging
as soon as you get outside the liberal consensus the hostility becomes so overwhelming and omnidirectional that you stop registering it. so all of this "how dare a jacobin article be mean to me personally" becomes very hard to sympathise with
There isn’t a single person here who hates you, even less so because you’re a socialist.
Maybe we could all work to view each other as allies here.
we're not allies though. you guys believe in american imperialism, a thing i oppose
Leaving aside that your post appears to be directed at me after I agreed that expansion of military aid sent to other goverments was a bad thing, sure, you can decide that we're enemies.
What are you going to do with that decision made, and what do you think I'm going to do with the information you think I'm an enemy? What's the end goal of making that "relationship" explicit, w.r.t. convincing people here of your views?
just because we're not allies doesn't mean we're "enemies", the relationship between socialists and liberals is much more complex than that
all i'm doing is trying to be honest about the fact that a conflict exists. i don't think that ignoring it is going to be especially conducive to discussion. whether the fact of conflict makes us mad at each other or not is kind of irrelevant - the conflict exists, we're going to get mad about it, pretending it doesn't exist will in no way prevent us from getting mad about it
I agree that a conflict exists. However, I disagree that getting mad is necessary or guaranteed, and think that going in pre-emptively mad and viewing people as hating you or people who can't possibly be allies is self-defeating and abrasive. "People in this discussion may disagree and are passionate" does not mean you have to go in pre-emptively assuming everybody disagrees with you and will hate you for your beliefs, or whatever it is you're doing. Believe me or not, I'm being honest when I say I think that's an ineffective strategy.
Also, to be clear, you have made the assumption that I am a liberal who disagrees with your foreign policy positions. I do not think that is an accurate assessment, which is part of why I think the strategy of going in hot under the assumption everybody is going to be angry is a bad one.
i didn't totally pick this up before, and could have clarified it a couple of posts ago, but i see now that you understood the first post i made to be referring to you specifically
that's not what i was thinking at all. when i said "people who've already decided to hate me" i wasn't referring to you or anyone else in this thread. but i can see why you would read it that way
I'm theoretically in favor of being interventionist world police with our fingers in all the pies.
If there's going to be a shady hegemonic world power, it may as well be the US if the only alternatives are China and/or Russia.
It'd be nice if we could ditch the shady part and maybe stop murdering innocent people then fudging the numbers to ourselves. And supporting and empowering the shittiest actors in certain regions at the expense of our own reputation and the well-being of said regions.
yeah gotta say that the "there will be a shady hegemonic world power, so it might as well be us" argument sounds dubious at best, and seems designed to justify the current status of the US as said power. (And it's also frequently employed to ignore or downplay the atrocities you mention.)
ignoring the seriously questionable premise that the only option is one hegemonic world power for a moment, why should it be the US? what exactly is it that is supposed to make us believe that the US being the shady hegemonic world power is for the best? Looking at the state of the world, it sure doesn't look like US domination is a good thing.
Fine since I figure no one really is I am going to read through the Jacobin article and critique. I want to start I would not consider the Jacobin as central repository for International Studies/Relations theory. In fact I would be put good money that I doubt most folks are following marxist or neo-marxist analysis but if I see some I will pull it in.
Second this is my wheel house. International studies is my masters. Specifically comparative politics. I tend towards the school of thought that is called the English School. It is a mix of legalism with a heavy of focus on norms and legal frameworks with a base understanding of realism that tends to accept that countries work within the confines of rational self interest. And an acceptance that sometimes powerful individuals can throw some assumptions on their head as they choose to work outside frameworks or override the traditional self interest a country has historically displayed.
Perhaps more importantly, Warren has so far declined to co-sponsor SJ Res. 11, known as the “Prohibiting Unauthorized Military Action in Venezuela Resolution of 2019.” This bill would ban “department or agency funding from being used to introduce armed forces into hostilities with Venezuela, except pursuant to a specific statutory authorization by Congress enacted after this joint resolution.” In contrast to Warren, fellow presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–VT) is cosponsoring the resolution. And like Warren, Sens Cory Booker (D–NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D–NY) and Kamala Harris (D–CA) are not cosponsoring.
