As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[US Foreign Policy] is still practicing drone diplomacy

1565759616265

Posts

  • Typhoid MannyTyphoid Manny Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    America's foreign policy is notably bipartisan in support

    It's far more complicated than that. here are policies which are bipartisan but why Democrats and Republicans do something its not exclusively for the same reasons and changes from person to person and that's just politicians. This gets more varied when is about the American public, it's not like being against American backed rigged elections and coups is controversial in Democratic circles, that's just being a Democrat. This is why liberals hated Dubya for so long with his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we hated what that fucker did with a thousands suns and we weren't quiet about it; the same goes for Trump.

    Do you think Democrats liked Trump's foreign policy?

    a lot of them applauded him when he illegally bombed syria, yes

    from each according to his ability, to each according to his need
    hitting hot metal with hammers
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited June 17
    Solar wrote: »
    America's foreign policy is notably bipartisan in support

    It's far more complicated than that. here are policies which are bipartisan but why Democrats and Republicans do something its not exclusively for the same reasons and changes from person to person and that's just politicians. This gets more varied when is about the American public, it's not like being against American backed rigged elections and coups is controversial in Democratic circles, that's just being a Democrat. This is why liberals hated Dubya for so long with his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we hated what that fucker did with a thousands suns and we weren't quiet about it; the same goes for Trump.

    Do you think Democrats liked Trump's foreign policy?
    What. Your entire party voted for the Afghanistan war and the Global War of Terror. I guess you can point to Barbara Lee as the only smart one? And like half of the Democrats in the Senate voted for Iraq too. Can't pin all that on Bush or the GOP, especially when the Democrats keep nominating Iraq War supporters to lead their party. Sometimes it's worth clamping down on that partisan defense reflex.

    As for Biden's statement, it's dumb but exactly what I'd expect, and probably isn't worth analyzing or arguing against. It's some empty propaganda statement for the press, who cares?

    Kaputa on
    OneAngryPossumMosatiMagell
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    What. Your entire party voted for the Afghanistan war and the Global War of Terror. I guess you can point to Barbara Lee as the only smart one? And like half of the Democrats in the Senate voted for Iraq too. Can't pin all that on Bush or the GOP, especially when the Democrats keep nominating Iraq War supporters to lead their party. Sometimes it's worth clamping down on that partisan defense reflex.

    It was hardly difficult to see why Democrats wouldn't vote for Afghanistan after 9/11, no country on Earth wouldn't retaliate like that after a terrors attack which murdered 2,996 on live tv. What should they have done instead?

    This erases the context for what that terrors attack did to the national psyche of the country and how Dubya's administration successfully exploited that for years because they weren't fuck up's like Trump with propaganda. Iraq was far harder in moving pas congress and they crossed that finish line since they still had the country by the balls with 9/11 sentiment. Iraq wasn't given a blank check by every Democrat, that was the media, and politicians who have any self preservation skills will sign on from the political pressure - which Hillary is infamous for. It's been so long people have forgotten how badly the attack changed America culture. The Iraq war vote was a disaster for the Democrats since, especially those who weren't professionals in the party. The Iraq war wasn't popular with liberals.

    Why wouldn't Dubya and the GOP not get the majority for the blame? With them there is no Iraq, and they milked 9/11 for everything hey would with no hesitation, it was shameless and they knew how to maintain that edge for the majority of Dubya's tenure. Were you there for that? I was. The propaganda made Rudy "America's Mayor," despite doing nothing - that's how strong it was. They cooked the books, they presented the case with Colin Powell, which every Democrat didn't just accept without thinking for five seconds.

    Democrats nominated those people since they're politicians who were established in the party and had national relevance, the fact they voted for Iraq is something they played down and try to forget it didn't define them to their base like the GOP's. Which they apologised for, can't say that for Republicans.

    It's not like the Democrats were in lock step with the War on Terror, how the Republicans ran it is a big problem for Democrats of all stripes.

    "Partisan defense" comes with far more complexity than what's being described. It's not just about a vote, is what evens lead to that vote, the ramifications on the party for that vote and the whole party's reaction to those events - which involve millions of people with individual opinions. Democrats aren't angels with this and have numerous horrid decisions with foreign policy; what they aren't are Republican lapdogs. They weren't Tony "America's poodle" Blair.



    OrcaGnome-Interruptus
  • KelorKelor Registered User regular
    Hillary didn't admit to her vote being a mistake until she released her book in 2014 in the lead up to her 2016 presidential run. She had been hammered on it by Obama during the 2008 primaries, knew it was a loser of an issue and that she was going to get called out on it again so she got out in front of it.

    She either voted on it because she got conned like a rube by a duplicitous White House or because she knew that she was a senator of a state that had suffered a severe and highly public terrorist attack and made the cold calculated decision that her political career could not survive a vote against it knowing millions could be dead as a result of that.


    Biden was one of the leading voices in the ramp up to the war. He ran a series of commitee hearings, coordinated with the White House and made sure that few voices of opposition were called forth. Scott Ritter famously, the previous inspector who had voices scepticism towards Iraq having WMDs was not named. Several European figures who had voiced concerns or questioned the authenticity of the evidence were also not included. After the hearings, he went on talk shows and promoted a stance of aggression towards Iraq, claiming it was not a rush to war but a "march to peace and security."
    In an interview hours after Powell’s speech, Biden appeared on CNN and was asked, “Did Secretary of State Powell today close the deal in your mind to those who at least have an open mind about the situation in Iraq?”

    “Absolutely,” Biden said. “He made a compelling case. The predominance of the evidence, the pure weight of the evidence, I think anyone. … Let me put it this way, if I were back practicing law I can’t imagine I could not convince an open-minded jury of the facts that he presented as having been true.”

    Biden insisted, however, that “we may be a step closer to peace. … The ball, as they say, is in Saddam’s court. … The security council’s on the line here. They’re either going to prove they are relevant or irrelevant, because I don’t think any open-minded person could argue that Saddam is not in material breach of the U.N. resolution 1441.”

    He championed the cause, then claimed as recently as 2019 that he was against the war from the start.
    wrote:
    Biden, Sept. 3, 2019] I let my record stand. I think my record has been good. I think the vast majority of the foreign policy community thinks it’s been very good. For example, I got a commitment from President Bush he was not going to go to war in Iraq. He looked me in the eye in the Oval Office; he said he needed the vote to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program. He got them in, and before we know it, we had a shock and awe. Immediately, the moment it started, I came out against the war at that moment. Now, the judgment of my trusting the president to keep his word on something like that, that was a mistake. And I apologize for that.


    In fact, at the time of the vote the majority of Americans did not support immediate military action. A CBS poll from October, 2002.

    Typhoid MannyYamiB.DarkPrimusShadowfireMeeqeMosatiHappy Little Machine
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    The Dems voted for both of those wars in congress

    I think that the Dems didn't like certain details of Trumps' foreign policy, but that the broad strokes weren't that much different from what they do anyway. There are some exceptions. Paris accords. Trump was unusual. But largely? The US' actions to maintain itself as a hegemonic power has bipartisan support. The War on Drugs and War on Terror had large bipartisan support.

    Not really. Trump's foreign policy was notable for straying from the consensus in a lot of ways. Trump wasn't really big on US hegemony in the way the US foreign policy consensus likes.

