James Arryn

Members
  • Content count

    12,577
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About James Arryn

  • Rank
    Vice President of the Autocracy

Profile Information

  • Gender Male

Recent Profile Visitors

9,223 profile views
  1. To be clear, you guys are saying you don't think this is true of other candidates, Clinton included? You think Obama would retroactively give his terms to McCain and/or Romney if he got a Dem majority in return? I certainly don't.
  2. 2016 US Election: what happened in Nevada?

    People voting for someone on the basis that they won't or can't do what they say they'll do amaze me. Trump as the anti-establishment guy is also amazing; inherited wealth/Ivy League/pro sports owner/celeb circle jockey is anti-what establishment? But even if he was, that itself is terrible reasoning for support. Tylenol is not curing my headache! Advil neither! Years i'v wasted on that crap. Fuck that noise, I'm trying decapitation. Other-than has been the basis for some of the world's worst decisions. I'd almost respect the whole racist/sexist/islamiphobic angle more, at least there's meat on the bones. Lastly, the whole'world's going to hell' narrative is soooooo always eternally forever throw away the key. You can find people saying it with conviction from literally every time in history. From an external evaluation, the current U.S. is pretty pampered and several steps removed from real hell; at least those able to post on a fantasy novel website, anyways. And, yeah, the whole 'That softness IS the door to imminent hell' angle was also stale pre-Christ.
  3. Am I the only person who doesn't like watermelon?

    I thought I was the only one! People I know also treated me like I was the only one, too. That said, i once had some on a really really hot day and, while the taste/texture were still unpleasant, it was definitely very refreshing. Kinda like a cigarette in the middle of a freezing winter; still gross but a good (autocorrected to nude?) antidote to extreme weather.
  4. I mean, I suppose you could stay in before if you never told anyone that you were unnatural. It's not a total black mark against Clinton, but it's pretty clearly the kind of classic compromise a politician makes with something that's not a priority but still on the agenda. And like most classic political compromises, it ends up making no one happy. Homosexual soldiers are told they must hide like they are somehow wrong for being gay, homophobes have their stance that homosexuality is shameful confirmed, but they're stuck with them and now they have to wonder which secretgayz are amongst them, and the brass are handed a ticking bomb. I'd call it a push at best. He could have done more if it had been important, or he at least could have found a compromise that didn'taffirm the idea that it's something best reserved for dark closets, but at least he did something, and more would have probably expended a lot of political currency.
  5. Intervention IS a euphemism for illegal war...even according to the man who first used the term, as stated. Even proponents of it admit that much...generally the discussion becomes whether or not an illegal war can be just. US domestic law wouldn't be a factor...the relevant law is chapter VII of the UNC,which specifically does not make allowance for 'a nation(s) deliberate decision to introduce military force into existing conflicts', even for real or pretended humanitarian reasons, except at the 'formalized invitation of the global community' (meaning, unsurprisingly, the UN itself) at which point it would no longer qualify as an 'intervention'. Although Pearson brilliantly sought to split the atom a la 'peacekeeping', thereby sidestepping the illegality by not being stimulated by foreign interests, but rather at the behest of both parties in order to preserve an agreed upon peace, as DeWaal notes you must first have a peace, and you absolutely cannot become an active party or pursue political aims; you cannot simultaneously pursue humanitarian/peace keeping goals and political/self-interests. Once you start doing the latter, you are no longer doing the former; "The truth is that no intervention can be apolitical, and humanitarian action cannot substitute for political strategy. The political decisions that led to the urban war against General Mohamed Aidid, whose militia shot down Black Hawk helicopters on October 3, 1993, were taken during the “humanitarian” phase. A second truth from Somalia is that once an intervening force begins to fight, it can do nothing else. The moment the UN and the United States went to war against General Aidid, the international forces ceased to have any humanitarian role." edit: experiencing wifi issues, trying to get in before losing what I wrote. Quickly, re: Obsma, I am not fooling myself, neither do I approve of his actions, but the very fact that there is variance show that it is not necessarily inherent in simply being. I do agree that imperial powers will almost always distinguish themselves as such by their actions, and I agree the US is unlikely to stop being itself just because, but that is neither absolution nor a reason to stop criticizing. As to the benefit, hard to say...but at best we're getting back to the point of this thread; the lesser evil. Unlike this thread, though, the alternative is not necessarily a Constant Donald.
  6. I don't agree that it's a stretch. 'Intervention' is and always has been a euphemism, since Harcourt first coined the term 150 years ago, describing it as... 'a high and summary procedure that can sometimes snatch a remedy beyond the reach of law. As in the case of revolution, its essence is its illegality and its justification is its success' ...which definition has never needed altering. Even after Kouchner sought to establish parameters whereby it's illegality is superseded by it's necessity, a review of all it's manifestations supports Harcourt's warning that it is almost impossible to be made available to imperial powers without it therefore being used as another extension of political aims by other means. Even the best instances since, say, 1991 have...as Clausvitz says must happen...escalated from localized concerns to greater extensions of a nation state's will. This does not mean illegal wars abroad cannot 'succeed', and/or be of greater benefit than cost. But it's an inherently dubious proposition almost invariably 'scored' by the acting states based only on how it reflected their interests, and should be approached with extreme caution, cynicism and suspicion. A world leader who represents a pattern of wanting to act in this manner is a dangerous element. It's not a minor quibble. Global superpower being defined as militarily capable and active in pursuing national self interest in other regions at the cost of other people's lives is, yeah, complaint worthy IMO. That the buildingtemperature has been set at very hot for a long time doesn't mean that there's a new room temperature. But, further, Obama has lead a superpower without seeming to be as pro-'intervention' as HRC, so it's not just the nature of the beast, either.
  7. I recognize that this speaks as much to the American mentality as it does to HRC, but beingprone to favour (skipping euphemisms) waging illegal wars in other people's countries really truly ought to be a very big deal. Doesn't move the needle compared with Trump, who seems pretty jingoistic himself, but the fact that it's offered here as a marginalized concession arrived at by groping for some kind of basis for critique is pretty awful, IMO.
  8. The Trump-Hitler stuff is interesting. Though there are a great many similarities, I'd have to say I think Hitler was more sincere, especially when discussing autarky and to a lesser extent nativism...Hitler walked the talk. But I think the much more worrying comparisons are found, not in the individuals themselves, but in the collective thinking that's forming the bedrock oftheir support...THAT is eerily similar; relative outsider appealing toextreme dissatisfaction with conventional options, xenophobia, social scapegoat syndrome, shockingly personal rhetoric directed at adversaries, promotion of violence/qualifying same as necessary defense and then turning around and citing said violence as evidence of need,arbitrary belief that they won't be as extreme as they say they will on certain issues and/or will be constrained by law, sense that their willingness to speak offensively about certain elements of society is refreshing/needed challenge to political timidity, enthusiastic support of broadly stated but unspecified plans to identify, classify and ultimately deport significant unwelcome groupsof folk because of danger they represent to 'true' citizenry...it just goes on. It's always been wrong to believe 'it could never happen here', but especially given the fact that the US now faces nothing remotely approaching the critical mass of political and economic disfunction that was the Weimar Republic, I think Trump's run ought to throw some soberingly cold water on that idea. Nothing will ever exactly replicate history, but the footmarks of thesteps that allowed that history to happen there and then can be retraced anywhere, and that's the part where society is responsible.
  9. MLB 2016: Chia Pet Un-Safe Zone

