International Events VIII: Been living under a rock so long

[Larry of the Lawn]

9 hours ago, Padraig said:

In fairness, did you read all my post?  Or was it that unclear?   For example, I included a quote from the Guardian, which criticised Biden over Afghanistan.  It suggests I know something?  Right?  Right?

Fair enough.  You have serious reservations about the US government.  But that doesn't mean that every anti-US post is a good one. Especially a one liner.  You did extrapolate from that post something tangible but that was you, not the original poster.  But the very fact that we have made the discussion about the poster rather than the actual serious topic in the Guardian says a lot about the post.

Yes, I read the linked article, and your post, what had me confused, what was unclear (to me) is that you seemed to think there needed to be something about sanctions in there when CF was clearly linking it because it described behavior that they thought to be sanction-worthy.

We didn't make the discussion about the poster, @A Horse Named Stranger did when he called CF a Putin Drone or whatever.  

You all can just let me know when the appropriate time is to point out US hypocrisy.  Anybody says two words remotely critical of the US and it's whataboutism apparently.  

5 hours ago, Zorral said:

The current discussion had been Putin and Ukraine and sanctions.  OP came in to say we and Biden are hypocrites re Russia due to Afghanistan.  That is what I responded to, because hypocrisy or not, Putin's invasion and genocide of Ukraine is a very real threat to the entire world, and because Putin personally steals/klepts etc. the wealth of whatever he controls.  Biden does not.  He conflated the impounding of Afghanistan funds as Biden personally taking them.  Whereas Putin does personally take over wealth, or control it through his puppet oligarachs, wherever he is.  There is a huge difference between the two.

Starting with 

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/04/if-trump-was-still-president-ukraine-would-be-so-screwed.html

 

Nobody, including the author of the Guardian piece thinks Biden is personally taking Afghanistan $.

All I have to go on is what people write.  You wrote:

22 hours ago, Zorral said:

Because the OP is trying to break our own brains right here.

Of course the United States, like the UK and all colonial powers have enormous debts and miseries for which they are responsible. But Biden isn't responsible for what is going on in Ukraine.  That is Putin first, second, third, etc. and that's the point.

 

[Padraig]

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Yes, I read the linked article, what had me confused, what was unclear (to me) is that you seem to think there needed to be something about sanctions in there when CF was clearly linking it because it described behavior that they thought to be sanction-worthy.

As I said previously.   You are giving CF a lot of credit based on little substance.

Are you saying you read that article and your response was "we should sanction the US until it releases money to the people of Afghanistan".  Seriously?  You think that was the author was looking for?

2 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

You all can just let me know when the appropriate time is to point out US hypocrisy.  Anybody says two words remotely critical of the US and it's whataboutism apparently.  

I find it weird that you ask me this...since I explicitly quoted from the Guardian criticising the US?  If I do it, its not "criticism"?  Are you the only person (and CF) able to criticise the US?

2 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

We didn't make the discussion about the poster, @A Horse Named Stranger did when he called CF a Putin Drone or whatever.  

Is this a royal "we"?  I was including everyone that ended up talking about the poster.  I never said you started it.

Maybe, you are misunderstanding everything I am writing but from where I am sitting, this is getting surreal...

[Larry of the Lawn]

18 minutes ago, Padraig said:

As I said previously.   You are giving CF a lot of credit based on little substance.

Are you saying you read that article and your response was "we should sanction the US until it releases money to the people of Afghanistan".  Seriously?  You think that was the author was looking for?

I find it weird that you ask me this...since I explicitly quoted from the Guardian criticising the US?  If I do it, its not "criticism"?  Are you the only person (and CF) able to criticise the US?

Is this a royal "we"?  I was including everyone that ended up talking about the poster.  I never said you started it.

Maybe, you are misunderstanding everything I am writing but from where I am sitting, this is getting surreal...

Sorry, I'm also feeling that last paragraph.  The linked op-ed being from someone who described the end result of 20 years of interventionism on the part of the US in Afghanistan and lived through it, i didn't think it was that big a leap to see that who gets sanctioned has little to do with the actual offense and more who does it.  To only focus on the money given to 9/11 victims families wasn't something I expected and not see the greater culpability. Since you recognized the US has plenty to go after them for I was confused.  

Not the royal we at all, I was using it is everyone who has responded to this.  A horse named stranger made it personal,not you or me.

Maybe I am giving conflicted thought too much credit, seems a very simple train of though to me to link something about where Afghanistan is 20 years later, but I don't think so and I've seen enough of their posts over the last few years to know they aren't some troll, so sucks to see someone treated as such.  Is a one line the best way to communicate a subtle point?  Of course not.  

 

 

[Zorral]

4 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Nobody, including the author of the Guardian piece thinks Biden is personally taking Afghanistan $.

All I have to go on is what people write.  You wrote:

On 4/13/2022 at 7:51 PM, Zorral said:

Because the OP is trying to break our own brains right here.

Of course the United States, like the UK and all colonial powers have enormous debts and miseries for which they are responsible. But Biden isn't responsible for what is going on in Ukraine.  That is Putin first, second, third, etc. and that's the point.

Except that is how the OP wrote it, and that's how it came through.

[Conflicting Thought]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

Except that is how the OP wrote it, and that's how it came through.

Sorry,  i dont really feel comfortable making subtle or  more elaborated posts in englsh, i lack the confidence.  At least larry got ehat i was trying to say, and gave me the benefit of doubt.

It is sad.though to be told i am a  russian troll.

Im being honest, and trying to make a point.  That thankfully larry got. And ecplained better than i could have. So thank you for that!

[Padraig]

10 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

A horse named stranger made it personal,not you or me.

And we all joined the tango.  That is what I was referring to.  We could have choosen to ignore that personal argument and focused on the real issue at hand (Afghanistan), but even now, here we are barely skirting that and still debating how to debate.

Of course, another reason why this Afghanistan argument hasn't taken flight is (I imagine) most people here would like the US and West to do more to help the ordinary citizens of Afghanistan.  Not everyone would agree on the specifics on how to help (because we don't like the Taliban), but people much prefer to debate in good v evil terms.  No complexity allowed. 

Or they prefer to use cheap things like whataboutism.  Because it is easy.

10 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

i didn't think it was that big a leap to see that who gets sanctioned has little to do with the actual offense and more who does it.

You complain about people saying your arguments are defined as whataboutism.  But this quote is pure whataboutism.   That has to be obvious to you?

Its not difficult to make a critical post about the US and Afghanistan that isn't "whataboutism".  Just ignore Ukraine (not related) and sanctions (because that is clearly not going to help Afghanistan.  And i'm not sure what it means.  Is the US supposed to sanction itself?).  As i've said before.  Go back to the Guardian article!  Not whataboutism.  

There is a lot of criticism of the US in the US politics thread.  Most of it isn't whataboutism.  It can be done.  If it keeps getting thrown at you though, it could actually be you.  Might be worth thinking about!

5 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Im being honest, and trying to make a point.  That thankfully larry got.

I don't think i'm ever going to figure out what that point was.  

[DireWolfSpirit]

I would join this argument but I've lost track of what it is.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

So… will this help or hurt Le Pen?

 

[mormont]

At last glance she was 10-15 points behind in the polls, so I can't imagine something like this will swing that needle either way.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 4/23/2022 at 2:51 AM, mormont said:

At last glance she was 10-15 points behind in the polls, so I can't imagine something like this will swing that needle either way.

I’m going to guess the polls will be off to a significant degree in le Pen’s favor with many disaffected leftists and progressives not feeling a point in once again having to save the liberal.

From what I understand the average polling error for a French Presidential election is 4.5 points but I won’t be totally shocked if le Pen still snuck in a victory.

 

 

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I’m going to guess the polls will be off to a significant degree in le Pen’s favor with many disaffected leftists and progressives not feeling a point in once again having to save the liberal.

From what I understand the average polling error for a French Presidential election is 4.5 points but I won’t be totally shocked if le Pen still snuck in a victory.

 

 

Belgian media are reporting that Le Pen has carried Martinique, Guadeloupe, Guyane, by big margins, and St. Pierre and Miquelon narrowly.  Macron has narrowly carried French Polynesia.  Those are very big swings, compared to 2017, but their electorates are small, and they were all hard hit by Covid.

[Varysblackfyre321]

19 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Belgian media are reporting that Le Pen has carried Martinique, Guadeloupe, Guyane, by big margins, and St. Pierre and Miquelon narrowly.  Macron has narrowly carried French Polynesia.  Those are very big swings, compared to 2017, but their electorates are small, and they were all hard hit by Covid.

Ah sounds like ill tidings. I hope for the sake for anyone brown and/or Muslim macron(whose already been bad to brown people and Muslims) he wins over the fascist.

[SeanF]

13 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Ah sounds like ill tidings. I hope for the sake for anyone brown and/or Muslim macron(whose already been bad to brown people and Muslims) he wins over the fascist.

I think the Overseas Departments can generate some very odd results,  If Le Pen has won the West Indian Departments, it can only have been with the support of black voters (or mass absention by them).

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

mass absention by them).

Which was always a legitimate worry with regards to Macron. He played to the far right’s xenophobia and racism as if he didn’t have to work for the votes from leftists or voters of color. 

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I’m going to guess the polls will be off to a significant degree in le Pen’s favor with many disaffected leftists and progressives not feeling a point in once again having to save the liberal.

From what I understand the average polling error for a French Presidential election is 4.5 points but I won’t be totally shocked if le Pen still snuck in a victory.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED that your "guess" is basically the worst case scenario.  Even a fatalistic clock is right twice a day.

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm shocked, SHOCKED that your "guess" is basically the worst case scenario.  Even a fatalistic clock is right twice a day.

The worst case scenario I think you and I would see is a le Pen victory(which is still realistic at this point). I’m guessing that macron will win but it’ll by a significantly thinner margin than what the polls suggest.

[A True Kaniggit]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Even a fatalistic clock is right twice a day.

Boooo. I dislike this.

A broken clock is right twice a day.

A fatalistic clock that is 5 minutes too fast or 5 minutes too slow will never be right.

 

Edit: A broken fatalistic clock will be right twice a day.

[SeanF]

Pip Moss on Political Betting has confirmed these results:  Le Pen,

Guadeloupe 69.6 +44.7 on 2017.
Martinique 60.9 +38.4
Guiana 60.7 +25.6
Saint Martin/Saint Barthélemy 55.4 +20.5
Saint Pierre & Miquelon 50.7 +14.0

French Polynesia Macron 51.8 Le Pen +6.6

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I'm just a bit stunned that so many would not vote for Le Pen on the first go, but then two days later would sign up for the openly evil path she wants to go down. 

[SeanF]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm just a bit stunned that so many would not vote for Le Pen on the first go, but then two days later would sign up for the openly evil path she wants to go down. 

On the face of it, it seems that most Melenchon voters went for Le Pen.  I'm doubtful that would be the case in Metropolitan France, though.

Bizarrely, bookies are now offering 12-1 on Le Pen.