Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

311 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      99
    • No
      129
    • Maybe
      83
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      57
    • No
      133
    • Indifferent
      50


Recommended Posts

Sounds like our "troops coming home" are stopping first in Iraq for an unspecified amount of time. Ugh, don't you just hate layover flights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2019 at 12:24 AM, Tediz64 said:

I wonder if you'd be echoing the same statement if we had a mandatory law saying everyone needs to join the military and serve for at least a certain # of years. After all that logic sounds pretty fair. Want to enjoy this country? Then contribute to it, protect it, and show your patriotism. I wonder if you'd be quick to say we should deploy people and be ready to fight. There is a reason why draft dodgers exist. They don't actually care about their country plus are selfish and simply want to take and never give. I get that these days you volunteer to join and should know that is part of the job, but people take for granted how difficult that job is and think it's easy. Not everyone can be a soldier. Thousands don't make it past BCT and another few thousand can't cut it in AIT. The cost and penalty that is inflicted on soldiers is way greater than what we give them in return. Then when they finish and come back, they need to adapt to a civilian life and world. They have to be able to make ends meet out here after spending so much time with only a certain skill set needed to get by but now they need a new one since nobody can just stay in the military till they die. At some point they have to retire. Anyways, I think this is pointless to discuss. It seems they some people just see them as tools to use and are so happy to chunk them at problems like as if it's that simple. I wonder what would happen if soldiers started to go on strike and people started enlisting less how people would treat those who remain in the service. 

I'll admit, you do make a really good point here.

I mean, it's a bit off topic, but the way we treat our veterans these days is ridiculous, and I feel like no one's addressing that. Or rather, the candidates who are addressing that for either party are not actually in a position to win elections.

That said, Excellen is not wrong to say that when you sign up to be a soldier, you are signing up for a job you know might get you killed. 

I think the main problem with your arguement is two fold:

1.) There are no draft dodgers these days, so you really can't say "that's why draft dodgers exist". There were draft dodgers fifty years ago, but we won't know if there are any now until push comes to shove. You can't judge today's youth by the standards of the 70s. You'll only really know what they'll do when the time actually comes.

2.) Patriotism is not the problem, and you even pointed out why. The army gets more than enough applicants. The problem is, the quality of the applicants has dropped ridiculously. There was a great TED talk by that one general, who was like, "The biggest problem isn't the number of people applying, it's the number of people actually making it through training". And honestly... that's a situation that will take some real work to figure out. I mean, that's basically like asking "how do you stop obesity" plus "how do you make kids smarter?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2019 at 12:24 AM, Tediz64 said:

There is a reason why draft dodgers exist. They don't actually care about their country plus are selfish and simply want to take and never give.

It's why some people dodge the draft (see Trump and George W), but for many it's about protesting a given war itself on moral grounds. The US were not the good guys in the Vietnam war, and being sent there to fight could have meant giving your life up for no good reason (and probably taking innocent lives as well).

On 10/20/2019 at 12:24 AM, Tediz64 said:

I get what you're saying, I really do, but I find it like an empty statement that isn't meant sincerely. I often enough hear candidates and the entire democratic party talking about slashing the military budget. (Well not all of them, but for sure the majority) So many people want to cut the price and make our soldiers live on the bare minimum while I see people buying and living an extravagant life style. It's like they want to reallocate the resources to themselves. So before anyone can make the statement about it being the practical solution, tactical decision, and/or the more wise investment, I also want to stop hearing people talking about cutting military spending. I get having a team of people in charge to make sure they aren't doing it frivolously and arbitrarily is necessary to prevent corruption as well as a host of other problems, but some of the proposals I seen are so unrealistic. It's crazy they'd even write it up and present it like as if they are seriously gonna put it to vote on the floor. 

Slashing the military budget is really about cutting back on things like expensive new stealth bombers or missile systems, or mismanagement. The US outspends all other nations on military budget:

2018_Military_Expenditures_by_Country.pn

Notice how many of these countries are our allies. One of the biggest criticisms of military spending is that much of it goes to weapons manufacturers who have lobbied to get contracts for new weaponry. Another criticism is tied to how we choose to use our military and arms production to violently interfere with the affairs of other countries for our own benefit (or more accurately, the benefit of a given administration and lobbyists). 

There's no sound argument against spending more for veteran services, especially on the grounds of a lack of funds. Yet, we choose to spend an overwhelming amount of money on being the world's top imperial power, to the benefit of a very specific few, and at the expense of literally everybody else on the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Johann said:

Yet, we choose to spend an overwhelming amount of money on being the world's top imperial power, to the benefit of a very specific few, and at the expense of literally everybody else on the planet.