First up on Venezuela this isn't actually true. She is a cosponsor on the resolution. On top of that there is no way a president currently could use any active authorization who commit to military action against Venezuela. But even so that hasn't stopped Trump from trying to do such things in the past. This is an empty attack. On top of that there is a statement earlier on the use of sanctions and the cost which does tend to fall on the populace for general verse targeted sanctions. The current economic ills of Venezuela are not due to sanctions. The sanctions have put pressure on those most likely to institute change (military and intelligence areas) to consider it but again this hasn't really changed things. Venezuela is complex and I fill this article critically missing the background about why Venezuela is where it is. There aren't a good answer here but the best answer is probably around South American countries helping move towards a negotiated transition of power with help and guarantees of aid from places like the US. I feel analyzing this attack leads to it not holding water.
So on North Korea. I actually agree with Warren the Singapore summit did not move the needle towards the official signing of a peace treaty and moving past the current armistice on the Pennisula. Also it hasn't moved us any close to denuclearization of the peninsula. And the worry that Trump will give something away to allow his ego to be boosted it legitimate. The largest driver for any peace though is President Moon. Who is currently instead fighting with Japan and the US has stepped back so much there is a good chance the cleavage between the two will lead to a very ugly break between the two countries. An alliance critical for the region. I disagree with nothing Warren has said on this and talking a specific peace activist from Hawaii does not feel me with full competence. The Korean negotiations are difficult and highly involved with at minimum 5 parties. And after listening to actual diplomats who have worked on those negotiations the obstacle is less us more the regime. I find this attack also not holding water when incorporating the complexity of the negotiations or the fact currently they are actually being more pushed by SK.
I don't want to touch the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Because in my mind there tends to be very few American politicians who sit and try to suss through a century of complex internal politics and what I tend to hear are people trying not to piss of the Israelis or people fully siding with the Palestinians when the actual reality of the negotiations and history is layered and complex and not as simple as your good guys and bad guys. Also I do support the idea the country of Israel has the right to exist. I also fully support there should be a fully independent and successful Palestinian state next to them and a lot of the rhetoric from the US has let Bibi get away with shit, though he fucking hated Obama who did try to hold back aid when Bibi was doing shit. And that the rhetoric that Israel is a completely genocidal regime and people tends to also play into those same hands on the Israeli right. Either way I disagree with this section fully and rather not drag this thread into an Israel/Palestinian hole which isn't useful.
Yemen is a softball and I feel they are talking to a Bernie staffer. Also the Yemen shit is tied to MBS and Congress has tried over and over again to pull funding. Even Republicans.
Iran seems fine. Iran is complex but also if we were still in the Nuclear Deal we wouldn't be in the current hole we are and instead I would hope we would be at the negotiation table for other activities Iran does sponsor or commit while trying to help normalize relations and bringing Iran into the World community where treaties and norms could exhibit positive pressure. Also I am almost 100% on the fuck the Saudis train.
I am laughing at the military industrial complex part. I mean I work in it so yeah I see it from the inside. But a senator going for bat for something her state? Yeah sure. I can give a pass on that. There is a reason why production of the F-35 is like broken up across 35 states. Its military so its bad. But it is also good paying union jobs so yeah? Welcome to a rather establish system. Her no nuke first policy is a good one. Overall again this feel like an attack for most folks with no teeth.
This last part is just face palming. Sure let's dismantle the military. Cool. In a world where countries work in tandem and not personal rational self interest that makes senses. That world doesn't exist and won't for my lifetime or probably many generations. The military is bloated. And could be cut a lot. I know this personally working in it. At the same time it can be used a positive driving force. It is so large it does set standards. Moving the military to carbon neutral is basically a huge push to change standards overall.
So all in all I find this article is kind of crap. It reads like someone who is promoting Bernie not taking an actual look at foreign policy that Warren has presented. Gives minimal contrast outside of saying "BERNIE IS BETTER!" in so many words which is what I expect from the Jacobin as it is very much pushing for Bernie. And overall the attacks made will hold little to no water for most folks outside a small subsection who have on this board said they do hold water.
But I read it. I analyzed it. And I gave you a large write up.
And I even gave you where I base my views and my background. I wouldn't mind a similar style rebuttal.
Posts
I think there is room to recognize both a trend and to recognize the personal responsibility each president has in needing to avert the growth of said trend, and to then project that into our choices moving forward in determining candidates who will be more likely to avert the chance of that trend progressing ever further.
