Jump to content
downzy

US Politics/Elections Thread

Recommended Posts

The only thing preventing countries from attacking each other at will is the U.S Military and its allies.   Some still do to an extent, but it would be 1000X worse without the U.S. and its allies.   

The U.S. isn't perfect.  And some of its foreign policy is based on capitalism.  What's the alternative?  

I've seen people over the 15 years that I've been a member of this forum complain about U.S. intervention and "policing" the world.  Then, no joke, when something happened in a foreign country, those same exact people would ask "Why isn't the U.S. getting involved?"  

The radical left wants to cut down the military and use that money for welfare programs.  The radical right doesn't want to pay any tax and wants everything to go to the state.  

So both extreme (radical) sides could not care less about the U.S. Military.  You've come full circle.  Congrats.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheSeeker said:

 

Apparently no one you know since you just admitted they’re all still alive?

Bootlickers don’t have a radical bone in their body and don’t deserve an ounce of respect - the military-industrial complex is why our world is headed towards collapse

Wrong.

I've had great uncles who died during WWII.  Family members who served during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf War and Iraq. 

The military-industrial complex is not perfect.  Far from it.  It's the only reason you and I are having this conversation right now, on a Guns N' Roses forum, though.   

Good chance you wouldn't be alive if it weren't for it.  Go read a history book. 

And it's petty of you to call someone who is willing to risk their life for their fellow man (I don't care what country they serve) a "bootlicker".  Pathetic.  How old are you?

 

How do you think the "world will collapse"?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

The radical left wants to cut down the military and use that money for welfare programs.

That isn't radical, thats sensible. Our military budget is obscene.

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, -W.A.R- said:

That isn't radical, thats sensible. Our military budget is obscene.

The "radical" left would cut it down by 70% or more within a decade.

The "moderate" left would cut it down by 10-15% within a decade....and I wouldn't necessarily be against that.  I'm a proponent of having a "balanced budget".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, soon said:

If its Biden v Trump the US need to be put into foster care.

That would be so depressing. Just imagine the debates - two guys who may or may not be going senile arguing with each other.

You know neither has the solution and one is there just to prevent a maniac from winning again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, -W.A.R- said:

That isn't radical, thats sensible. Our military budget is obscene.

Look at the bright side. Trump is going to spend most of the military budget in something else like immigration or whatever. He has said that himself 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

How's that Space Corp coming along? :lol:

HAHA, this is our counter-requruitment video for our private fleet

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

Wrong.

I've had great uncles who died during WWII.  Family members who served during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf War and Iraq. 

The military-industrial complex is not perfect.  Far from it.  It's the only reason you and I are having this conversation right now, on a Guns N' Roses forum, though.   

Good chance you wouldn't be alive if it weren't for it.  Go read a history book. 

And it's petty of you to call someone who is willing to risk their life for their fellow man (I don't care what country they serve) a "bootlicker".  Pathetic.  How old are you?

 

How do you think the "world will collapse"?  

 

Yeah, that German Navy that couldn't even cross the English channel and invade Britain was going to cross the Atlantic and invade the US :facepalm:

 

1 hour ago, Padme said:

Look at the bright side. Trump is going to spend most of the military budget in something else like immigration or whatever. He has said that himself 

If he said it, that means he's doing the opposite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I trust this will be a challenging read for many, especially the majority Statists who post. I think that, in addition to offering sound criticisms, it offers a clear delineation between a Socialist and a US Social Dem. It's worthwhile for sharpening that analysis alone, imho.

My personal favourite point being made is why decolonization still isn't a progressive talking point... especially when one starts peddling in working class, social dem "justice" language.

**************

The Lies Social Democrats Tell: FDR, the New Deal, and Social Fascism

Zach Medeiros | Politics & Government | Commentary | June 18th, 2019

June 12, Bernie Sanders gave a much-advertised speech about democratic socialism at George Washington University. Stuck in a distant second to perennial, burning-human-garbage-pile Joe Biden, eclipsed in media coverage by mildly charismatic mediocrities like Pete Buttigieg and even Elizabeth Warren, a charitable interpretation of this move could see it as a well-intentioned effort to assuage some very Amerikan fears about socialism, and perhaps gain some traction in the polls in the process. No doubt electoral opportunism played a role, because you don't get to stick around in the Senate for so long without learning how to play the game. While some may argue that Sanders was trying to make socialism more palatable for a US audience, I believe the speech represented something far more significant. Last week, Bernie Sanders ripped his mask off and with a heavy dose of historical revisionism showed his so-called socialism for what it truly is: social fascism. 