I much rather have a high military spending with the United States being at the top of the food chain than having an authoritarian government like Russia or China leading the world. Russian and Chinese leadership benefits only ass kissers. The United States being the dominant superpower benefits not only Americans, but it also benefits the vast majority of democracies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, XRay said:

I much rather have a high military spending with the United States being at the top of the food chain than having an authoritarian government like Russia or China leading the world. Russian and Chinese leadership benefits only ass kissers. The United States being the dominant superpower benefits not only Americans, but it also benefits the vast majority of democracies.

I think which nation leads the world will be the one setting the best example. Better foreign policies, foreign aid, and deals will do a lot more for cultivating partnerships than more guns and drones would.

And I'd rather the US be at the top of the food chain of education or health care over military expenditure. Even if it took as much as the majority of our military spending which is totally unrealistic but that's how I feel. I love this country but you won't hear me shouting "ffffuuuuck Yeaaaarrrhhh! A gun for every man, women, and child, democracy!"

Edited by Glennstavos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Glennstavos said:

I think which nation leads the world will be the one setting the best example. Better foreign policies, foreign aid, and deals will do a lot more for cultivating partnerships than more guns and drones would.

And I'd rather the US be at the top of the food chain of education or health care over military expenditure. Even if it took as much as the majority of our military spending which is totally unrealistic but that's how I feel. I love this country but you won't hear me shouting "ffffuuuuck Yeaaaarrrhhh! A gun for every man, women, and child, democracy!"

That I agree with, and I do think we need better education and infrastructure. As the dominant superpower in the world, we should be leading the world in most categories.

In terms of foreign policy, I think we are usually pretty decent at that, with Trump being the sole exception. Bush made serious fuck ups, but he at least does not throw our allies under the bus or start trade wars with them.

For military expenditure, I still think it is a good idea to spend more than our enemies, since China has a higher GDP PPP than the United States, which means that every dollar they spend on their military goes farther than every dollar we spend on our military. I think it is also possible to be more efficient with our resources so we can spend less while maintaining the same effectiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, XRay said:

I much rather have a high military spending with the United States being at the top of the food chain than having an authoritarian government like Russia or China leading the world. Russian and Chinese leadership benefits only ass kissers. The United States being the dominant superpower benefits not only Americans, but it also benefits the vast majority of democracies.

I agree in that the idea of Russia or China being the world's dominant superpower would be a horrible fate, but that said, the US regular gets involved in places it absolutely shouldn't. All three nations are effectively empires, with long histories of interfering in places for no reason other than their own profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd be surprised what people will say if they think it would bring them attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So most Americans are aware of the big news congrats to our military intelligence/planners and troops.  Of course that orange sack of crap tries to take credit for it (of which he criticized Obama of doing with Bin Laden, like he did with golf, and a million other things) when him pulling out of Syria actually made it much tougher for them to carry out the operation as well as delayed it.  His braindead MAGA fools think he is some strategic genius, and of course he also says he didn't inform Dem leaders cause of leaks which is base gobble up.  Deep state conspiracies, Dems are traitors, FAKE NEWS, and all that other crap.  Bravo to the right wing political machine they've brainwashed their followers so much they can do anything, say anything, and they won't believe anything outside Fox, Rush Limbaugh, and Trump or GOP leaders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a good thing Baghdadi is dead since he was a scumbag out to overthrow civilisation and replace it with his medieval torture ground. Good riddance. 

I'm not really inclined to give Trump much credit though. I'm much more inclined to congratulate the soldiers for getting it done despite Trump burdening their effort with his presence. I imagine everyone involved was praying Trump wouldn't intrude and mess things up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm willing to admit that I'm impressed. Purely on the grounds that it's amazing to see neither Trump nor his cronies manage to blab about such an operation on cable news or twitter beforehand. That took willpower that I didn't know they had after years of self-incriminating press releases and lack of regard for national security when the microphones are on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible that they did not tell Trump about the decapitation of ISIS operation until it has been complete? I highly doubt Trump was able to keep his mouth shut if he knew.

On 10/26/2019 at 6:07 PM, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Civil war over such a worthless bag of shit. American right-wingers are a joke but their audience can be dangerous.

I had a chuckle when I read one of the replies.
"They think leftists don’t own guns"

I am pretty sure the far right know that not all on the left are anti-gun though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, XRay said:

Is it possible that they did not tell Trump about the decapitation of ISIS operation until it has been complete? I highly doubt Trump was able to keep his mouth shut if he knew.

I had a chuckle when I read one of the replies.
"They think leftists don’t own guns"

I am pretty sure the far right know that not all on the left are anti-gun though.

Most discussions I've seen from the far right would suggest otherwise. I remember one nut used this article's "Party and Ideology" bit used it to suggest that the left won't have the guns to stop them if they start a civil war after Trump's impeachment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, XRay said:

I had a chuckle when I read one of the replies.

"They think leftists don’t own guns"

I am pretty sure the far right know that not all on the left are anti-gun though.