PRIMARY
He did try to limit the AUMF and Congress blocked it. Drone use was expanded under his administration, though you could make an argument that Bush was only limited because the technology was still emerging while he was in office. You could also make an argument that Obama’s policy towards Russia could have been harsher, especially after Bush’s weak response to the invasion of Georgia, which only embolden Putin to take Crimea. The sanctions are fierce to be sure, but Obama put too much faith the GOP put country over party.
Obviously Obama’s foreign policy is better than Bush and Trump, but I want more than just Obama’s with a fresh coat of paint.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I think an article worth taking seriously would not pretend like it was the responsibility of one President or ignore that Congress bears an equal (if not arguably larger) portion of the blame.
If there are points brought up that find particularly compelling there’s nothing stopping you from pulling them out.
To be completely honest, I’m not a socialist like that author and so I really don’t feel the need to read his article.
The quote actually links to this article from The Intercept.
Feel free to critique it. I'm no expert, but it seems true that Obama did significantly expand presidential powers to make war. He wasn't the only one to do so, of course. But I think reading the Jacobin article as claiming so is uncharitable. It feels like a pretty natural way of pointing out that the last president helped make the office of president the most powerful yet.
look, if you want a "DISCLAIMER: Democrats are not as bad as Republicans" banner on every article, say so. but don't just refuse to engage with things until you get that banner.
Hey, I was just reading what the quote said.
Why am I in any way obligated to read it in the first place? I get it, the socialist party is basically never satisfied with what the Democratic Party does. Or at least it sure seems that way, and I’m just not particularly in the mood to read yet another article telling me how much the rest of us suck.
That’s not to say that I don’t want to hear criticism of Democrats when they deserve it, and parts of Obama’s foreign policy deserve it. But I don’t have any sort of responsibility to read that article.
I was under the impression that it had a brocialist rep?
The issue I have, inasmuch as you could call it an "issue" and not "vague feeling of annoyance", is that focusing heavily on how unacceptably awful the left but-not-socialist politics of the United States are seems to create a Loudness War effect; if less-interventionist foreign policy or more wonkish healthcare proposals or whatever are painted as unacceptably or apocalyptically bad, if the amplitude is already maxed out, it's sets up a situation in which it's impossible to believe that Republicans are viewed as meaningfully worse because you can't really go far below 0% acceptable or much worse than apocalyptic. Usage of this sort of rhetoric makes me wonder whether the people doing so would actually pull the lever for anybody but Sanders in the general election, because voting for somebody who is "unacceptable" certainly doesn't seem to square.
I have this similar vague feeling of annoyance from leftist content creators who I generally agree with and who spread a message of positivity and cooperation, but who seem to primarily follow and signal boost this sort of apocalyptic and negative rhetoric against Warren in particular. So my issue is less "what about Republicans" and more "do people actually believe that Warren is so close to as bad as the Republicans that she justifies being treated in a way that rhetorically casts her as identical to them?"
This is also-also why I find the dirtbag left, or whatever they're called, distasteful; by treating everybody in disagreement with them as a nearly equal enemy, they come across as less sincerely looking to create a socialist/communist/whatever society and more as looking for targets they can feel righteous about attacking.
God forbid you read a criticism of a candidate that doesn't come from a liberal? You guys found the first thing you could quibble with and are using it as an excuse to not grapple with her foreign policy.
Its fine. Some socialists like it, some don't, some have opinions, some don't. Basically how it is with any media.
This is bullshit and you know it.
None of that gives anyone pause? Her votes on defense authorization bills under Trump? She backed Brennan's CIA nomination.
That sentence is such a ridiculous misrepresentation of what actually happened between Trump and North Korea I feel embarrassed for the author. That is some Fox News level bullshit.
Nobody is under any obligation to read any article linked in here. However, posting to say "I'm not going to read that article" is not really conducive to discussion.
I apologize, I wasn’t trying to just post that I wasn’t willing to read it. Mostly explaining why I hadn’t when Styro started asking why we weren’t discussing it more in depth.
If there's going to be a shady hegemonic world power, it may as well be the US if the only alternatives are China and/or Russia.
It'd be nice if we could ditch the shady part and maybe stop murdering innocent people then fudging the numbers to ourselves. And supporting and empowering the shittiest actors in certain regions at the expense of our own reputation and the well-being of said regions.
That's shitty, yes. But to connect it to my point above, the way in which you discuss this ("None of that gives anyone pause?") comes across as at least equally interested in righteous outrage against people who disagree with you as it does in actual discussion. It is not possible (and, imo, not useful) to discard the rhetorical style from the substance of the disagreement. I'd be perfectly happy digging into an article with some points highlighted by somebody who wanted to be critical of whoever, but I'm going to be far less enthused about digging into an article where my impression is that the person discussing it has already decided to be really mad at me.