    DoodmannLord_Asmodeus
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »

    Joe Biden wrote:
    "How would it be if the United States were viewed by the rest of the world as interfering with the elections directly of other countries and everybody knew it? What would it be like if we engaged in activities that he engaged in? It diminishes the standing of a country."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention
    A 2016 study by Dov H. Levin found that, among 938 global elections examined the United States and Russia (including its predecessor, the Soviet Union) combined had involved themselves in about one out of nine (117), with the majority of those (68%) being through covert, rather than overt, actions.
    According to the study, the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36. A 2018 study by Levin found that the electoral interventions determined in "many cases" the identity of the winner. The study also found suggestive evidence that the interventions increased the risk of democratic breakdown in the targeted states.

    And that’s before you wade into the regime change side of supporting dictators, training deathsquads, overthrowing democratically elected governments...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

    Yeah, I can’t even fucking fathom what that looks like, Joe. You sanctimonious asshole.

    For a thread of people fancying themselves as politically savvy this is an incredibly naive take on what's happening in this speech.

    If that is what helps you sleep at night, you can burnish that take all you want.

    What this is is yet another whitewashing of it’s history by the nation that leads the world in overthrowing governments through interfering with their elections or overt or varying degrees of covert violence by an old white man who was an elected official throughout much of it’s interference in South America, a leading voice in one of it’s major elected bodies including the invasion of Iraq and Vice President as it ran a coup in Honduras just over a decade ago.

    And the leader of a party that last week condemned a young Muslim woman who had the gall to call her government to task for it’s history.

    What, you expected the US President to stand up in front of world and say "Yo, we suck!"?? Please. This is just ridiculously naive.

    Of course the the US President is saying this kind of shit. What else was he gonna say?

    Except this is almost exactly how Trump became the GOP nominee. So yes, it's probably not a bad strategy.

    Instead of sounding smart he either sounds naive himself or is lying to us presuming we're too stupid to know the history of US foreign policy.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    GrpAhic DeiGn is My PAssIon
    mrondeauTyphoid MannyDee KaeHappy Little Machine
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »

    Joe Biden wrote:
    "How would it be if the United States were viewed by the rest of the world as interfering with the elections directly of other countries and everybody knew it? What would it be like if we engaged in activities that he engaged in? It diminishes the standing of a country."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention
    A 2016 study by Dov H. Levin found that, among 938 global elections examined the United States and Russia (including its predecessor, the Soviet Union) combined had involved themselves in about one out of nine (117), with the majority of those (68%) being through covert, rather than overt, actions.
    According to the study, the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36. A 2018 study by Levin found that the electoral interventions determined in "many cases" the identity of the winner. The study also found suggestive evidence that the interventions increased the risk of democratic breakdown in the targeted states.

    And that’s before you wade into the regime change side of supporting dictators, training deathsquads, overthrowing democratically elected governments...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

    Yeah, I can’t even fucking fathom what that looks like, Joe. You sanctimonious asshole.

    For a thread of people fancying themselves as politically savvy this is an incredibly naive take on what's happening in this speech.

    If that is what helps you sleep at night, you can burnish that take all you want.

    What this is is yet another whitewashing of it’s history by the nation that leads the world in overthrowing governments through interfering with their elections or overt or varying degrees of covert violence by an old white man who was an elected official throughout much of it’s interference in South America, a leading voice in one of it’s major elected bodies including the invasion of Iraq and Vice President as it ran a coup in Honduras just over a decade ago.

    And the leader of a party that last week condemned a young Muslim woman who had the gall to call her government to task for it’s history.

    What, you expected the US President to stand up in front of world and say "Yo, we suck!"?? Please. This is just ridiculously naive.

    Of course the the US President is saying this kind of shit. What else was he gonna say?

    Except this is almost exactly how Trump became the GOP nominee. So yes, it's probably not a bad strategy.

    Instead of sounding smart he either sounds naive himself or is lying to us presuming we're too stupid to know the history of US foreign policy.

    Do you think that works for a Democrat running in a primary? Or for a Democratic US president talking to everyone, including people internationally? Did it really even work for Donald Trump or was it just not disqualifying, like so many other things he did and said?

    No, there's no evidence that would be a good strategy, especially for a Democrat. Again, hypocrisy doesn't matter here. "But the US did X" is irrelevant, both rhetorically and to the actual issue he's addressing.

    electricitylikesmeMarathonElvenshaezagdrobMazzyxLord_AsmodeusDonnictonNo-QuarterGnome-InterruptusAim
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »

    Joe Biden wrote:
    "How would it be if the United States were viewed by the rest of the world as interfering with the elections directly of other countries and everybody knew it? What would it be like if we engaged in activities that he engaged in? It diminishes the standing of a country."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention
    A 2016 study by Dov H. Levin found that, among 938 global elections examined the United States and Russia (including its predecessor, the Soviet Union) combined had involved themselves in about one out of nine (117), with the majority of those (68%) being through covert, rather than overt, actions.
    According to the study, the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36. A 2018 study by Levin found that the electoral interventions determined in "many cases" the identity of the winner. The study also found suggestive evidence that the interventions increased the risk of democratic breakdown in the targeted states.

    And that’s before you wade into the regime change side of supporting dictators, training deathsquads, overthrowing democratically elected governments...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

    Yeah, I can’t even fucking fathom what that looks like, Joe. You sanctimonious asshole.

    For a thread of people fancying themselves as politically savvy this is an incredibly naive take on what's happening in this speech.

    If that is what helps you sleep at night, you can burnish that take all you want.

    What this is is yet another whitewashing of it’s history by the nation that leads the world in overthrowing governments through interfering with their elections or overt or varying degrees of covert violence by an old white man who was an elected official throughout much of it’s interference in South America, a leading voice in one of it’s major elected bodies including the invasion of Iraq and Vice President as it ran a coup in Honduras just over a decade ago.

    And the leader of a party that last week condemned a young Muslim woman who had the gall to call her government to task for it’s history.

    What, you expected the US President to stand up in front of world and say "Yo, we suck!"?? Please. This is just ridiculously naive.

    Of course the the US President is saying this kind of shit. What else was he gonna say?

    Except this is almost exactly how Trump became the GOP nominee. So yes, it's probably not a bad strategy.

    Instead of sounding smart he either sounds naive himself or is lying to us presuming we're too stupid to know the history of US foreign policy.

    Do you think that works for a Democrat running in a primary? Or for a Democratic US president talking to everyone, including people internationally? Did it really even work for Donald Trump or was it just not disqualifying, like so many other things he did and said?

    No, there's no evidence that would be a good strategy, especially for a Democrat. Again, hypocrisy doesn't matter here. "But the US did X" is irrelevant, both rhetorically and to the actual issue he's addressing.

    "The US did X" is very relevant when the whole speech is about how X is so horrible that it's inconceivable that the US would do it.
    Biden harmed the credibility of the US when pretending to ignore the history of electoral interference.

    Styrofoam SammichDarkPrimusBandableYamiB.kimeCaedwyrDee KaeMagellHappy Little Machine
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    edited June 17
    mrondeau wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »

    Joe Biden wrote:
    "How would it be if the United States were viewed by the rest of the world as interfering with the elections directly of other countries and everybody knew it? What would it be like if we engaged in activities that he engaged in? It diminishes the standing of a country."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention
    A 2016 study by Dov H. Levin found that, among 938 global elections examined the United States and Russia (including its predecessor, the Soviet Union) combined had involved themselves in about one out of nine (117), with the majority of those (68%) being through covert, rather than overt, actions.
    According to the study, the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36. A 2018 study by Levin found that the electoral interventions determined in "many cases" the identity of the winner. The study also found suggestive evidence that the interventions increased the risk of democratic breakdown in the targeted states.

