Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

293 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      93
    • No
      121
    • Maybe
      79
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      51
    • No
      122
    • Indifferent
      49


Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can acknowledge Bush’s flaws without equalizing him to Trump. The depths of illicit misuse of office + attacks on democratic values and institutions coming out of this White House are without equal in prior administrations, and cannot be normalized by equating them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

We can acknowledge Bush’s flaws without equalizing him to Trump. The depths of illicit misuse of office + attacks on democratic values and institutions coming out of this White House are without equal in prior administrations, and cannot be normalized by equating them.

Not just the White House. Any activist, journalist, etc that understands the constitution and the founding fathers' disdain for an out of control executive branch should put the spotlight on people like Nunes, McConnell, Barr, Gohmert and Jim Jordan for enabling the notion of "Accept God Emperor Trump or we'll have a Civil War" and encourage that these fuckers get voted out.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 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.

Been catching a little bit of the hearings after work. See nothing that changes the presumed state-of-play going in. (i.e. Trump gets impeached in The House and acquitted by The Senate on party line vote)
 
I will say that some of those recent election results in Bucks County, PA and the Virginia house races should have Trumpers very, very nervous about what a vote to acquit on party lines is going to mean for their future prospects of holding the Senate.
 
But I will also admit that in at least one key respect, the Democrats are misplaying their hand here.
 
If they wanted these impeachment hearings to be big, explosive attention-grabbers; they needed to fight to enforce subpoenas and haul the big names in.
 
...the Rudy Guilianis...
...the Mick Mulvaneys...
...the John Boltons...
 
Americans worship celebrity. They pay attention when famous names speak.
 
They were never going to pay attention to ambassadors and state department staffers
_____

By all accounts, the highlight of what they've line up so far is supposed to be Ambassador Sondland's testimony today.

Keep an eye on that 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2019 at 9:05 AM, Excellen Browning said:

You sure as shit weren't capable of stopping a civil war from happening.

There is not much we can do if we are pulling out. We cannot project power and security if we are not physically there.

On 11/19/2019 at 2:32 PM, eclipse said:

his reign left shit like the Patriot Act lying around.

That can be repealed or legislated away, although it does not look like it is on anyone's priority list right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 3 month extension of the Patriot Act appears to be included in a recent spending bill and in the house it was pretty much passed on party line votes with only a few Democrats like AOC and Ilhan Omar opposing it.

Including that in the bill makes absolutely no sense and the Democrats that voted for it deserve all the shit they get in reference to that. Why give such ammunition to the Republicans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New meme Template: 

Devin Nunes's face when Ambassador Sondland testified there was a quid-pro-quo to hold up aid to Ukraine in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. And that Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Mick Mulvaney, Rick Perry, and Rudy Giuliani all knew about it.  

Image result for devin nunes face expression"

3h3ara.jpg


...I trust the internet will use this responsibly....

3h3bxz.jpg

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

If Sondland is being described as the Nixon equivalent to John Dean, what does that make Fiona Hill who is straight up shitting on Devin Nunes and not beating around the bush on the subject of Burisma referring to the Bidens. I can only imagine how many right-wingers are calling for this woman's head.

Jimmy Kimmel did a bit yesterday where he went out and asked Trump supporters what they thought of Trump doing [insert White House scandal here].

But there was a trick. Instead of describing the events of Trump's current scandals, he described the events of Watergate.

Trump supporters didn't pick up on this. And defended the official misconduct + abuses of office that occurred during Watergate as unimpeachable, when they thought it was Trump that was doing it and not Nixon.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-supporters-nixon-kimmel_n_5dd52667e4b010f3f1d062ef
 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Devin Nunes's face when Ambassador Sondland testified there was a quid-pro-quo to hold up aid to Ukraine in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. And that Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Mick Mulvaney, Rick Perry, and Rudy Giuliani all knew about it.  

Watching it in motion is really incredible.

BmB1UCy.gif

I haven't been able to watch or even listen to these testimonies much, and have had to settle for NPR recaps on the ride home. I was (not) surprised to hear a a Republican trying to gaslight the interviewer in a segment this morning while driving into work.

Anyway. from what I'm hearing Fiona Hill is bringing the heat today, and something about Holmes pointing out some contradictions in Sondland's testimonies? Sounded like Sondland was trying to cover his own ass and he's in as deep as we'd all have guessed from the start.

Share this post


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

Anyway. from what I'm hearing Fiona Hill is bringing the heat today, and something about Holmes pointing out some contradictions in Sondland's testimonies? Sounded like Sondland was trying to cover his own ass and he's in as deep as we'd all have guessed from the start.

Lets not forget who exactly Sondland is in all this.

He was a corporate guy who made his money in the hotel industry, who had never done any government or diplomatic work of the kind that would qualify a man for an ambassadorship.

Then he  paid bribe money 'donated'  $1 million dollars to Trump's inauguration fund.

Then Trump made him our ambassador to all of Europe. (a man less charitable than myself might call that buying and selling of public office---but hey--details) 
___________

So at the one hand, there's the issue with the drug-deal they were cooking up to extort a foreign government into intervening in our election again on behalf of the Trump campaign by going after Joe Biden.  

...but even beyond that....

There's the underlying issue of how the people involved just shouldn't have even been there to begin with. And everything around this White House is just corruption layered on top of corruption layered on top of more corruption.  

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That face screams "stick a fork in me, I'm done!" from a mile away.

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...