Over the last few years people on the left have been arming themselves, or at least that's my experience. Usually they cite the resurgent violent right, and the threats of civil war that have been increasing over the last 10 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Its a good thing Baghdadi is dead since he was a scumbag out to overthrow civilisation and replace it with his medieval torture ground. Good riddance. 

I'm not really inclined to give Trump much credit though. I'm much more inclined to congratulate the soldiers for getting it done despite Trump burdening their effort with his presence. I imagine everyone involved was praying Trump wouldn't intrude and mess things up. 

Oh Trump, as military officials reported, actually delayed and made the operation much harder thanks to his Syria pull out.  The operation succeed in spite of him, though the chump would never tell the public that.  What was he doing during the operation?  Golfing at one of his resorts like always like more than any president in history, paid for by our tax dollars lining his and his families pockets.  The picture of him in the war room was taken after the operation, lol, complete staged.  

7 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

Over the last few years people on the left have been arming themselves, or at least that's my experience. Usually they cite the resurgent violent right, and the threats of civil war that have been increasing over the last 10 years. 

That's all the far right can do.  They don't have logic or reason or morality on their side.  So they will just shoot down those that disagree with them and say it was in the name of justice and preserving the glory of America or white supremacy or whatever other nonsense these clowns like to say.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure I entirely get this article, where conservatives are complaining about the impeachment process. The conservatives' claim of "weaponizing" the impeachment process is bullshit, but they also want Pelosi to wait for House vote before proceeding with the impeachment process? I do not mind giving Republicans more time, but all waiting for a House vote does is just to delay the process a bit, so I think it is pretty reasonable to accommodate that, unless I am missing something important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see reason to delay the impeachment of a president who admits to new crimes weekly, at this point.

The ethics complaint is also complete nonsense. What's happening w/r/t the impeachment is well within the investigative powers of congress, and the argument that the Congress isn't meant to be a check on the power of the president is just lol.

Edited by Excellen Browning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Prediction]: now that The House has voted to hold public impeachment hearings, Republicans who were complaining about testimony being taken in closed depositions + demanding public hearings will start complaining that public hearings are unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, XRay said:

I am not sure I entirely get this article, where conservatives are complaining about the impeachment process. The conservatives' claim of "weaponizing" the impeachment process is bullshit, but they also want Pelosi to wait for House vote before proceeding with the impeachment process? I do not mind giving Republicans more time, but all waiting for a House vote does is just to delay the process a bit, so I think it is pretty reasonable to accommodate that, unless I am missing something important.

The Republicans are basically making a bad faith argument; attack/question the process, despite being very aware that the proceedings are well within the Constitution and House rules. As @Excellen Browning mentioned, this is vital to the checks and balances, which is why this stuff is laid out at the beginning of the Constitution. 

For what it's worth, note that GOP leaders are not defending Trump's actions, and only attacking House Dems and the inquiry. This is because backing Trump could potentially cost these Republicans their seats in 2020, as the constant flow of damning new testimony/evidence is what's driving public opinion in support of the inquiry. Attacking the process is the only way they can try to push back while also being free to throw Trump under the bus if that's necessary hold some key seats.

Post-vote, their argument will now shift towards calling the whole thing illegitimate for not having been voted on from the start, or that the rules are, as @Shoblongoo pointed out, unfair. They'd probably fare better if they pushed for the articles of impeachment to come sooner than later, since a longer inquiry means more evidence for the trial, and that it would likely take place closer to the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Johann said:

The Republicans are basically making a bad faith argument; attack/question the process, despite being very aware that the proceedings are well within the Constitution and House rules. As @Excellen Browning mentioned, this is vital to the checks and balances, which is why this stuff is laid out at the beginning of the Constitution. 

For what it's worth, note that GOP leaders are not defending Trump's actions, and only attacking House Dems and the inquiry. This is because backing Trump could potentially cost these Republicans their seats in 2020, as the constant flow of damning new testimony/evidence is what's driving public opinion in support of the inquiry. Attacking the process is the only way they can try to push back while also being free to throw Trump under the bus if that's necessary hold some key seats.

Post-vote, their argument will now shift towards calling the whole thing illegitimate for not having been voted on from the start, or that the rules are, as @Shoblongoo pointed out, unfair. They'd probably fare better if they pushed for the articles of impeachment to come sooner than later, since a longer inquiry means more evidence for the trial, and that it would likely take place closer to the election.

I see, so they are just coming up with as much bullshit reasons as possible even if it does not really make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, XRay said:

I see, so they are just coming up with as much bullshit reasons as possible even if it does not really make sense.

Basically yeah, it's a "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach. People repeating these talking points are either arguing in bad faith, or ignorant as to how the process works. 

Edited by Johann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way some of their cohorts like Gaetz walked in to the closed-door meetings, smartphones in hand, "ignorant as to how the process works" definitely fits the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
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...