    And that’s before you wade into the regime change side of supporting dictators, training deathsquads, overthrowing democratically elected governments...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

    Yeah, I can’t even fucking fathom what that looks like, Joe. You sanctimonious asshole.

    For a thread of people fancying themselves as politically savvy this is an incredibly naive take on what's happening in this speech.

    If that is what helps you sleep at night, you can burnish that take all you want.

    What this is is yet another whitewashing of it’s history by the nation that leads the world in overthrowing governments through interfering with their elections or overt or varying degrees of covert violence by an old white man who was an elected official throughout much of it’s interference in South America, a leading voice in one of it’s major elected bodies including the invasion of Iraq and Vice President as it ran a coup in Honduras just over a decade ago.

    And the leader of a party that last week condemned a young Muslim woman who had the gall to call her government to task for it’s history.

    What, you expected the US President to stand up in front of world and say "Yo, we suck!"?? Please. This is just ridiculously naive.

    Of course the the US President is saying this kind of shit. What else was he gonna say?

    Except this is almost exactly how Trump became the GOP nominee. So yes, it's probably not a bad strategy.

    Instead of sounding smart he either sounds naive himself or is lying to us presuming we're too stupid to know the history of US foreign policy.

    Do you think that works for a Democrat running in a primary? Or for a Democratic US president talking to everyone, including people internationally? Did it really even work for Donald Trump or was it just not disqualifying, like so many other things he did and said?

    No, there's no evidence that would be a good strategy, especially for a Democrat. Again, hypocrisy doesn't matter here. "But the US did X" is irrelevant, both rhetorically and to the actual issue he's addressing.

    "The US did X" is very relevant when the whole speech is about how X is so horrible that it's inconceivable that the US would do it.
    Biden harmed the credibility of the US when pretending to ignore the history of electoral interference.

    He didn’t harm US credibility because there aren’t a bunch of other countries putting out press releases to remind the world what the US did in the past.

    Biden isn’t going to deliberately undermine his point, because while it is true that the US has done things similar in the past, it’s also still true that Russia is doing what it can to influence our election and the last time it worked we ended up with the worst president in modern history.

    He’s also not going to undermine his own point, because the vast majority of people in the US neither know, nor care that the US did what it did. The only people I’ve seen raise an eyebrow at his response are people that follow politics obsessively.

    Marathon on
    shrykeLord_AsmodeuselectricitylikesmeSmrtnikGnome-Interruptus
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »

    Joe Biden wrote:
    "How would it be if the United States were viewed by the rest of the world as interfering with the elections directly of other countries and everybody knew it? What would it be like if we engaged in activities that he engaged in? It diminishes the standing of a country."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention
    A 2016 study by Dov H. Levin found that, among 938 global elections examined the United States and Russia (including its predecessor, the Soviet Union) combined had involved themselves in about one out of nine (117), with the majority of those (68%) being through covert, rather than overt, actions.
    According to the study, the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36. A 2018 study by Levin found that the electoral interventions determined in "many cases" the identity of the winner. The study also found suggestive evidence that the interventions increased the risk of democratic breakdown in the targeted states.

    And that’s before you wade into the regime change side of supporting dictators, training deathsquads, overthrowing democratically elected governments...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

    Yeah, I can’t even fucking fathom what that looks like, Joe. You sanctimonious asshole.

    For a thread of people fancying themselves as politically savvy this is an incredibly naive take on what's happening in this speech.

    If that is what helps you sleep at night, you can burnish that take all you want.

    What this is is yet another whitewashing of it’s history by the nation that leads the world in overthrowing governments through interfering with their elections or overt or varying degrees of covert violence by an old white man who was an elected official throughout much of it’s interference in South America, a leading voice in one of it’s major elected bodies including the invasion of Iraq and Vice President as it ran a coup in Honduras just over a decade ago.

    And the leader of a party that last week condemned a young Muslim woman who had the gall to call her government to task for it’s history.

    What, you expected the US President to stand up in front of world and say "Yo, we suck!"?? Please. This is just ridiculously naive.

    Of course the the US President is saying this kind of shit. What else was he gonna say?

    Except this is almost exactly how Trump became the GOP nominee. So yes, it's probably not a bad strategy.

    Instead of sounding smart he either sounds naive himself or is lying to us presuming we're too stupid to know the history of US foreign policy.

    Do you think that works for a Democrat running in a primary? Or for a Democratic US president talking to everyone, including people internationally? Did it really even work for Donald Trump or was it just not disqualifying, like so many other things he did and said?

    No, there's no evidence that would be a good strategy, especially for a Democrat. Again, hypocrisy doesn't matter here. "But the US did X" is irrelevant, both rhetorically and to the actual issue he's addressing.

    "The US did X" is very relevant when the whole speech is about how X is so horrible that it's inconceivable that the US would do it.
    Biden harmed the credibility of the US when pretending to ignore the history of electoral interference.

    He didn’t harm US credibility because there aren’t a bunch of other countries putting out press releases to remind the world what the US did in the past.

    Biden isn’t going to deliberately undermine his point, because while it is true that the US has done things similar in the past, it’s also still true that Russia is doing what it can to influence our election and the last time it worked we ended up with the worst president in modern history.

    He’s also not going to undermine his own point, because the vast majority of people in the US neither know, nor care that the US did what it did. The only people I’ve seen raise an eyebrow at his response are people that follow politics obsessively.
    Biden wrote:
    How would it be if the United States were viewed by the rest of the world as interfering with the elections directly of other countries and everybody knew it? What would it be like if we engaged in activities that he engaged in? It diminishes the standing of a country.
    He's literally saying the rest of the world should hold the US in contempt.

    Typhoid MannyStyrofoam SammichDarkPrimusYamiB.CaedwyrDee KaeMagellHappy Little Machine
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    edited June 17
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »

    Joe Biden wrote:
    "How would it be if the United States were viewed by the rest of the world as interfering with the elections directly of other countries and everybody knew it? What would it be like if we engaged in activities that he engaged in? It diminishes the standing of a country."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention
    A 2016 study by Dov H. Levin found that, among 938 global elections examined the United States and Russia (including its predecessor, the Soviet Union) combined had involved themselves in about one out of nine (117), with the majority of those (68%) being through covert, rather than overt, actions.
    According to the study, the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36. A 2018 study by Levin found that the electoral interventions determined in "many cases" the identity of the winner. The study also found suggestive evidence that the interventions increased the risk of democratic breakdown in the targeted states.

    And that’s before you wade into the regime change side of supporting dictators, training deathsquads, overthrowing democratically elected governments...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

    Yeah, I can’t even fucking fathom what that looks like, Joe. You sanctimonious asshole.

    For a thread of people fancying themselves as politically savvy this is an incredibly naive take on what's happening in this speech.

    If that is what helps you sleep at night, you can burnish that take all you want.

    What this is is yet another whitewashing of it’s history by the nation that leads the world in overthrowing governments through interfering with their elections or overt or varying degrees of covert violence by an old white man who was an elected official throughout much of it’s interference in South America, a leading voice in one of it’s major elected bodies including the invasion of Iraq and Vice President as it ran a coup in Honduras just over a decade ago.

    And the leader of a party that last week condemned a young Muslim woman who had the gall to call her government to task for it’s history.

    What, you expected the US President to stand up in front of world and say "Yo, we suck!"?? Please. This is just ridiculously naive.