(...)

http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/the-lies-social-democrats-tell-FDR-the-new-deal-and-social-fascism.html#.XVGQdlB7mql

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, soon said:

I trust this will be a challenging read for many, especially the majority Statists who post. I think that, in addition to offering sound criticisms, it offers a clear delineation between a Socialist and a US Social Dem. It's worthwhile for sharpening that analysis alone, imho.

My personal favourite point being made is why decolonization still isn't a progressive talking point... especially when one starts peddling in working class, social dem "justice" language.

**************

The Lies Social Democrats Tell: FDR, the New Deal, and Social Fascism

Zach Medeiros | Politics & Government | Commentary | June 18th, 2019

June 12, Bernie Sanders gave a much-advertised speech about democratic socialism at George Washington University. Stuck in a distant second to perennial, burning-human-garbage-pile Joe Biden, eclipsed in media coverage by mildly charismatic mediocrities like Pete Buttigieg and even Elizabeth Warren, a charitable interpretation of this move could see it as a well-intentioned effort to assuage some very Amerikan fears about socialism, and perhaps gain some traction in the polls in the process. No doubt electoral opportunism played a role, because you don't get to stick around in the Senate for so long without learning how to play the game. While some may argue that Sanders was trying to make socialism more palatable for a US audience, I believe the speech represented something far more significant. Last week, Bernie Sanders ripped his mask off and with a heavy dose of historical revisionism showed his so-called socialism for what it truly is: social fascism. 

(...)

http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/the-lies-social-democrats-tell-FDR-the-new-deal-and-social-fascism.html#.XVGQdlB7mql

Lol, saw this beauty in there

Quote

The wealth and privileges of Western social democracy, of course, are impossible without the looting of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Third World diasporas within Western countries - in other words, imperialism.

Of course with no evidence given. That's an attack on White people with a socialist veneer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Lol, saw this beauty in there

Of course with no evidence given. That's an attack on White people with a socialist veneer.

As social movements produce knowledge, said knowledge is incorporated into the ongoing thought production. One cant and shouldnt take to explain perfectly obvious truths each time a subject is discussed.

And dude, its just hilarious with you. Again no counter argument. And this time you are doing the exact thing you accuse them of: not backing up your claim.

So somehow you dont understand the first thing about US foreign policy and global capitalism. About colonization and imperialism in the capitalist context. You dont even have the pedestrian base line analysis that "iraq was all about the oil" and you feel sufficiently informed to speak to this. Of course US wealth is build up on pillaging foreign wealth ad resources. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, soon said:

As social movements produce knowledge, said knowledge is incorporated into the ongoing thought production. One cant and shouldnt take to explain perfectly obvious truths each time a subject is discussed.

And dude, its just hilarious with you. Again no counter argument. And this time you are doing the exact thing you accuse them of: not backing up your claim.

So somehow you dont understand the first thing about US foreign policy and global capitalism. About colonization and imperialism in the capitalist context. You dont even have the pedestrian base line analysis that "iraq was all about the oil" and you feel sufficiently informed to speak to this. Of course US wealth is build up on pillaging foreign wealth ad resources. 

You're using circular arguments, 'I don't have to prove X is true because X is true!"

And Iraq was not about oil, lol. Saddam was already giving his oil away in the oil for food program. Saddam was a thorn in Israel's side and supported the Palestinian cause. That had more to do with the invasion than any oil conspiracies. Same with the saber-rattling against Iran today, that isn't about oil either, chief. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

You're using circular arguments, 'I don't have to prove X is true because X is true!"

And Iraq was not about oil, lol. Saddam was already giving his oil away in the oil for food program. Saddam was a thorn in Israel's side and supported the Palestinian cause. That had more to do with the invasion than any oil conspiracies. Same with the saber-rattling against Iran today, that isn't about oil either, chief. 

X is true. And you must be trolling or medicated to be arguing that US wealth isnt generated by extracting other nations wealth.

Evidently you also dont know what "pedestrian" means. So stop putting words in my mouth. 