E: To connect it to the mod post, if you wish for people to read Jacobin and seriously consider its points, it is unlikely you will do that by posturing in a way that indicates you view the people you are talking to as enemies.
I don't view anyone as enemies. Its, well no baffling, but extremely frustrating when people talk about specific issues and quotes and provide links about how Warren has a less than good foreign policy record and platform and we're treated to a ton of quibbling about how the article mentions Obama!
Foreign policy quite simply does not get taken seriously enough in terms of the actual cost of human lives.
Answer: Because some of us don't agree/think that.
Maybe use better words and arguments then.
For instance, don't call it quibbling.
For instance, saying those who disagree with you aren't taking FP seriously is a dead end statement leading to hostile back-and-forth.
as soon as you get outside the liberal consensus the hostility becomes so overwhelming and omnidirectional that you stop registering it. so all of this "how dare a jacobin article be mean to me personally" becomes very hard to sympathise with
edit: this line of "i would agree with you if you just used nicer rhetoric" is concern trolling. there's real disagreements about foreign policy here, it's not just about being polite to each other. we're not on the same side in this area and we shouldn't pretend there isn't a conflict
There isn’t a single person here who hates you, even less so because you’re a socialist.
Maybe we could all work to view each other as allies here.
we're not allies though. you guys believe in american imperialism, a thing i oppose
Having a difference of belief means you and someone else disagree.
You can still be an ally with someone you disagree with. You don’t need to take it to this level of hostility over this kind of difference.
Then state them clearly instead doing what you're doing. If I was talking about just being polite this thread would be locked from reports long ago, so maybe try a little harder.
When we actually talk about FP, which has happened a little in the past many pages, there have been* disagreements and it was completely fine. We don't have to 100% agree at all.
Leaving aside that your post appears to be directed at me after I agreed that expansion of military aid sent to other goverments was a bad thing, sure, you can decide that we're enemies.
What are you going to do with that decision made, and what do you think I'm going to do with the information you think I'm an enemy? What's the end goal of making that "relationship" explicit, w.r.t. convincing people here of your views?
just because we're not allies doesn't mean we're "enemies", the relationship between socialists and liberals is much more complex than that
all i'm doing is trying to be honest about the fact that a conflict exists. i don't think that ignoring it is going to be especially conducive to discussion. whether the fact of conflict makes us mad at each other or not is kind of irrelevant - the conflict exists, we're going to get mad about it, pretending it doesn't exist will in no way prevent us from getting mad about it
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I agree that a conflict exists. However, I disagree that getting mad is necessary or guaranteed, and think that going in pre-emptively mad and viewing people as hating you or people who can't possibly be allies is self-defeating and abrasive. "People in this discussion may disagree and are passionate" does not mean you have to go in pre-emptively assuming everybody disagrees with you and will hate you for your beliefs, or whatever it is you're doing. Believe me or not, I'm being honest when I say I think that's an ineffective strategy.
Also, to be clear, you have made the assumption that I am a liberal who disagrees with your foreign policy positions. I do not think that is an accurate assessment, which is part of why I think the strategy of going in hot under the assumption everybody is going to be angry is a bad one.
i didn't totally pick this up before, and could have clarified it a couple of posts ago, but i see now that you understood the first post i made to be referring to you specifically
that's not what i was thinking at all. when i said "people who've already decided to hate me" i wasn't referring to you or anyone else in this thread. but i can see why you would read it that way
yeah gotta say that the "there will be a shady hegemonic world power, so it might as well be us" argument sounds dubious at best, and seems designed to justify the current status of the US as said power. (And it's also frequently employed to ignore or downplay the atrocities you mention.)
ignoring the seriously questionable premise that the only option is one hegemonic world power for a moment, why should it be the US? what exactly is it that is supposed to make us believe that the US being the shady hegemonic world power is for the best? Looking at the state of the world, it sure doesn't look like US domination is a good thing.
Second this is my wheel house. International studies is my masters. Specifically comparative politics. I tend towards the school of thought that is called the English School. It is a mix of legalism with a heavy of focus on norms and legal frameworks with a base understanding of realism that tends to accept that countries work within the confines of rational self interest. And an acceptance that sometimes powerful individuals can throw some assumptions on their head as they choose to work outside frameworks or override the traditional self interest a country has historically displayed.