    Don't think I've ever seen a pitcher fall off as sharply as Drew Storen w/o health issues. Over the winter he'slost ~ 4-5 mph and almost all movement on all pitches, effectively making him a straight 90/flat slider late inning specialist. A lot of Jays fans are chalking it up to NL pitcher syndrome, but he's looked just as awful against the Dodgers. Cecil's also fallen off the table, but I at least have some faith he's due to turn it around. Storen might be just plain done. Only hope is the wacky consistency of bullpen pitching in general.
  10. Getting closed-minded people to do thought experiments is a fairly uphill battle, though...and most bigots are closed-minded, even/especiallyif they don't think they are. So, while academically interesting, this to me plays more like preaching to the choir. Anyways, re: Trump's debt comment, I missed it and searches are all front-loaded with reactions, so...was it pretty much him just saying the US should shrug off national debt, because reasons? I mean, is Trumps's plan for the U.S. to file a chapter 11? If so, gotta say, he's pretty qualified.
  11. Watch, Watched, Watching: The Theatrical Release

    Agreed. Bloom's still a bit donut hole, but everything else is much much better. The Sheen brother/Jaime characters actually have points, for example, as opposed to being cutouts.
  12. Watch, Watched, Watching: The Theatrical Release

    Depending on filming sequence, that might even make sense. The kids' scenes...I generally just try and get through them because child actors ~, but in spite of that I was slightly hopeful early on with the interesting choice to (Ithought) make the Ben/Reed relationship the crux, but like with Doom's politics, they just went nowhere with it. At the time I suspected one of those films partly killed in the editing room because it jumped all over the place and had so many non-developed or unexplained developments...but tanking it part way in might also fit, like fuck it, put in a token effort and almost Smithee it. As you say, unlikely, but something certainly came unglued or never was.
  13. Watch, Watched, Watching: The Theatrical Release

    Some interesting things, conceptually, though...Doom starting as an anti-authoritarian quasi-activist was more nuanced than usual, without some specific backstory of seeing the government kill his parents or w/e, just a seemingly sincere distrust of the governmentand to a degree how that played into government control...and to their credit, they never quite picked sides on that as most films would. But really really awkwardly handled/scripted and acted, and never really fleshed out.
  14. I like yours too, except they make me think of Prince, and therefore funky sad. Also, not really, but I LIFT!
  15. I'll bet, if you check, that the plane thing is one of the ITTSHDTHW (insane things trump says he'll do that he won't) as opposed to more grounded ITTSHDTHW (insane things Trump says he'll do that he will). To you and me, these are impossible to tell apart, even in abbreviation, but then we aren't as naturally tuned in to the nuances of Trump's insanity. If we were, itwould obviously form the solid ground upon which to put this man in charge of the world's largest nuclear arsenal. Poor you and me, stuck waiting to find out which of hisinsane plans will come to fruition only by experiencing them and then going 'oh, he meant that one.'