Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes mate, you know better than the US state department.
Whoa there, let's not venerate the State Department. Yes, it attempts to advance US interests around the globe. This is not the same thing as acting in the sort of good moral character that would advance relations with other countries in the long term. I rarely agree with the neocons, but I do agree with their point that the sort of democracy promotion we engage in, up to and including Hillary Clinton's efforts to weaponize social media towards that end, is ultimately self-defeating.

Even the most ardent proponents of the democratic peace proposition wouldn't go so far as to say that spreading democracy across the globe would end war. What they would tell you is that democratic states don't fight at present because their interests are sufficiently aligned relative to other states, and that the claim that a globe full of democratic states would not experience war is an untestable proposition. They might find other reasons to fight, eg: religion.

The State Department is better informed than I am with respect to conditions on the ground all around the globe, but it doesn't follow that they make the right decisions with respect to what to do about them.
 
A republican governor only being 1 point ahead in Oklahoma is blowing it even if he wins. Statewide elections are usually 20+ for GOP candidates
That's one way of looking at it. I would look at it this way: you can do whatever you want from a policy standpoint subject to the condition of winning reelection by one vote. It would appear that Stitt has taken on far more risk than he probably should have, in that regard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top