First up on Venezuela this isn't actually true. She is a cosponsor on the resolution. On top of that there is no way a president currently could use any active authorization who commit to military action against Venezuela. But even so that hasn't stopped Trump from trying to do such things in the past. This is an empty attack. On top of that there is a statement earlier on the use of sanctions and the cost which does tend to fall on the populace for general verse targeted sanctions. The current economic ills of Venezuela are not due to sanctions. The sanctions have put pressure on those most likely to institute change (military and intelligence areas) to consider it but again this hasn't really changed things. Venezuela is complex and I fill this article critically missing the background about why Venezuela is where it is. There aren't a good answer here but the best answer is probably around South American countries helping move towards a negotiated transition of power with help and guarantees of aid from places like the US. I feel analyzing this attack leads to it not holding water.
The bill mentioned btw:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/11/cosponsors
So on North Korea. I actually agree with Warren the Singapore summit did not move the needle towards the official signing of a peace treaty and moving past the current armistice on the Pennisula. Also it hasn't moved us any close to denuclearization of the peninsula. And the worry that Trump will give something away to allow his ego to be boosted it legitimate. The largest driver for any peace though is President Moon. Who is currently instead fighting with Japan and the US has stepped back so much there is a good chance the cleavage between the two will lead to a very ugly break between the two countries. An alliance critical for the region. I disagree with nothing Warren has said on this and talking a specific peace activist from Hawaii does not feel me with full competence. The Korean negotiations are difficult and highly involved with at minimum 5 parties. And after listening to actual diplomats who have worked on those negotiations the obstacle is less us more the regime. I find this attack also not holding water when incorporating the complexity of the negotiations or the fact currently they are actually being more pushed by SK.
I don't want to touch the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Because in my mind there tends to be very few American politicians who sit and try to suss through a century of complex internal politics and what I tend to hear are people trying not to piss of the Israelis or people fully siding with the Palestinians when the actual reality of the negotiations and history is layered and complex and not as simple as your good guys and bad guys. Also I do support the idea the country of Israel has the right to exist. I also fully support there should be a fully independent and successful Palestinian state next to them and a lot of the rhetoric from the US has let Bibi get away with shit, though he fucking hated Obama who did try to hold back aid when Bibi was doing shit. And that the rhetoric that Israel is a completely genocidal regime and people tends to also play into those same hands on the Israeli right. Either way I disagree with this section fully and rather not drag this thread into an Israel/Palestinian hole which isn't useful.
Yemen is a softball and I feel they are talking to a Bernie staffer. Also the Yemen shit is tied to MBS and Congress has tried over and over again to pull funding. Even Republicans.
Iran seems fine. Iran is complex but also if we were still in the Nuclear Deal we wouldn't be in the current hole we are and instead I would hope we would be at the negotiation table for other activities Iran does sponsor or commit while trying to help normalize relations and bringing Iran into the World community where treaties and norms could exhibit positive pressure. Also I am almost 100% on the fuck the Saudis train.
I am laughing at the military industrial complex part. I mean I work in it so yeah I see it from the inside. But a senator going for bat for something her state? Yeah sure. I can give a pass on that. There is a reason why production of the F-35 is like broken up across 35 states. Its military so its bad. But it is also good paying union jobs so yeah? Welcome to a rather establish system. Her no nuke first policy is a good one. Overall again this feel like an attack for most folks with no teeth.
This last part is just face palming. Sure let's dismantle the military. Cool. In a world where countries work in tandem and not personal rational self interest that makes senses. That world doesn't exist and won't for my lifetime or probably many generations. The military is bloated. And could be cut a lot. I know this personally working in it. At the same time it can be used a positive driving force. It is so large it does set standards. Moving the military to carbon neutral is basically a huge push to change standards overall.
So all in all I find this article is kind of crap. It reads like someone who is promoting Bernie not taking an actual look at foreign policy that Warren has presented. Gives minimal contrast outside of saying "BERNIE IS BETTER!" in so many words which is what I expect from the Jacobin as it is very much pushing for Bernie. And overall the attacks made will hold little to no water for most folks outside a small subsection who have on this board said they do hold water.
But I read it. I analyzed it. And I gave you a large write up.
And I even gave you where I base my views and my background. I wouldn't mind a similar style rebuttal.