Again you cant interact with the content. 

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, downzy said:

 

My problem isn't that Trump spread a conspiracy theory, it's that he spread a completely stupid one. The right has had Clinton Derangement Syndrome for years. I'm sorry people, the Clinton's were not running a pedo ring (at most, Bill was caught up in it). This is a slick strategy to get people off the topic of Epstein and his intelligence ties (and Trump's possible involvement as well).

3 minutes ago, soon said:

X is true. And you must be trolling or medicated to be arguing that US wealth isnt generated by extracting other nations wealth.

Evidently you also dont know what "pedestrian" means. So stop putting words in my mouth. 

Again you cant interact with the content. 

You spread another false conspiracy with your Iraq was about oil nonsense. You are digging yourself into a hole here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

My problem isn't that Trump spread a conspiracy theory, it's that he spread a completely stupid one. The right has had Clinton Derangement Syndrome for years. I'm sorry people, the Clinton's were not running a pedo ring (at most, Bill was caught up in it). This is a slick strategy to get people off the topic of Epstein and his intelligence ties (and Trump's possible involvement as well).

You spread another false conspiracy with your Iraq was about oil nonsense. You are digging yourself into a hole here.

Stop putting words in my mouth. 

I think you rate yourself too high and get into subject mater that confuses you, tbh.

I nor the article talk about oil in Iraq. Just take your time and read it. it may not excite you like a youtube video about jewish bankers, but just read it through in sections and then speak to what it actually says.

Or dont. You wont be missed.

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, soon said:

Stop putting words in my mouth. 

I think you rate yourself too high and get into subject mater that confuses you, tbh.

Quoted from you

Quote

You dont even have the pedestrian base line analysis that "iraq was all about the oil"

No, it really wasn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Quoted from you

No, it really wasn't. 

yeah, you evidently dont know what pedestrian means. And sadly you evidently dont seem to know what quotations mean. I certainly wasnt quoting myself or the article. Please bite someone elses ankles.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, soon said:

yeah, you evidently dont know what pedestrian means. And sadly you evidently dont seem to know what quotations mean. I certainly wasnt quoting myself or the article. Please bite someone elses ankles.

 

I will take this as your admittance of defeat

Share this post


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

 

 

If he said it, that means he's doing the opposite. 

Well, in that case nothing gets done. This kind of approach to issues is completly unbalance and wrong. If the Government spends a lot of money in one area and nothing or little elsewhere problems can't be fixed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

The only thing preventing countries from attacking each other at will is the U.S Military and its allies.   Some still do to an extent, but it would be 1000X worse without the U.S. and its allies.   

The U.S. isn't perfect.  And some of its foreign policy is based on capitalism.  What's the alternative?  

I've seen people over the 15 years that I've been a member of this forum complain about U.S. intervention and "policing" the world.  Then, no joke, when something happened in a foreign country, those same exact people would ask "Why isn't the U.S. getting involved?"  

The radical left wants to cut down the military and use that money for welfare programs.  The radical right doesn't want to pay any tax and wants everything to go to the state.  

So both extreme (radical) sides could not care less about the U.S. Military.  You've come full circle.  Congrats.  

 

the alternative, and the only way to keep humanity alive in the foreseeable future, is to create one world government, one world economy, one world jurisdiction, one tax system, one world legislation and one world population.

a redistribution model where land, resources and finances are reassigned.

there would be no third world anymore, since there is only one world. There would be no discrimination, because everyone belongs to the same population.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, action said:

the alternative, and the only way to keep humanity alive in the foreseeable future, is to create one world government, one world economy, one world jurisdiction, one tax system, one world legislation and one world population.

a redistribution model where land, resources and finances are reassigned.

there would be no third world anymore, since there is only one world. There would be no discrimination, because everyone belongs to the same population.

 

 

You'd probably only be able to create this through warfare and force, and I don't think it would work out as nicely as you think it would.

Share this post


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

the alternative, and the only way to keep humanity alive in the foreseeable future, is to create one world government, one world economy, one world jurisdiction, one tax system, one world legislation and one world population.

a redistribution model where land, resources and finances are reassigned.

there would be no third world anymore, since there is only one world. There would be no discrimination, because everyone belongs to the same population.

 

 

Haha, good luck with that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×