Jump to content

General US Politics


Ansem

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Huh, I assumed the beginning and end of their plan was to hire Tulsi Gabbard. This seems more elegant though, and focus testing always favored the angry blondes anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

I will give credit where it is due. Fox is one of the worst news station out there, but at least they do something right on occasion no matter what their motives are, just as a broken clock gets the time right twice a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2019 at 4:21 PM, Etrurian emperor said:

That's a big thing when it comes to Trump and something that firmly sets him apart from other populist. I might never agree and think others foolish for thinking it but I can at least understand why someone would admire Putin, I can see why someone thinks Le Pen has what it takes to be a leader, I can see things that would make people respect Wilders and I can easily imagine why someone would fall for Farage's charm. 

But what's the excuse for supporting Trump? What has he ever said or done that could convince someone he wasn't an openly corrupt businessman and a complete dullard to boot? There are reason to fall for other populists but I cannot think of a single thing that could convince people that supporting Trump is a good idea. 

 

On 11/12/2019 at 6:32 PM, Dr. Tarrasque said:

The only thing I can think of is some shitty logic governed by the notion that blocking and undoing legislation is equal to a win. Otherwise there's just the anti-immigration crowd salivating and getting scammed (by people other than Trump too) with the promise of a wall.

I think he's sold quite a few stupid people that he is the ultimate businessman, the ultimate dealmaker (the guy who has filed for bankruptcy three times).  Also that he is self made (Yeah 100 million from his daddy as well as his real estate contacts, totally all Donald).  That he is tough (Mr. Draft dodger, whose feelings are always so hurt whenever anyone says anything negative about him and who is Putin's bitch).  

The other point he is represents the ultimate in white male entitlement, so the white power idiots love him.  Cop a feel whenever you want from whatever chick you want.  Tell non whites to go back to their country or claim they weren't born here.  Call them stupid and criminals, encourage violence on them.  

So one group is so braindead that they been successfully sold on the story of Trump as the ultimate success story.  A rags to riches miracle, who makes amazing deals and is tough as nails.  That he sounds like an uneducated fool works to his advantage with these folk, they think it makes him seem more 'real' and confirms to them that he comes from poverty or whatever.  The other group is the sludge of society.  

Edited by Lewyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lewyn said:

The other point he is represents the ultimate in white male entitlement, so the white power idiots love him.  Cop a feel whenever you want from whatever chick you want.  Tell non whites to go back to their country or claim they weren't born here.  Call them stupid and criminals, encourage violence on them.  

If they experience being groped by gay men, have Native Americans yell at them to go back to Europe, and have everyone call them dumb blonde neanderthals who should go completely extinct, they would probably learn to feel a little more empathy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/13/2019 at 4:18 PM, eclipse said:

. . .are you being sarcastic, or is this how you really feel?

Was not being sarcastic, just didn't have any further comment on it.

1 hour ago, XRay said:

If they experience being groped by gay men, have Native Americans yell at them to go back to Europe, and have everyone call them dumb blonde neanderthals who should go completely extinct, they would probably learn to feel a little more empathy.

Native Americans never say that, they are too nice.  Though they are the only people where saying such a statement makes sense, and it would be damn justified too if they said it to whites considering how they've been exterminated and had pretty much everything taken away from them. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I somewhat despise the idea when people say that Trump is worse than Bush.

Trump is more belligerent and a poor moral character, yes, but no one decision Trump has done has had the same effect as the blunders (if you are not attributing straight up malice/opportunism to them) that were the Iraq War and the decisions that lead to the 2008 financial crisis.

For the latter, you could maybe say that we are overdue a market crash, but that has not happened yet.

Bush was kinda the reason that modern Americans started to turn against "the establishment" in recent times.

My fear is that some people have short memories and have attempted to rehabilitate Bush as a "decent Republican," or something. As if getting rid of Trump will cure the rot in the Republican party that already existed.

 

Let's put it this way: you can speak politely and with civility, and still advocate for dropping bombs on foreign schoolchildren. Politicians have gotten a pass for a long time for being supposedly 'civil' in demeanour while advocating and putting into action horrible things.

The one thing that you could say is that Trump manages to fail on both accounts, though as I mentioned I would argue that perhaps not as much as I feel Bush did. Either way, take Trump out and the problem is still going to remain with the Republican (and to a lesser extent, the Democrat) party.

This wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but I've heard several democrats try to make amends with someone they vehemently disagreed with for years because it was politically convenient to do so.

