Jump to content
downzy

US Politics/Elections Thread

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

 It would have given them time to recover and they would have had all of Europe’s resources available to them

This notion that America and other nations would allow Germany to take time to lick its wounds for a decade or two is absurd. 

Do you honestly think Germany would have been able to hold onto their gains?  It would have taken a tremendous amount of resources to maintain continental control.  

It's not as though the U.S. would have sat idly by.  The U.S. is blessed with two massive oceans protecting it from any other nation other than Mexico or Canada.  It has access to its own resources, including oil, and a population that would have likely surpassed Europe.  The U.S. was fighting a three front war in WW2 and dominating two of them by the later stages.  As Churchill exclaimed, the war was decided when America joined the fight.  

There is zero chance Germany takes over America regardless of how much time you want to give them outside of Hitler getting his hands on nuclear weapons first.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, downzy said:

This notion that America and other nations would allow Germany to take time to lick its wounds for a decade or two is absurd. 

Do you honestly think Germany would have been able to hold onto their gains?  It would have taken a tremendous amount of resources to maintain continental control.  

It's not as though the U.S. would have sat idly by.  The U.S. is blessed with two massive oceans protecting it from any other nation other than Mexico or Canada.  It has access to its own resources, including oil, and a population that would have likely surpassed Europe.  The U.S. was fighting a three front war in WW2 and dominating two of them by the later stages.  As Churchill exclaimed, the war was decided when America joined the fight.  

There is zero chance Germany takes over America regardless of how much time you want to give them outside of Hitler getting his hands on nuclear weapons first.  

 

I never really understood why Hitler went into Russia when he did and the reasoning behind it.  Honestly I think we were a lot closer to all speaking German than as it may appear. 

Share this post


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

This notion that America and other nations would allow Germany to take time to lick its wounds for a decade or two is absurd. 

Do you honestly think Germany would have been able to hold onto their gains?  It would have taken a tremendous amount of resources to maintain continental control.  

It's not as though the U.S. would have sat idly by.  The U.S. is blessed with two massive oceans protecting it from any other nation other than Mexico or Canada.  It has access to its own resources, including oil, and a population that would have likely surpassed Europe.  The U.S. was fighting a three front war in WW2 and dominating two of them by the later stages.  As Churchill exclaimed, the war was decided when America joined the fight.  

There is zero chance Germany takes over America regardless of how much time you want to give them outside of Hitler getting his hands on nuclear weapons first.  

 

Yeah, more than likely, that would have been the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Download said:

never really understood why Hitler went into Russia when he did and the reasoning behind it.  Honestly I think we were a lot closer to all speaking German than as it may appear. 

A central tenement of National Socialism, to create Lebensraum in the east,  

Quote

And so, we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy tendency of our pre–War period. We take up where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the East. At long last, we break off the colonial and commercial policy of the pre–War period and shift to the soil policy of the future

- Mein Kampf, 1925.

Quote

The National Socialist Movement, on the contrary, will always let its foreign policy be determined by the necessity to secure the space necessary to the life of our Folk. 

- Zweites Buch, 1928

Truthfully Hitler didn't want to fight a war against Great Britain, and later the United States, which he saw as an annoyance, diverting him from his main goal of creating a new racial order in the east.

But you question still stands of course, in that ''why didn't he finish the war against Britain first?''. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, downzy said:

This notion that America and other nations would allow Germany to take time to lick its wounds for a decade or two is absurd. 

Although you'd have to say that, assuming Britain was removed, that the same problems the Germans would have projecting the war across the Atlantic would similarly apply to the United States.

Share this post


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

Although you'd have to say that, assuming Britain was removed, that the same problems the Germans would have projecting the war across the Atlantic would similarly apply to the United States.

That is true.  That said, I would think the US would have a much easier time marshalling and coordinating resources and strategy against an enemy that is likely exhausting itself keep native forces at bay.  The U.S. buildup of its native relative to every other nation during this time was unprecedented.  Access to resources along with a unified continental population seeking to break Germany's hold on a continent seeking to overthrow German control makes it difficult to believe that the United States would have an easier time projecting force across the Atlantic than a German controlled Europe.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a major shooting in Philadelphia a few days ago.  6 Police Officers were shot.  Thankfully, non of them had life-threatening injuries.  The gunman eventually surrendered and was arrested after a 8+ hour standoff, in which two narcotics officers were taken hostage, along with several suspects that were being detained by the narcotics officers.  

Mainstream media picked up the story for a few hours but by the next day, only local news were still talking about it.  Why?

The gunman was a felon and his guns were illegal.  

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/15/us/philadelphia-shooting-thursday/index.html

 

 

Share this post


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

There was a major shooting in Philadelphia a few days ago.  6 Police Officers were shot.  Thankfully, non of them had life-threatening injuries.  The gunman eventually surrendered and was arrested after a 8+ hour standoff, in which two narcotics officers were taken hostage, along with several suspects that were being detained by the narcotics officers.  

Mainstream media picked up the story for a few hours but by the next day, only local news were still talking about it.  Why?

The gunman was a felon and his guns were illegal.  

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/15/us/philadelphia-shooting-thursday/index.html

 

 

One day of national coverage seems about right for a drug raid gone off of the rails, leaving no dead. Im pleased that the mayor called for sensible gun regulations.

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is America :) 

For me there is an inherent classism to the "cancel student debt/ free tuition" conversation. Because disability, welfare and workers comp is pure shit and needs to be addressed. The implication with omitting conversation about the disenfranchised is that everyone on welfare could now go to college. Its a completely unacceptable reading of the core causes of poverty. It's a form of social darwinism thats usually reserved for the Right. (not to mention that it pretends higher education isnt just a production line of middle manager drones, but rather some value add to the human condition)

There's working poor who's debt is accrued on travel to work costs and daycare costs. So some other people chose shitty degrees and never had the brain for academe to begin with. Fuck em. Erase the debt of the working poor first.

Edited by soon

Share this post


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

For me there is an inherent classism to the "cancel student debt/ free tuition" conversation. Because disability, welfare and workers comp is pure shit and needs to be addressed. The implication with omitting conversation about the disenfranchised is that everyone of welfare could now go to college. Its a completely unacceptable reading of the core causes of poverty. Its a form of social darwinism thats usually reserved for the Right. (not to mention that it pretends higher education isnt just a production line of middle manager drones, but rather some value add to the human condition)

Theres working poor who's debt accrued on travel to work costs and daycare costs. So some other people chose shitty degrees and never had the brain for academe to begin with. Fuck em. Erase the debt of the working poor first.

The Credit Bubble and the Student Loan Bubble are two entirely different things

Credit Bubble is caused by wages not increasing in the past 30 years to keep pace with inflation 

Student Loan Bubble is caused by American politicians removing bankruptcy protections and allowing banks to give children high-interest loans when they turn 18

Bernie can erase the Student Loan Bubble on Day One through executive action

The Credit Bubble is not so easily erased

Share this post


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

The Credit Bubble and the Student Loan Bubble are two entirely different things

Credit Bubble is caused by wages not increasing in the past 30 years to keep pace with inflation 

Student Loan Bubble is caused by American politicians removing bankruptcy protections and allowing banks to give children high-interest loans when they turn 18

Bernie can erase the Student Loan Bubble on Day One through executive action

The Credit Bubble is not so easily erased

Yes, its true that one current of the conversation is about regulation. So we can parse out student debt elimination and the separate issue of free tuition (in addition to the other thoughts and opinions I put forward). So one conversation is about debt being relieved using tax dollars. And another conversation is about future tuition being free, a regulation like minimum wage laws are regulation. And what Im saying is that Id like deep poverty addressed before more privileged workers (a majority of those accessing higher education). And of course many upwardly mobile people have student debt - they don't like it and it does suck, and fuck the system- but its in my mind incomparable to deep poverty. So debt relief to the most in need first - a jubilee. And for regulation a $15 minimum wage was the merger demand so its a great start! Needs way more attention in the immediate future though, imo. And Id like welfare and the VA topped up before any free tuition.

So if we are simply keeping the conversation to the govt paying off peoples debt, I'd like them to explore a more class conscious approach. I cynically believe that since 'pandering' to the middle class has proven electoral results that it is at the root of these offerings.

And if we are talking about regulation, then I imagine we would agree that keeping wages stagnant was wrong. And also we'd agree that removing bankruptcy protections was wrong. 

 

Share this post


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

And what Im saying is that Id like deep poverty addressed before more privileged workers (a majority of those accessing higher education). And of course many upwardly mobile people have student debt - they don't like it and it does suck, and fuck the system- but its in my mind incomparable to deep poverty.

Students with rich parents don't qualify for student loans - they have no student loan debt

In fact, a scheme was recently uncovered where rich people were transferring custody of their kids to low-income workers so that their children could take advantage of tuition assistance programs meant to help the poor:

The rich are the biggest welfare queens

Bernie literally has to sign a few things and everyone's student loan debt is gone forever

Why on earth would you not want him to do that?

Edited by TheSeeker

Share this post


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

Students with rich parents don't qualify for student loans - they have no student loan debt

I think there is maybe a misunderstanding of terms. I didn't mention 'rich parents' but I did mention the "upwardly mobile" and "more privileged workers." I dont mean either of those terms to describe rich people/ people with rich parents. 

24 minutes ago, TheSeeker said:

Bernie literally has to sign a few things and everyone's student loan debt is gone forever

Why on earth would you not want him to do that?

I would like that to happen. After issues of deep poverty, that are also addressable, are attended to. 

Edited by soon

Share this post


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

I would like that to happen. After issues of deep poverty, that are also addressable, are attended to. 

tenor.gif

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prioritizing relief for the poor - the greatest victims of capitalism? Preposterous! I couldn’t have proven my original point about the inherent classism on this issue any better. Thank you, next.

Share this post


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

Prioritizing relief for the poor - the greatest victims of capitalism? Preposterous! I couldn’t have proven my original point about the inherent classism on this issue any better. Thank you, next.

Let me rephrase for everyone, 'yes, you can have student debt relief, after we've gone through the long and frankly I don't even have a specific plan for, process of relief from general poverty.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...No :lol: I restate that my original point is about the inherent classism of having plans for one class and not the other. But its great to have now 2 people trip over themselves to manifest the inherent classim that I am speaking too. Easy peasy!

Share this post


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

...No :lol: I restate that my original point is about the inherent classism of having plans for one class and not the other. But its great to have now 2 people trip over themselves to manifest the inherent classim that I am speaking too. Easy peasy!

Yet you just ignore the point that wiping out student loan debt or cutting it significantly would be much easier for the state to do then general poverty relief. Yes let's save that simple thing for after we've tried tackling the much more difficult thing, makes sense!

Share this post


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

Yet you just ignore the point that wiping out student loan debt or cutting it significantly would be much easier for the state to do then general poverty relief. Yes let's save that simple thing for after we've tried tackling the much more difficult thing, makes sense!

You've dont nothing to demonstrate that raising welfare rates and supporting workers would not be easy. And you cant because its incredibly easy. It literally set up for change.

So one more time: Im talking about the inherent classism of having plans for the middle class' wallets and not the poors' wallet. 

Your point seems to be that since a politician hasnt presented a plan to address deep poverty that its therefore impossible. Im talking about the need for a plan. I dont think you realize that there not being a plan and you not wanting one is proving my point decisively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the many reasons why Trump's trade war with China will end in failure:

https://www.axios.com/companies-china-supply-chains-peter-navarro-f13bf7c5-93d4-4364-b4c8-af90d2137d17.html

Companies don't change course in the matter of a few quarters.  It's insane to think that large multinational companies will rip up their operations in China and move production back to America.  If anything, any move out of China will only benefit surrounding Asian nations that have not been the target of Trump's attacks.  Even if Trump wins in 2020 he still won't be in power long enough to force trade agreements that would bring production back to America.  Automation will do more to cripple Chinese manufacturing in the medium to long term than tariffs.  

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.

×