    Of course the the US President is saying this kind of shit. What else was he gonna say?

    Except this is almost exactly how Trump became the GOP nominee. So yes, it's probably not a bad strategy.

    Instead of sounding smart he either sounds naive himself or is lying to us presuming we're too stupid to know the history of US foreign policy.

    Do you think that works for a Democrat running in a primary? Or for a Democratic US president talking to everyone, including people internationally? Did it really even work for Donald Trump or was it just not disqualifying, like so many other things he did and said?

    No, there's no evidence that would be a good strategy, especially for a Democrat. Again, hypocrisy doesn't matter here. "But the US did X" is irrelevant, both rhetorically and to the actual issue he's addressing.

    "The US did X" is very relevant when the whole speech is about how X is so horrible that it's inconceivable that the US would do it.
    Biden harmed the credibility of the US when pretending to ignore the history of electoral interference.

    He didn’t harm US credibility because there aren’t a bunch of other countries putting out press releases to remind the world what the US did in the past.

    Biden isn’t going to deliberately undermine his point, because while it is true that the US has done things similar in the past, it’s also still true that Russia is doing what it can to influence our election and the last time it worked we ended up with the worst president in modern history.

    He’s also not going to undermine his own point, because the vast majority of people in the US neither know, nor care that the US did what it did. The only people I’ve seen raise an eyebrow at his response are people that follow politics obsessively.
    Biden wrote:
    How would it be if the United States were viewed by the rest of the world as interfering with the elections directly of other countries and everybody knew it? What would it be like if we engaged in activities that he engaged in? It diminishes the standing of a country.
    He's literally saying the rest of the world should hold the US in contempt.

    Ok, but are they? Doesn’t seem so for most of the rest of the world.

    Marathon on
  • Typhoid MannyTyphoid Manny Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »

    Joe Biden wrote:
    "How would it be if the United States were viewed by the rest of the world as interfering with the elections directly of other countries and everybody knew it? What would it be like if we engaged in activities that he engaged in? It diminishes the standing of a country."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention
    A 2016 study by Dov H. Levin found that, among 938 global elections examined the United States and Russia (including its predecessor, the Soviet Union) combined had involved themselves in about one out of nine (117), with the majority of those (68%) being through covert, rather than overt, actions.
    According to the study, the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36. A 2018 study by Levin found that the electoral interventions determined in "many cases" the identity of the winner. The study also found suggestive evidence that the interventions increased the risk of democratic breakdown in the targeted states.

    And that’s before you wade into the regime change side of supporting dictators, training deathsquads, overthrowing democratically elected governments...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

    Yeah, I can’t even fucking fathom what that looks like, Joe. You sanctimonious asshole.

    For a thread of people fancying themselves as politically savvy this is an incredibly naive take on what's happening in this speech.

    If that is what helps you sleep at night, you can burnish that take all you want.

    What this is is yet another whitewashing of it’s history by the nation that leads the world in overthrowing governments through interfering with their elections or overt or varying degrees of covert violence by an old white man who was an elected official throughout much of it’s interference in South America, a leading voice in one of it’s major elected bodies including the invasion of Iraq and Vice President as it ran a coup in Honduras just over a decade ago.

    And the leader of a party that last week condemned a young Muslim woman who had the gall to call her government to task for it’s history.

    What, you expected the US President to stand up in front of world and say "Yo, we suck!"?? Please. This is just ridiculously naive.

    Of course the the US President is saying this kind of shit. What else was he gonna say?

    Except this is almost exactly how Trump became the GOP nominee. So yes, it's probably not a bad strategy.

    Instead of sounding smart he either sounds naive himself or is lying to us presuming we're too stupid to know the history of US foreign policy.

    Do you think that works for a Democrat running in a primary? Or for a Democratic US president talking to everyone, including people internationally? Did it really even work for Donald Trump or was it just not disqualifying, like so many other things he did and said?

    No, there's no evidence that would be a good strategy, especially for a Democrat. Again, hypocrisy doesn't matter here. "But the US did X" is irrelevant, both rhetorically and to the actual issue he's addressing.

    "The US did X" is very relevant when the whole speech is about how X is so horrible that it's inconceivable that the US would do it.
    Biden harmed the credibility of the US when pretending to ignore the history of electoral interference.

    He didn’t harm US credibility because there aren’t a bunch of other countries putting out press releases to remind the world what the US did in the past.

    Biden isn’t going to deliberately undermine his point, because while it is true that the US has done things similar in the past, it’s also still true that Russia is doing what it can to influence our election and the last time it worked we ended up with the worst president in modern history.

    He’s also not going to undermine his own point, because the vast majority of people in the US neither know, nor care that the US did what it did. The only people I’ve seen raise an eyebrow at his response are people that follow politics obsessively.
    Biden wrote:
    How would it be if the United States were viewed by the rest of the world as interfering with the elections directly of other countries and everybody knew it? What would it be like if we engaged in activities that he engaged in? It diminishes the standing of a country.
    He's literally saying the rest of the world should hold the US in contempt.

    oh hey cool, he's right about something

    from each according to his ability, to each according to his need
    hitting hot metal with hammers
    YamiB.Dee Kae
  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »

    Joe Biden wrote:
    "How would it be if the United States were viewed by the rest of the world as interfering with the elections directly of other countries and everybody knew it? What would it be like if we engaged in activities that he engaged in? It diminishes the standing of a country."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention
    A 2016 study by Dov H. Levin found that, among 938 global elections examined the United States and Russia (including its predecessor, the Soviet Union) combined had involved themselves in about one out of nine (117), with the majority of those (68%) being through covert, rather than overt, actions.
    According to the study, the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36. A 2018 study by Levin found that the electoral interventions determined in "many cases" the identity of the winner. The study also found suggestive evidence that the interventions increased the risk of democratic breakdown in the targeted states.

    And that’s before you wade into the regime change side of supporting dictators, training deathsquads, overthrowing democratically elected governments...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

    Yeah, I can’t even fucking fathom what that looks like, Joe. You sanctimonious asshole.

    For a thread of people fancying themselves as politically savvy this is an incredibly naive take on what's happening in this speech.

    If that is what helps you sleep at night, you can burnish that take all you want.

    What this is is yet another whitewashing of it’s history by the nation that leads the world in overthrowing governments through interfering with their elections or overt or varying degrees of covert violence by an old white man who was an elected official throughout much of it’s interference in South America, a leading voice in one of it’s major elected bodies including the invasion of Iraq and Vice President as it ran a coup in Honduras just over a decade ago.

    And the leader of a party that last week condemned a young Muslim woman who had the gall to call her government to task for it’s history.

    What, you expected the US President to stand up in front of world and say "Yo, we suck!"?? Please. This is just ridiculously naive.

    Of course the the US President is saying this kind of shit. What else was he gonna say?

    do you think that might be part of the problem?

    do you think it is possible that some people are recognizing that the guy was only ever going to say some obvious bullshit, that this is treated as mainstream orthodoxy, and that this sucks?

    maybe this doesn't have anything to do with what anyone expected.

    not a single person here, or anywhere, needs you, specifically, to 1) tell them what their expectations are or 2) waggle your little finger at them for it.