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush was manipulated, what happened under the Bush administration is indeed terrible and shouldn't be overlooked indeed.  Loss of thousands upon thousands of lives for NOTHING, poor handling of the 9/11 incident, poor and delayed handling of Katrina incident that led to much more home destruction and much more injuries/lives lost, plunged into worst recession since the Great Depression.  Really that should have been the death of the Republican party right there, but a lot of stupid people out there.  

So now we get Trump.  Will people continue to be stupid after his reign of terror ends (hopefully next year or sooner) or will they continue to support the Republican party?  If we were a reasonably intelligent people the Republican party after this would have to make a major change in their philosophy and outlooks, but we probably aren't reasonably intelligent.

Oh yeah and people aren't talking about this enough, even Trump news reported on it.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/potus-to-pay-2-million-admits-misuse-of-trump-foundation-funds-in-settlement-with-ny-ag

BUT OBAMA, BUT CLINTONS!  Is all the defense those brain dead morons can come up with.  This should be repeated every frickin day by Democrats again and again and again.  Trump is a piece of trash as a human being for that alone, and that isn't political talk that is just fact.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2019 at 7:45 PM, Tryhard said:

Trump is more belligerent and a poor moral character, yes, but no one decision Trump has done has had the same effect as the blunders (if you are not attributing straight up malice/opportunism to them) that were the Iraq War and the decisions that lead to the 2008 financial crisis.

Trump has dragged American reputation through the mud and has largely allowed Russia and China to expand their influence unchecked. His so called trade war with China is pathetic. If he is half the man he claims to be, he would not hesitate to further weaponize tariffs against a tyrannical regime. He pulled out of the TTP like a stupid fucking retard, renamed NAFTA for his own ego, and slapped tariffs on our allies. That is far more damaging to the nation in the long run compared to going into Iraq; our trade relations are in tatters and our soft power has significantly decreased.

Dropping bombs on children is technically worse than putting children in holding camps, so I guess Trump is slightly better in that way. Katrina was bad and there was some incompetency, but I would argue Trump's handling of Puerto Rico was worse due to outright antagonism against an American territory and treating them like foreign strangers. Trump's haphazard pulling out of Syria is a thousand times worse than Bush/Obama pulling out of Iraq.

Edited by XRay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Excellen Browning said:

Going into Iraq was much more damaging to American credibility than most Americans realize. A united EU armed force is being discussed in large part due to the Iraq war, and it's aftermath.

I would argue otherwise. Going into Iraq is no where as bad as picking fights against allies and abandoning allies. Trump screwing with NATO and fucking up our trade is far more dangerous as that directly affects our nation's well being and strategic standing. We are losing Turkey and we have alienated Latin America. Russia has expanded their influence at our expense. China is taking advantage of our loss of commitment to free trade with our allies.

Going into Iraq is a mistake, but that would have been salvageable if we continued occupying the country and actually put in effort and devote resources into rebuilding the nation. The only two fucking reasons we have not done so is because they are brown and Russia is no longer a mortal threat to our existence that it used to be. It is so bad that we are somehow having trouble trying to save Iraqi and Afghan translators who have risked their lives to help our military to move to the United States. This is fucking ridiculous. If they have bled for my country, they absolutely deserve American protection and should be given American citizenship if they so wish.

Demeaning and abandoning allies is nowhere as salvageable. Who the fuck is going to take a Republican president seriously anymore, especially with a significant portion of their base are now okay with blowing vodka bottles and spreading their legs for communist swines to plow them for soybeans?

Edited by XRay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, XRay said:

Who the fuck is going to take a Republican president seriously anymore, especially with a significant portion of their base are now okay with blowing vodka bottles and spreading their legs for communist swines to plow them for soybeans?

The same people that always do.  Big business owners and the wealthiest looking for deregulation and tax cuts.  Trailer inbred trash who are easily brainwashed into thinking the Republican party stands for them.  Hardcore Christians who think Mr. Trump is doing what Jesus would do, maybe they think pedophilia is what Jesus would do as well.  Racists, sexists, anti gays, or anti non Christian religion people.  

The centrists, moderates, people who idealogically are in between both parties one hopes they won't take Republicans seriously anymore.  Again though we aren't a smart people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, XRay said:

I would argue otherwise. Going into Iraq is no where as bad as picking fights against allies and abandoning allies. Trump screwing with NATO and fucking up our trade is far more dangerous as that directly affects our nation's well being and strategic standing. We are losing Turkey and we have alienated Latin America. Russia has expanded their influence at our expense. China is taking advantage of our loss of commitment to free trade with our allies.

Going into Iraq is a mistake, but that would have been salvageable if we continued occupying the country and actually put in effort and devote resources into rebuilding the nation. The only two fucking reasons we have not done so is because they are brown and Russia is no longer a mortal threat to our existence that it used to be. It is so bad that we are somehow having trouble trying to save Iraqi and Afghan translators who have risked their lives to help our military to move to the United States. This is fucking ridiculous. If they have bled for my country, they absolutely deserve American protection and should be given American citizenship if they so wish.

Demeaning and abandoning allies is nowhere as salvageable. Who the fuck is going to take a Republican president seriously anymore, especially with a significant portion of their base are now okay with blowing vodka bottles and spreading their legs for communist swines to plow them for soybeans?

No. Going into Iraq under false pretences was an extremely bad look. Again, far worse than most Americans (like you) seem to realise. Going into Iraq with the Americans ended a bunch of political careers, and big US ally Tony Blair got all but called a war criminal in the official investigations into the UK's involvement in Iraq. And there's been a strong undercurrent of antiamericanism in western Europe since the invasion.

Secondly, nothing of what you posit here actually disproves what I'm saying.

Thirdly, w/r/t Iraq; lol no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Excellen Browning said:

No. Going into Iraq under false pretences was an extremely bad look. Again, far worse than most Americans (like you) seem to realise. Going into Iraq with the Americans ended a bunch of political careers, and big US ally Tony Blair got all but called a war criminal in the official investigations into the UK's involvement in Iraq. And there's been a strong undercurrent of antiamericanism in western Europe since the invasion.

Secondly, nothing of what you posit here actually disproves what I'm saying.

I agree that the government should not have lied, but I do not see how America taking out a dictatorship is somehow worse than back stabbing allies. If you rather have Trump bully you than have Bush lie to you for an excuse to take out a dictator, then I am not sure what to say.

Europe took out Gaddafi and Libya became and remained a mess. Leaving him alone is better for regional stability in my opinion, but I do not mind him being taken out either.

1 hour ago, Excellen Browning said:

Thirdly, w/r/t Iraq; lol no.

Leaving Iraq in a hurry is what allowed ISIS to flourish. The invasion happened whether it is good or not, and the best course of action after that would be to continue occupying the country and rebuild it.

If you think it is okay to make a mess of things and not clean up, America could have very well done that after WWII and left Europe to fend for itself against the Soviet Union.

Not staying and not rebuilding Iraq is more stupid in my opinion. We could have gained an ally, better control over oil, and shit like ISIS would not have flourished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, XRay said:

I agree that the government should not have lied, but I do not see how America taking out a dictatorship is somehow worse than back stabbing allies. If you rather have Trump bully you than have Bush lie to you for an excuse to take out a dictator, then I am not sure what to say.

Europe took out Gaddafi and Libya became and remained a mess. Leaving him alone is better for regional stability in my opinion, but I do not mind him being taken out either.

It's not because they are dictators that I care about the invasions, it's that if we applied the logic that the US uses selectively, the US military would invade Saudi Arabia tomorrow. The US is known to support 73% of the worlds dictatorships through military aid. However, they are ignored because they are 'allies'. Allying itself with morally wrong forces is a common thing for the US government to do.

To give you a lovely example, the US administration allied with warlords in the Afghanistan region to help them catch suspected terrorists. Ones that reportedly had underage sex slaves and told soldiers to keep quiet about this fact.

I'm not necessarily opposed to intervention when it makes sense, but the standards that are being applied right now are openly mocked and rightfully so.

The prevalent opinion from the neo-conservatives and neo-liberals is that the world is a geopolitical game in which global power should belong to as much as possibly to the United States. Something that is becoming (or has become) unpopular even though the vast majority of people do not like the Russian or Chinese governments. Why? Because worrying about what China does, does not help a struggling family in Kentucky, and so on and so on. 

It's for this reason that the US is seen as the number one threat to world peace over Russia and China by the world's respondents.

Europe doesn't gain any sort of prize in this regard as they have their own problems, but it's not as if this opinion is that uncommon.

2 hours ago, XRay said:

Leaving Iraq in a hurry is what allowed ISIS to flourish. The invasion happened whether it is good or not, and the best course of action after that would be to continue occupying the country and rebuild it.

