* Unless it's an international treaty ofc
* Unless it's an international treaty ofc
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Typically the person being asked to honor that treaty isn't the one who signed it. Presidents/Congress cannot bind future presidents and congress.Originally Posted by Aimless
I don't think you realize how international law works. What you said is the exact opposite of reality. If it weren't, no one would sign treaties. Treaties bind a country, not a leader. That means even when there's a civil war and a brand new regime, that regime is still legally obligated to follow treaties signed by their predecessors. What doesn't bind future presidents are executive agreements, and last I checked, Obama keeps on getting bashed for using those.
Hope is the denial of reality
https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/stat...37338943643648
No racists in the Trump camp.
Hope is the denial of reality
1 in 50 Hillary Clinton voters prefer Duke over Clinton?Nearly 1 in 10 Hillary voters either prefer Duke to Clinton or aren't sure which they prefer?
To be a fair comparison would want to see the question reversed and ask if forced if prefer Trump or Duke. Otherwise that is a classic and terrible example of push polling.
Considering that Duke supports Trump, what would be the point of that question?
Hope is the denial of reality
The point would be as a control question against those who simply answer at whichever partisan way goes against their opponent. I thought you were into polisci, you seem quite unaware of many of the well known problems with opinion polling of which that is a classic example. The notion 30% would choose the contrary option to the named political opponent is not unusual:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11/survey-questions-fiction_n_2994363.html
This is a poll, not a study. Talking about controls makes no sense.
Hope is the denial of reality
It does if you want to be intellectually credible or produce results that should be taken seriously.
Pollsters are known to throw in an "interesting" question. It's not what the poll is about though. It's whether the people of North Carolina support Trump or Clinton.
Hope is the denial of reality
Yet you chose to highlight the question as if it should be taken seriously, despite it intellectually being worth less than a piece of used toilet tissue
If you want to do that you should ask them to choose between Trump and someone who isn't in his camp. You should find an alternative who is as far from Trump as Duke is from Clinton.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
#brexit
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yes, you should. Pick an equivalent to Duke and ask the question. Though I suspect ~30% of Clinton supporters would name Duke if the question was asked anyway - 10% didn't name Clinton when the choice was between Clinton and Duke FFS!
Your suspicion has no evidence. Republicans in N. Carolina preferring Duke to Clinton does.
Hope is the denial of reality
My suspicion has plenty of evidence, like the link I put above. Your dodgy polling matched almost perfectly that which I could find dozens of articles warning against. 30% going instinctively against the named opposition of Clinton is actually well below the 39% in the graph above that reacted when Obama was named. So considering less people went against Clinton when it means something than go against Obama when it doesn't you've proven the square root of fuck all. Had there been a control question we could have compared notes seriously to learn something rather than it being a push poll.
That would be like a poll in the UK asking if people prefer Corbyn or May then asking if they prefer May or Karl Marx and putting that into a grid and finding that 30% of Corbyn supporters chose Marx over May while 9% of May supporters did not prefer May over Marx. I'd be more shocked at the latter than the former.
Ohio Trump campaign chair Kathy Miller says there was 'no racism' before Obama
Kathy Miller called the Black Lives Matter movement ‘a stupid waste of time’ and said low African American voter turnout could be due to ‘the way they’re raised’
The reporter's face says it all
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
There isn't a Facepalm suitable for that level of stupid.
The low turnout thing from your snippet is probably true. Children of disengaged non-voters are more likely to be disengaged non-voters and vice versa.
The example you cite involves a fictional and neutral issue about which no-one can have a legitimate opinion. Unless you want to make the case for people not knowing who David Duke is, it's hard to view Duke as being neutral in any way. There is a right answer to the question that was asked but a large number of Trump's supporters in North Carolina preferred the wrong answer. Hardly surprising considering NC was the place where the KKK last saw a major revival. Also not surprising considering the candidate we're talking about:
http://usuncut.com/politics/lynch-ne...pporters-talk/
And, given the above, this is the least surprising revelation of all:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/0...-donald-trump/
Perspective: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...sement-n652071
Cops are Trump-loving racist mofos
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
People can be idiots. I expect a not insignificant proportion of those surveyed answered without realising or caring who Duke is
Negative. We literally can break any treaty we want. There is no authority above America's. Now we would suffer damage to our reputation, we could have other countries hold our money and make it difficult to do business with us but Congress and the President can absolutely rip up any treaty if they desire to. We are a sovereign nation.
Right. Just like you can refuse to pay your bills. Can you physically do it? Sure. Will you be arrested for it? Probably not. Is it an incredibly bad idea for many reasons? Absolutely. If you start tearing up treaties, not only will other countries stop treating you seriously, but the markets will stop taking you seriously.
Hope is the denial of reality
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
You both just said the same thing.
No, Lewk repeated the same dumb thing you said about treaties a few months ago. The statement is either false or it's vacuously true. Not good in either case.
Last edited by Loki; 09-23-2016 at 12:36 PM.
Hope is the denial of reality
TBH, the USA is seen as a bit of a wobbly partner internationally. What Lewk stated may not be followed through by your government 100% but traces in it are visible to a higher extent than in other countries. The punishment for being unreliable is not short term enough for a country with the kind of power the USA has to keep populist 'tear up this treaty' politics completely in check.
Congratulations America
It is not false and nor given the context of why it was brought up was it vacuous. While of course there are consequences for leaving treaties if your nation is willing to pay those consequences it remains a choice. As is going to be demonstrated by the UK.
Lewk explicitly mentioned the threats and consequences for doing so, so you saying "yebbut there will be consequences" is no rebuttal.
Agreed. At the end of the day like it always has done it comes down to Realpolitik and not lawyers with America.
Ignoring the fact that realpolitik relies heavily on diplomacy, which can't or won't be conducted with countries viewed as being unreliable.
Hope is the denial of reality
You mean like signing and reneging on Kyoto? America would never do something like that.
Fair enough that wasn't fully ratified but the principles weren't very different. Especially when so many Treaties have an exit clause built in even if it's never expected to be used. Like NAFTA Article 2205.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote