TPP was negotiated by the United States Trade Representative, which is part of the Executive Office of the President. State is not directly involved. If State was corresponding on the subject, it’s possible that it was from a very superficial view, just as Congress was kept out of the loop.
1 Like
You can edit your posts to correct errors like that. It’s good form to note that you have, but not really essential esp. for minor, obvious typos.
I just can’t help but think there’s gotta be a better way of doing it (or a better way of stress-testing the candidates without wearing the rest of us out, too). And I do like the idea of rotating the states’ order, since it’s rather ridiculous that Iowa and New Hampshire have such an outsized effect on the whole campaign, whereas the most populous (and one of the most diverse) states in the nation is consistently an afterthought.
2 Likes
Thing is, people have carefully analyzed her voting record in the senate, and come to the conclusion she is one of the more liberal senators.
Does that honestly make you think she is "basically a republican?"
And if you still think so, then that’s like saying the vast majority of Democratic senators are essentially republicans.
It pays off for Sanders to play up the differences, so he can position himself as a clear alternative. That’s a smart electoral move. But it doesn’t mean the differences are like night and day, and most certainly it doesn’t mean Hillary is a republican.
3 Likes
yes. cynically, given the connections of the bush administration to big oil that makes sense. however, simply getting the oil out there is enough. ( the military bases and infrastructure won’t hurt, of course, given the region. )
citation needed. while they publicly claimed “weapons of mass destruction” – they were the ones feeding the false information they used to claim this.
moreover, take a look back: what are the geopolitical calculations in this case if not the calculations resulting from oil acquisition?
even at the end of wwi – at the founding of iraq and british rule-- the issues at hand were not as some sort of territorial buffer to turkey or russia, but of their strategic importance for … wait for it… oil.
you’d need some serious evidence to say the issues in the middle east aren’t driven by the economic value of fossil fuels.
4 Likes
The GOP candidates were a bunch of toddlers. At least the Ds went with 2 candidates with some opposing positions.
Can you honestly say you would still not vote for Hillary in November if you lived in a swing state? That’s some serious end-times thinking if so. I wish I lived in a solid red or blue state.
1 Like
It’s an important factor in the region (especially in terms of generating economic growth and in turn stabilizing civil structures), but it’s not the main one today from the perspective of the United States (and nor was it just over ten years ago), a country which is a net exporter of fossil fuels.
The relationship between Iran/Saudi, how Russia plays into that, and what all this means for Israel, were far more important factors in ‘stabilizing’ the region through intervention from the point of view of the neocons, sure if America could make some money back in the process great (especially considering it was going to cost so much fucking money!), and I’m not denying corruption and war profiteering were going on to some extent either (they just weren’t the prime motivators behind it).
Historically things were a lot different, oil, and colonial strategies wrt to resources were far more important than they are today.
Yup, I can honestly say that. And I’m very aware of what’s at stake, you won’t surprise me with some insight or observation about how Clinton would save us while Trump would ruin us.
I’m more focused on rewriting the system than giving it more power and unlike most, actually have a plan and a group of people who are laying things out. (three separate VC pitches already, and the bones of a very solid explanatory website) We’ve talked about it a lot here (I think most recently here) and it’s rapidly picking up steam.
While Bernie might have been advantageous to the nonevil master plan, Clinton is more likely to be a hindrance overall. Whether her or Trump would have a greater net disadvantage is associated with too many variables for me to make a commitment.
Life is more than just politics, and the best solutions do not involve adding credibility to a broken system. They involve exploiting it’s flaws for the greater good. If I die before we’ve depopulated war then I’ve failed, unless one of the minions can finish things off.
5 Likes
4 Likes
I vote for an “American Gladiators” style competition. If you can debate your platform while balancing on a physical platform, and trying not to get the crap beaten out of you with a giant q-tip, then you’re either very well practiced, or your platform truly comes from your heart.
4 Likes
Random toddlers would be a better way to do it.
Something that’s done in one of the more modern countries, or even something ancient like the old Roman Jurist system would be a big improvement on the toddlers though.
Have you ever heard of the Overton Window? You might think the view through it is just fine, but I sure don’t.
8 Likes
I take it you missed the start of the conversion? Maybe you should try reading again from the top.
The claim was made that the US is constantly getting involved in resource wars. I pointed out over several posts that the main thing that’s claimed as a resource-war is over (Iraq are now the allies of the United States), that it wasn’t really a resource war anyway, and that there weren’t any others. There was no moving of the goal posts.
1 Like
I think that’s the most succinctly I’ve seen it put. I fall pretty strongly into the latter camp. We’ll never reduce racism and sexism without first addressing classism, because they are intricately linked.
4 Likes
That actually has been the opposite of proven. Do you really believe that resources weren’t a factor? Would the other factors (Presence, creating an ally) have been there at all if not for the fact that Iraq was oil rich and in the Middle East?
1 Like
Do you really believe that resources weren’t a factor?
No, read my other posts on the topic above. But ‘resource war’ implies it was the primary factor.
Right, but that’s an interpretation that requires not paying attention to WHY we care about Israel, why we have issues with Iran, and why we have conflicts with Russia in the region.
Resource War is still very accurate, because it’s the root cause. We don’t take those risks over the Congo or the Ivory Coast. I see where you’re coming from and it’s not completely unreasonable, but seeing it as a resource war is also a very accurate view and simply reflects a different level of attention to the scenario.
3 Likes
[quote=“William_Holz, post:138, topic:79353”]
Resource War is still very accurate, because it’s the root cause.[/quote]
No, the root cause was Saddam Hussein. He had the power within him to behave very differently, he chose not to. Other more important factors are demographic, cultural, religious, and also not primarily to do with resources (the interplay with the other nations in the region). Congo and the Ivory Coast have had far smaller impacts on the world at large, which I think is a far more important a factor there, also they are both pretty resource rich countries anyway, if colonial resource extraction was still a prime mover of global affairs then surely they’d have targets as well?
That’s an opinion, and a story that a dishonest administration sold. Very few people actually believe this. I consider it naive.\
Wow. Just. Wow.
I’m just going to stop here and disagree firmly and enthusiastically. It’s not like that can’t be said about a massive number of world leaders, including our own. By that logic we definitely deserved to be invaded after we invaded Iraq by every single measure.
6 Likes