What are the victory conditions for Iraq and Afghanistan? When do you plant the flag and say that you have succeeded?

Or, am I right in assuming that a permanent occupation would have been preferable to the politicians still defending the decision?

Saddam is dead, Osama Bin Laden is dead, and yet the only thing that has really been emboldened since those invasions is that there is more radicalized terrorists than when the US first entered.

Sounds like a failure to me that you better cut your losses with.

It's kinda like the war on drugs. Millions spent and lives incarcerated or lost and there is more drug use today than there was when it started. Even the UN reports itself that it is a failure.

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

I'm not necessarily opposed to intervention when it makes sense, but the standards that are being applied right now are openly mocked and rightfully so.

I agree the intervention does not make sense. Not many people can do anything about invading Iraq, but American voters had the opportunity to correct things by opposing haphazard withdrawal and supporting rebuilding Iraq. If the Iraqi government and people still wants us there now, I think we should still go back in and rebuild the country, although I do not think that is likely at this point.

While I would like to topple every dictatorship, we cannot really afford to do that. The best we can do right now is ally with some of them to stabilize a region and try to pressure them to modernize. Saudi Arabia is being an ass in Yemen right now, and if it were any other president we would have told them to back off and they would probably do so. Only Congress right now is doing that, so their impact is limited if the White House does not cooperate, as the White House is the branch that is primarily responsible for foreign diplomacy.

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

The prevalent opinion from the neo-conservatives and neo-liberals is that the world is a geopolitical game in which global power should belong to as much as possibly to the United States. Something that is becoming (or has become) unpopular even though the vast majority of people do not like the Russian or Chinese governments. Why? Because worrying about what China does, does not help a struggling family in Kentucky, and so on and so on.

As a neolibcon, global power should belong to the United States as much as possible because we are the ones who are willing to commit the most troops and resources to security and safeguarding our democracies.

If Europe wants to step up and take our place, I would not mind giving them that prestige and power. However, Europe is in no position to do that and it can barely keep itself together. If any other democracy wants to step up and take our place, I would gladly invite them to do so.

If a family in Kentucky is so short sighted to think what Russia and China does has no impact on them, then they are mistaken. Russia is infiltrating our election system and China is infiltrating our media. They might be fine with Russia helping them elect a fucking dumbass, but I am not okay with an enemy nation interfering in our political process. And that same dumbass started a trade war with communist swines who has no qualms ruining farming families by targeting American agricultural exports with tariffs.

2 hours ago, Tryhard said:

What are the victory conditions for Iraq and Afghanistan? When do you plant the flag and say that you have succeeded?

Or, am I right in assuming that a permanent occupation would have been preferable to the politicians still defending the decision?

Saddam is dead, Osama Bin Laden is dead, and yet the only thing that has really been emboldened since those invasions is that there is more radicalized terrorists than when the US first entered.

Sounds like a failure to me that you better cut your losses with.

It's kinda like the war on drugs. Millions spent and lives incarcerated or lost and there is more drug use today than there was when it started. Even the UN reports itself that it is a failure.

The victory condition would be to turn war torn Iraq into the next Europe or Japan. It is is not easy and it is not cheap, but the alternative is what we have right now and leaving the mess as is would be far more costly to the United States in the long run. We are on the fucking door step of Iran, and if we have a friendly democracy there, it would be so much easier to contain and pressure Iran, and maybe even regain Iran as an ally if the Iranians revolt successfully. Having a stable democratic Iraq would also help the United States buffer and dampen the hostility between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and keeping the Persian Gulf and oil prices more stable.

A permanent occupation is not necessary to do that, but we do need to spend time there and actually pour money into the country to get Iraq to rebuild. We need time to fix what we broke. I am thinking between 5 to 10 years of occupation, about the same amount of time we spent in Europe and Japan.

The only reason ISIS managed to be as bold and successful as they were was because we left a power vacuum behind. If we stayed there, they would have had a much harder time to pop up. If we fixed Iraq the right way the first time instead of mindlessly sitting in Iraq and then pull out immediately, we would not have had to go back and deal with ISIS.

The difference between occupying Iraq and the war on drugs is that continued occupation would save lives and prevent the shit show that is happening now, while continuing the war on drugs actually ruins lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US has influenced other countries elections or gotten leaders in power, they have also invaded, all this stuff is going to have blowback from people of said countries.  All that military spending could be used to improve education and healthcare and other aspects for citizens.  