    Typhoid MannyDamnItCohaagenHappy Little Machine
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Biden could have done a better job to make his point. Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and is hacking the election apparatuses of other permanent members with little to no consequence. Yes the US has wrongfully interfered in many elections, but if we were caught hacking French and UK elections the way Russia did the EU would be absolutely livid.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    SmrtnikGoumindongGnome-Interruptus
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    I dont think Biden hurt our credibility because we dont fuckin have any. The whole world knows were dogshit hypocrites. Its still an embarrassingly stupid thing for him to say.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    mrondeauTyphoid MannyShortyMeeqeDarkPrimusBandableIncenjucarBullheadTefDonnictonYamiB.CaedwyrKraintDee KaeSkeithtynicMagellHappy Little MachineFANTOMAS
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    The "you only actually matter if you have nukes" justification... Isn't great

  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited June 17
    I dont think Biden hurt our credibility because we dont fuckin have any. The whole world knows were dogshit hypocrites. Its still an embarrassingly stupid thing for him to say.
    Yeah, basically this. Who takes statements like this seriously to begin with? It's a little canned speech for the cameras. Not really worth getting up in arms about or spending time refuting, mostly just worth ignoring like most things government officials say.

    Kaputa on
    Aim
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited June 17
    No its very worth getting mad about. The crimes we've committed across the globe in pursuit of favorable autocracy arent for us to forgive or forget.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    ShortyTyphoid MannyTefYamiB.Dee KaetynicMagellHappy Little Machine
  • Typhoid MannyTyphoid Manny Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    I dont think Biden hurt our credibility because we dont fuckin have any. The whole world knows were dogshit hypocrites. Its still an embarrassingly stupid thing for him to say.
    Yeah, basically this. Who takes statements like this seriously to begin with? It's a little canned speech for the cameras. Not really worth getting up in arms about or spending time refuting, mostly just worth ignoring like most things government officials say.

    i think there's value in calling this type of thing out when it comes up. allowing officials to spin off horseshit like this unchallenged just makes it easier for them to pretend they're not lying through their teeth next time they try

    from each according to his ability, to each according to his need
    hitting hot metal with hammers
    Styrofoam SammichDoodmannShortyTicaldfjamDarkPrimusBandableTefIncenjucarYamiB.kimeDee KaetynicDamnItCohaagenHappy Little Machine
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited June 18
    Kelor wrote: »
    Hillary didn't admit to her vote being a mistake until she released her book in 2014 in the lead up to her 2016 presidential run. She had been hammered on it by Obama during the 2008 primaries, knew it was a loser of an issue and that she was going to get called out on it again so she got out in front of it.

    But she did admit it was a mistake, should she have continued on like she had no regrets instead? This became an anchor because she saw the wind was blowing in he Democratic party, which was being against the war.
    She either voted on it because she got conned like a rube by a duplicitous White House or because she knew that she was a senator of a state that had suffered a severe and highly public terrorist attack and made the cold calculated decision that her political career could not survive a vote against it knowing millions could be dead as a result of that.

    If she was why is she's a victim of a con artists, so shouldn't we blame the con artist? She didn't put Colin Powell up at the UN, Dubya did. Hilary's not a goddess, she should be allowed to make mistakes. I'd include Biden here, since he swallowed that hook, exec he never learnt that it was a horrendous decision he shouldn't have made. I don't like how politicians do that but that's universal for being a politician, she's not he only politician who does this. Politicians get protective of heir careers since they like their status quo, and it allows them to change policies. Self preservation makes people desperate, nobody is immune.

    He championed the cause, then claimed as recently as 2019 that he was against the war from the start.

    Biden, Sept. 3, 2019] I let my record stand. I think my record has been good. I think the vast majority of the foreign policy community thinks it’s been very good. For example, I got a commitment from President Bush he was not going to go to war in Iraq. He looked me in the eye in the Oval Office; he said he needed the vote to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program. He got them in, and before we know it, we had a shock and awe. Immediately, the moment it started, I came out against the war at that moment. Now, the judgment of my trusting the president to keep his word on something like that, that was a mistake. And I apologize for that.

    Where did I mention anything about defending Biden's stance on Iraq? This is an issue I hate him for having. This is why I bought up politicians not having the same opinions. They're people and there are millions of Democrats in America, not everyone agrees with Biden.
    In fact, at the time of the vote the majority of Americans did not support immediate military action. A CBS poll from October, 2002.

    2002 was when Dubya was at the height of his powers, it wouldn't be until his second term that the 9/11 aura would fade and he'd be vulnerable. A single poll wasn't going to shift that narrative in the national zeitgeist. People forget how influential Dubya, and Fox News, was in that period.

    Harry Dresden on
    TicaldfjamFencingsaxSmrtnikGnome-Interruptus
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited June 18
    I feel like calling a devastating war that left countless civilians dead, destabilised a region for generations, and unleashed one of the most devastating regional terrorist organizations out there a “mistake” is short selling the magnitude of what happened and the culpability held by the politicians who authorized it

    Clinton and Biden are allowed to make mistakes.

    Not sure that much blood gets to be so easily washed away as just a “mistake” though


    “Oops I mistakenly plunged your entire society into hellfire and death for two decades, whoops!”

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    DarkPrimusYamiB.MosatiMagellDamnItCohaagenHappy Little MachineFANTOMAS
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    I feel like calling a devastating war that left countless civilians dead, destabilised a region for generations, and unleashed one of the most devastating regional terrorist organizations out there a “mistake” is short selling the magnitude of what happened and the culpability held by the politicians who authorized it

    Clinton and Biden are allowed to make mistakes.

    Not sure that much blood gets to be so easily washed away as just a “mistake” though


    “Oops I mistakenly plunged your entire society into hellfire and death for two decades, whoops!”

    Republicans once again treated as the unstoppable force of nature they are I see.

    Harry Dresdenshryke
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    I feel like calling a devastating war that left countless civilians dead, destabilised a region for generations, and unleashed one of the most devastating regional terrorist organizations out there a “mistake” is short selling the magnitude of what happened and the culpability held by the politicians who authorized it

    Clinton and Biden are allowed to make mistakes.

    Not sure that much blood gets to be so easily washed away as just a “mistake” though


    “Oops I mistakenly plunged your entire society into hellfire and death for two decades, whoops!”

    Republicans once again treated as the unstoppable force of nature they are I see.

    I can’t tell if this is a critique of me or Harry

    If me like… I expect the GOP to be the GOP. I’d prefer if we didn’t, on the other hand, whitewash the complicity of prominent democratic leadership in the agenda of the GOP

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    DarkPrimusYamiB.MagellDamnItCohaagenHappy Little Machine
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    I feel like calling a devastating war that left countless civilians dead, destabilised a region for generations, and unleashed one of the most devastating regional terrorist organizations out there a “mistake” is short selling the magnitude of what happened and the culpability held by the politicians who authorized it

    Clinton and Biden are allowed to make mistakes.

    Not sure that much blood gets to be so easily washed away as just a “mistake” though


    “Oops I mistakenly plunged your entire society into hellfire and death for two decades, whoops!”

    Republicans once again treated as the unstoppable force of nature they are I see.

    This is a weird way to respond to someone explicitly calling out the bipartisan support for plunging us into a forever war, expanding governmental capabilities of violating our privacy and conducting extrajudicial actions up to and including murder, the creation of unnecessary and evil agencies like DHS and ICE, etc.

    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    YamiB.DoodmannMosatiDamnItCohaagenHappy Little Machine
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    The Dems voted for both of those wars in congress

    That they did, however, this implies they did it for the same reasons and got the same positive results from their parties.
    I think that the Dems didn't like certain details of Trumps' foreign policy, but that the broad strokes weren't that much different from what they do anyway. There are some exceptions. Paris accords. Trump was unusual But largely? The US' actions to maintain itself as a hegemonic power has bipartisan support. The War on Drugs and War on Terror had large bipartisan support.

    Where's the evidence for the default that Biden is doing everything like Trump? What are the subjects in foreign policy they agree on? What are the "broad strokes yours asking about? Trump isn't a default to average GOP presidents on the national stage, Trump's not a left winger.

    The first instance of Trump differing from Biden is the Paris accord? Not Putin?

    The Democrats and Republicans maintaining an American hegemony by itself is meaningless, when they differ on how that hegemony is achieved. Which Trump broke with, does that make him good? Those two wars are incredibly more complex than simplifying it like that. It's not like they didn't change tactics and have their own motivations. It's like saying if Jeremy Corbyn was Prime Minister he'd run the UK identically to Boris Johnson, simply because they have the same position. Did you follow Trump's foreign policies? Bipartisanship, as a term, isn't an indicator of evil by itself. It needs more context to become a gut punch, otherwise it's so vague it's useless.

    "Both sides are the same" isn't a winning argument, especially without showing iron clad proof.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 18
    Kaputa wrote: »
    I dont think Biden hurt our credibility because we dont fuckin have any. The whole world knows were dogshit hypocrites. Its still an embarrassingly stupid thing for him to say.
    Yeah, basically this. Who takes statements like this seriously to begin with? It's a little canned speech for the cameras. Not really worth getting up in arms about or spending time refuting, mostly just worth ignoring like most things government officials say.

    It's the same thing you see when a US president calls out crimes against humanity. Which they should also be doing. These arguments about hypocrisy are just not really meaningful.

    From within some kind of moral framework, interfering in the elections of other nations that way is something that should be condemned. The whole "well you did it first" argument is something we teach 4 years old is a load of horseshit.

    From a purely realistic perspective, the US wants to stop people fucking with it's elections so the President is gonna go on camera and condemn that shit and all the hypocrisy arguments don't mean shit because nation states are hypocritical and self-interested all the time, it's just part of the way they operate.

    None of the complaints about Biden's statement have a coherent argument for why the US president shouldn't be going up there saying this kind of thing. Canned statements like this are important and we condemn presidents, like the last one, for not making them.

    shryke on
    electricitylikesmeLord_AsmodeusOneAngryPossumSmrtnikGnome-Interruptus
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    I dont think Biden hurt our credibility because we dont fuckin have any. The whole world knows were dogshit hypocrites. Its still an embarrassingly stupid thing for him to say.
    Yeah, basically this. Who takes statements like this seriously to begin with? It's a little canned speech for the cameras. Not really worth getting up in arms about or spending time refuting, mostly just worth ignoring like most things government officials say.

    It's the same thing you see when a US president calls out crimes against humanity. Which they should also be doing. These arguments about hypocrisy are just not really meaningful.

    From within some kind of moral framework, interfering in the elections of other nations that way is something that should be condemned. The whole "well you did it first" argument is something we teach 4 years old is a load of horseshit.

    From a purely realistic perspective, the US wants to stop people fucking with it's elections so the President is gonna go on camera and condemn that shit and all the hypocrisy arguments don't mean shit because nation states are hypocritical and self-interested all the time, it's just part of the way they operate.

    None of the complaints about Biden's statement have a coherent argument for why the US president shouldn't be going up there saying this kind of thing.

    The US should definitely call out Russia on their election meddling.

    The choice of words ("what would the world say if we did the same", when the US has done that and more) makes the whole thing a bit farcical, though.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    ButtersCommander ZoomLord_AsmodeusSleepDark Raven XHarry DresdenMagellDamnItCohaagenFANTOMAS
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited June 18
    Lanz wrote: »
    I feel like calling a devastating war that left countless civilians dead, destabilised a region for generations, and unleashed one of the most devastating regional terrorist organizations out there a “mistake” is short selling the magnitude of what happened and the culpability held by the politicians who authorized it

    Clinton and Biden are allowed to make mistakes.

    Not sure that much blood gets to be so easily washed away as just a “mistake” though


    “Oops I mistakenly plunged your entire society into hellfire and death for two decades, whoops!”

    Republicans once again treated as the unstoppable force of nature they are I see.
    I think it's more that everyone here already agrees that the GOP and Bush administration are bad. No one rises to their defense in these discussions; if they did; I'm sure that would be a point of contention too. But when it comes to ghouls in the Democratic party, like Clinton, Kerry, Biden, etc., condemnation is met with excuses and justifications. They are defended, so that's what the argument focuses on.

    Also, "self preservation" is a terrible defense. In this case, that translates to sacrificing an entire nation for the purpose of maintaining political power. I pretty much agree with that assessment of their motivation, but how is that anything but repugnant?

    Kaputa on
    Meeqe
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    I dont think Biden hurt our credibility because we dont fuckin have any. The whole world knows were dogshit hypocrites. Its still an embarrassingly stupid thing for him to say.
    Yeah, basically this. Who takes statements like this seriously to begin with? It's a little canned speech for the cameras. Not really worth getting up in arms about or spending time refuting, mostly just worth ignoring like most things government officials say.

    It's the same thing you see when a US president calls out crimes against humanity. Which they should also be doing. These arguments about hypocrisy are just not really meaningful.

    From within some kind of moral framework, interfering in the elections of other nations that way is something that should be condemned. The whole "well you did it first" argument is something we teach 4 years old is a load of horseshit.

    From a purely realistic perspective, the US wants to stop people fucking with it's elections so the President is gonna go on camera and condemn that shit and all the hypocrisy arguments don't mean shit because nation states are hypocritical and self-interested all the time, it's just part of the way they operate.

    None of the complaints about Biden's statement have a coherent argument for why the US president shouldn't be going up there saying this kind of thing. Canned statements like this are important and we condemn presidents, like the last one, for not making them.

    People tend to get irked when politicians pretend a history of murder and violence didnt happen.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    ShortytynicHappy Little Machine
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    I dont think Biden hurt our credibility because we dont fuckin have any. The whole world knows were dogshit hypocrites. Its still an embarrassingly stupid thing for him to say.
    Yeah, basically this. Who takes statements like this seriously to begin with? It's a little canned speech for the cameras. Not really worth getting up in arms about or spending time refuting, mostly just worth ignoring like most things government officials say.

    It's the same thing you see when a US president calls out crimes against humanity. Which they should also be doing. These arguments about hypocrisy are just not really meaningful.

    From within some kind of moral framework, interfering in the elections of other nations that way is something that should be condemned. The whole "well you did it first" argument is something we teach 4 years old is a load of horseshit.

    From a purely realistic perspective, the US wants to stop people fucking with it's elections so the President is gonna go on camera and condemn that shit and all the hypocrisy arguments don't mean shit because nation states are hypocritical and self-interested all the time, it's just part of the way they operate.

    None of the complaints about Biden's statement have a coherent argument for why the US president shouldn't be going up there saying this kind of thing. Canned statements like this are important and we condemn presidents, like the last one, for not making them.

    People tend to get irked when politicians pretend a history of murder and violence didnt happen.

    "People" overtly do not in any way that matters to electoral outcomes.

    MarathonLord_AsmodeusSmrtnik
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited June 18
    shryke wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    I dont think Biden hurt our credibility because we dont fuckin have any. The whole world knows were dogshit hypocrites. Its still an embarrassingly stupid thing for him to say.
    Yeah, basically this. Who takes statements like this seriously to begin with? It's a little canned speech for the cameras. Not really worth getting up in arms about or spending time refuting, mostly just worth ignoring like most things government officials say.