You know who fights those wars too?  Well the poor.  US Military primarily go to poor areas to recruit cause the people are so desperate, and there is the GI Bill.  Of course one of the many reasons that Republicans love to go to war is poor people are disposable pieces of meat to them.  If they can be used for financial gain, that is fine.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, XRay said:

I agree that the government should not have lied, but I do not see how America taking out a dictatorship is somehow worse than back stabbing allies. If you rather have Trump bully you than have Bush lie to you for an excuse to take out a dictator, then I am not sure what to say.

Europe took out Gaddafi and Libya became and remained a mess. Leaving him alone is better for regional stability in my opinion, but I do not mind him being taken out either.

Leaving Iraq in a hurry is what allowed ISIS to flourish. The invasion happened whether it is good or not, and the best course of action after that would be to continue occupying the country and rebuild it.

If you think it is okay to make a mess of things and not clean up, America could have very well done that after WWII and left Europe to fend for itself against the Soviet Union.

Not staying and not rebuilding Iraq is more stupid in my opinion. We could have gained an ally, better control over oil, and shit like ISIS would not have flourished.

The US took out a dictatorship that it happily left in place after the Gulf War, happily ignores or outright supports others, and in doing so caused a massive civil war, another refugee wave in a region that's already seen lots of tension (and war) due to refugee streams, and in doing so destabilized the region.

Not to mention that your claim of leaving Iraq in a hurry is a complete fabrication; Iraq was occupied for *checks notes* almost 9 years. It ended in 2011.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

The US took out a dictatorship that it happily left in place after the Gulf War, happily ignores or outright supports others, and in doing so caused a massive civil war, another refugee wave in a region that's already seen lots of tension (and war) due to refugee streams, and in doing so destabilized the region.

Not to mention that your claim of leaving Iraq in a hurry is a complete fabrication; Iraq was occupied for *checks notes* almost 9 years. It ended in 2011.

9 years of occupying with little effort towards rebuilding, and we started withdrawing in 2007. If we rebuilt the country we would be okay with leaving around that time, but since we did shit, we should have at least stayed in the area and provide security.

We made the mistake of invading, but since we had the benefit of hindsight after the invasion, we should not have made the mistake of withdrawing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Excellen Browning said:

Are you willfully ignoring the bit about the invasion causing a civil war? Because that greatly complicates any sort of reconstruction.

I am not. We are the overwhelmingly dominant power during the invasion and occupation, therefore we are the ones most capable of enforcing security and peace. No one said reconstruction is easy, but we should still do it anyways because we invaded in the first place.

Edited by XRay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone watch any of the impeachment hearing stuff?  The republitards only defense seems to be bashing the witnesses and talking of lunatic conspiracies.  The whole party is garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lewyn said:

Anyone watch any of the impeachment hearing stuff?  The republitards only defense seems to be bashing the witnesses and talking of lunatic conspiracies.  The whole party is garbage.

Typical hearings, confirmed that the whackos defending Trump are getting their conspiracy theories from John Solomon as evidenced by Nunes defending him as these witnesses started to discredit the man.

When Solomon wrote for The Hill, you could always tell the piece was by him before reading who wrote it simply by looking at the headline as those always had his stink and his articles, despite being clearly labeled OPINION, would often end up at the top in terms of popularity because that's just what Right-wingers loved to source. Solomon is now a contributor at Fox News but he's still delivered a blow to The Hill's rep.

The best thing that has come out of these hearings is Elise Stefanik stepping up as a new Trump endorsed "Republican star" so that's another seat that should hopefully flip come 2020. 

Jordan being switched in to obstruct the hearings has worked out about as well as expected and I love when he mentions how "63 million people appointed the president". 

In more interesting news, apparently a majority of Republican VOTERS say adoption agencies shouldn't be allowed to refuse same-sex couples

EDIT: They have 2 other witnesses speaking now. It looks like Kurt Volker was brought in as a witness by the GOP side (Devin Nunes) and the man is basically throwing Giuliani and Trump under the bus. Sounds spicy, gonna keep watching.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2019 at 5:45 PM, Tryhard said:

My fear is that some people have short memories and have attempted to rehabilitate Bush as a "decent Republican," or something. As if getting rid of Trump will cure the rot in the Republican party that already existed.

I'm seeing this, and it makes my skin crawl.  Both of them are bad in their own ways, and that needs to be acknowledged.  I don't care how decent of a person Bush is outside of the presidency, his reign left shit like the Patriot Act lying around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...