    It's the same thing you see when a US president calls out crimes against humanity. Which they should also be doing. These arguments about hypocrisy are just not really meaningful.

    From within some kind of moral framework, interfering in the elections of other nations that way is something that should be condemned. The whole "well you did it first" argument is something we teach 4 years old is a load of horseshit.

    From a purely realistic perspective, the US wants to stop people fucking with it's elections so the President is gonna go on camera and condemn that shit and all the hypocrisy arguments don't mean shit because nation states are hypocritical and self-interested all the time, it's just part of the way they operate.

    None of the complaints about Biden's statement have a coherent argument for why the US president shouldn't be going up there saying this kind of thing. Canned statements like this are important and we condemn presidents, like the last one, for not making them.

    People tend to get irked when politicians pretend a history of murder and violence didnt happen.

    "People" overtly do not in any way that matters to electoral outcomes.

    ....ok? Shryke is wrong that there is no coherent argument for why this was a wrong thing to say. Just reading the thread would make that clear.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • DacDac Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »

    Joe Biden wrote:
    "How would it be if the United States were viewed by the rest of the world as interfering with the elections directly of other countries and everybody knew it? What would it be like if we engaged in activities that he engaged in? It diminishes the standing of a country."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention
    A 2016 study by Dov H. Levin found that, among 938 global elections examined the United States and Russia (including its predecessor, the Soviet Union) combined had involved themselves in about one out of nine (117), with the majority of those (68%) being through covert, rather than overt, actions.
    According to the study, the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36. A 2018 study by Levin found that the electoral interventions determined in "many cases" the identity of the winner. The study also found suggestive evidence that the interventions increased the risk of democratic breakdown in the targeted states.

    And that’s before you wade into the regime change side of supporting dictators, training deathsquads, overthrowing democratically elected governments...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

    Yeah, I can’t even fucking fathom what that looks like, Joe. You sanctimonious asshole.

    For a thread of people fancying themselves as politically savvy this is an incredibly naive take on what's happening in this speech.

    If that is what helps you sleep at night, you can burnish that take all you want.

    What this is is yet another whitewashing of it’s history by the nation that leads the world in overthrowing governments through interfering with their elections or overt or varying degrees of covert violence by an old white man who was an elected official throughout much of it’s interference in South America, a leading voice in one of it’s major elected bodies including the invasion of Iraq and Vice President as it ran a coup in Honduras just over a decade ago.

    And the leader of a party that last week condemned a young Muslim woman who had the gall to call her government to task for it’s history.

    What, you expected the US President to stand up in front of world and say "Yo, we suck!"?? Please. This is just ridiculously naive.

    Of course the the US President is saying this kind of shit. What else was he gonna say?

    Except this is almost exactly how Trump became the GOP nominee. So yes, it's probably not a bad strategy.

    Instead of sounding smart he either sounds naive himself or is lying to us presuming we're too stupid to know the history of US foreign policy.

    Trump didn't win by saying "yo, we suck."

    He won by saying "yo, we suck, and it's because of those people."

    Steam: catseye543
    PSN: ShogunGunshow
    Origin: ShogunGunshow
    AngelHedgieFencingsaxshrykeCommander ZoomElvenshaeGiantGeek2020Lord_AsmodeusSleepelectricitylikesmeShadowfireGnome-InterruptusHefflingAimHydropolo
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Dac wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »

    Joe Biden wrote:
    "How would it be if the United States were viewed by the rest of the world as interfering with the elections directly of other countries and everybody knew it? What would it be like if we engaged in activities that he engaged in? It diminishes the standing of a country."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention
    A 2016 study by Dov H. Levin found that, among 938 global elections examined the United States and Russia (including its predecessor, the Soviet Union) combined had involved themselves in about one out of nine (117), with the majority of those (68%) being through covert, rather than overt, actions.
    According to the study, the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36. A 2018 study by Levin found that the electoral interventions determined in "many cases" the identity of the winner. The study also found suggestive evidence that the interventions increased the risk of democratic breakdown in the targeted states.

    And that’s before you wade into the regime change side of supporting dictators, training deathsquads, overthrowing democratically elected governments...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

    Yeah, I can’t even fucking fathom what that looks like, Joe. You sanctimonious asshole.

    For a thread of people fancying themselves as politically savvy this is an incredibly naive take on what's happening in this speech.

    If that is what helps you sleep at night, you can burnish that take all you want.

    What this is is yet another whitewashing of it’s history by the nation that leads the world in overthrowing governments through interfering with their elections or overt or varying degrees of covert violence by an old white man who was an elected official throughout much of it’s interference in South America, a leading voice in one of it’s major elected bodies including the invasion of Iraq and Vice President as it ran a coup in Honduras just over a decade ago.

    And the leader of a party that last week condemned a young Muslim woman who had the gall to call her government to task for it’s history.

    What, you expected the US President to stand up in front of world and say "Yo, we suck!"?? Please. This is just ridiculously naive.

    Of course the the US President is saying this kind of shit. What else was he gonna say?

    Except this is almost exactly how Trump became the GOP nominee. So yes, it's probably not a bad strategy.

    Instead of sounding smart he either sounds naive himself or is lying to us presuming we're too stupid to know the history of US foreign policy.

    Trump didn't win by saying "yo, we suck."

    He won by saying "yo, we suck, and it's because of those people."

    I said he won the primary. And he did it by saying "yo, we suck" with a bit "everyone on stage here doesn't give a shit about you, they only give a shit about people that give them money, like me"

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    GrpAhic DeiGn is My PAssIon
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    I dont think Biden hurt our credibility because we dont fuckin have any. The whole world knows were dogshit hypocrites. Its still an embarrassingly stupid thing for him to say.
    Yeah, basically this. Who takes statements like this seriously to begin with? It's a little canned speech for the cameras. Not really worth getting up in arms about or spending time refuting, mostly just worth ignoring like most things government officials say.

    It's the same thing you see when a US president calls out crimes against humanity. Which they should also be doing. These arguments about hypocrisy are just not really meaningful.

    From within some kind of moral framework, interfering in the elections of other nations that way is something that should be condemned. The whole "well you did it first" argument is something we teach 4 years old is a load of horseshit.

    From a purely realistic perspective, the US wants to stop people fucking with it's elections so the President is gonna go on camera and condemn that shit and all the hypocrisy arguments don't mean shit because nation states are hypocritical and self-interested all the time, it's just part of the way they operate.

    None of the complaints about Biden's statement have a coherent argument for why the US president shouldn't be going up there saying this kind of thing. Canned statements like this are important and we condemn presidents, like the last one, for not making them.

    "well he did it first" fails for little kids because presumably in this point a neutral third party has caught them and it's being used as an excuse for their actions

    This is very much a pot-meet-kettle situation, where one little kid who steals just as many toys as another is - in response to having their toy stolen for once - standing up and denouncing toy-stealing and specifically that other kid, implying that they would of course never steal a toy, how unthinkable

    mrondeau
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »

    Joe Biden wrote:
    "How would it be if the United States were viewed by the rest of the world as interfering with the elections directly of other countries and everybody knew it? What would it be like if we engaged in activities that he engaged in? It diminishes the standing of a country."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention
    A 2016 study by Dov H. Levin found that, among 938 global elections examined the United States and Russia (including its predecessor, the Soviet Union) combined had involved themselves in about one out of nine (117), with the majority of those (68%) being through covert, rather than overt, actions.
    According to the study, the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36. A 2018 study by Levin found that the electoral interventions determined in "many cases" the identity of the winner. The study also found suggestive evidence that the interventions increased the risk of democratic breakdown in the targeted states.

    And that’s before you wade into the regime change side of supporting dictators, training deathsquads, overthrowing democratically elected governments...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

    Yeah, I can’t even fucking fathom what that looks like, Joe. You sanctimonious asshole.

    For a thread of people fancying themselves as politically savvy this is an incredibly naive take on what's happening in this speech.

    If that is what helps you sleep at night, you can burnish that take all you want.

    What this is is yet another whitewashing of it’s history by the nation that leads the world in overthrowing governments through interfering with their elections or overt or varying degrees of covert violence by an old white man who was an elected official throughout much of it’s interference in South America, a leading voice in one of it’s major elected bodies including the invasion of Iraq and Vice President as it ran a coup in Honduras just over a decade ago.

    And the leader of a party that last week condemned a young Muslim woman who had the gall to call her government to task for it’s history.

    What, you expected the US President to stand up in front of world and say "Yo, we suck!"?? Please. This is just ridiculously naive.

    Of course the the US President is saying this kind of shit. What else was he gonna say?

    Except this is almost exactly how Trump became the GOP nominee. So yes, it's probably not a bad strategy.

    Instead of sounding smart he either sounds naive himself or is lying to us presuming we're too stupid to know the history of US foreign policy.

    Trump didn't win by saying "yo, we suck."

    He won by saying "yo, we suck, and it's because of those people."

    I said he won the primary. And he did it by saying "yo, we suck" with a bit "everyone on stage here doesn't give a shit about you, they only give a shit about people that give them money, like me"

    He won by saying "yo, we suck, and it's because of those people, and the rest of the geese on stage with me are too cowardly to admit that."

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    DoodmannFencingsaxshrykeBigJoeMNo-QuarterElvenshaeGiantGeek2020Lord_AsmodeusTicaldfjamShadowfireboogedybooGnome-InterruptusAim
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    I dont think Biden hurt our credibility because we dont fuckin have any. The whole world knows were dogshit hypocrites. Its still an embarrassingly stupid thing for him to say.
    Yeah, basically this. Who takes statements like this seriously to begin with? It's a little canned speech for the cameras. Not really worth getting up in arms about or spending time refuting, mostly just worth ignoring like most things government officials say.

    It's the same thing you see when a US president calls out crimes against humanity. Which they should also be doing. These arguments about hypocrisy are just not really meaningful.

    From within some kind of moral framework, interfering in the elections of other nations that way is something that should be condemned. The whole "well you did it first" argument is something we teach 4 years old is a load of horseshit.

    From a purely realistic perspective, the US wants to stop people fucking with it's elections so the President is gonna go on camera and condemn that shit and all the hypocrisy arguments don't mean shit because nation states are hypocritical and self-interested all the time, it's just part of the way they operate.

    None of the complaints about Biden's statement have a coherent argument for why the US president shouldn't be going up there saying this kind of thing. Canned statements like this are important and we condemn presidents, like the last one, for not making them.

    "well he did it first" fails for little kids because presumably in this point a neutral third party has caught them and it's being used as an excuse for their actions

    This is very much a pot-meet-kettle situation, where one little kid who steals just as many toys as another is - in response to having their toy stolen for once - standing up and denouncing toy-stealing and specifically that other kid, implying that they would of course never steal a toy, how unthinkable

    No dude, this is "just because he's hit people before doesn't mean it's ok for you to hit too". The exact lesson we teach pre-schoolers.

    Harry Dresden
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited June 18
    shryke wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    I dont think Biden hurt our credibility because we dont fuckin have any. The whole world knows were dogshit hypocrites. Its still an embarrassingly stupid thing for him to say.
    Yeah, basically this. Who takes statements like this seriously to begin with? It's a little canned speech for the cameras. Not really worth getting up in arms about or spending time refuting, mostly just worth ignoring like most things government officials say.

    It's the same thing you see when a US president calls out crimes against humanity. Which they should also be doing. These arguments about hypocrisy are just not really meaningful.

    From within some kind of moral framework, interfering in the elections of other nations that way is something that should be condemned. The whole "well you did it first" argument is something we teach 4 years old is a load of horseshit.

    From a purely realistic perspective, the US wants to stop people fucking with it's elections so the President is gonna go on camera and condemn that shit and all the hypocrisy arguments don't mean shit because nation states are hypocritical and self-interested all the time, it's just part of the way they operate.

    None of the complaints about Biden's statement have a coherent argument for why the US president shouldn't be going up there saying this kind of thing. Canned statements like this are important and we condemn presidents, like the last one, for not making them.

    "well he did it first" fails for little kids because presumably in this point a neutral third party has caught them and it's being used as an excuse for their actions

    This is very much a pot-meet-kettle situation, where one little kid who steals just as many toys as another is - in response to having their toy stolen for once - standing up and denouncing toy-stealing and specifically that other kid, implying that they would of course never steal a toy, how unthinkable

    No dude, this is "just because he's hit people before doesn't mean it's ok for you to hit too". The exact lesson we teach pre-schoolers.

    The problem is it feels like you’re eliding the US’s culpability in decades worth of subverting elections abroad to secure American hegemony and then trying to spin anyone pointing out that Biden’s response is ahistoric, tone deaf bullshit as trying to say “therefore Russia’s interference is fair.”

    When we’re saying “both of you suck and neither of you have room to get on a high horse about this, you clade of imperialist fuckmuppets.”

    EDIT: one day autocorrect will recognize Elide and it’s various tenses. But not today it seems

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    I think it's more that everyone here already agrees that the GOP and Bush administration are bad. No one rises to their defense in these discussions; if they did; I'm sure that would be a point of contention too. But when it comes to ghouls in the Democratic party, like Clinton, Kerry, Biden, etc., condemnation is met with excuses and justifications. They are defended, so that's what the argument focuses on.

    That post zeroed in on Democrats, not the GOP and the Bush administration. I wasn't making excuses or justifications. The argument was focused on Democrats falling for GOP propaganda and blaming them for it, omitting all context which made them fallible humans. Biden, Kerry and Clinton aren't people who haven't done good in his world, people are more than their horrible decisions. Since we're on the left I'd have thought politicians changing their positions on foreign policy would be what we wanted, doing otherwise is why politicians don't apologise and stick to their guns - that's what the GOP is built on.
    Also, "self preservation" is a terrible defense. In this case, that translates to sacrificing an entire nation for the purpose of maintaining political power. I pretty much agree with that assessment of their motivation, but how is that anything but repugnant?

    It was about understanding why politicians did that, it wasn't an endorsement. Self preservation is not easily overcome for anyone so it shouldn't be made to look easy, standing up for moral principles never is.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Actually, Id like more than "whoops that was a mistake" sometimes. Like some consequences.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    DoodmannMosatiShortyMagellDamnItCohaagenButtersHappy Little Machine
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Because we don’t think they actually have meaningfully internalized even one single lesson about why the War on Terror and the Iraq War were bad and are merely trying to talk the talk while continuing to pursue the same failed policies that turned the Middle East into a nightmare of imperial violence

    It takes a lot more to make amends than just saying for PR points “I was wrong.” And your standards are depressingly low for “the class of people who govern a giant military superpower”

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
Sign In or Register to comment.