*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mojo

Those people who got paid to make the bombs presumably spend their money on other American enterprises, enriching them and enabling them to innovate.

---

I suspect it's a great deal more corrupt than this. I would wager that the shareholders of bomb makers are those who have policy influence. If you will get a multi-million dollar dividend in the event of war, and you're in a position of power, you'll probably want war. There's a huge conflict of interest at play. I think the benefit to the US economy is not in the context of trickle down economics, it's due to the securing of resources essential for US economic interests.

I can't see any reason why we're allied to Sunnis and enemies with Shiites other than Saudi oil. Maybe I'm missing something though.

Of course it's more corrupt than my naive mind can imagine.
The shareholders are still spending that money in the US, presumably... whether toward corrupt purposes or not. It's probably not a good point I'm making... just that the cost of the bombs goes to Americans who make bombs. Those Americans (not just the shareholders) use the money to raise their families and pay their bills and all the whatnot that is their lives.


Saudi Arabia was "this close" to being another Vietnam, as I understand it. They had the oil and both the US and the Soviets wanted access to it. I'm not sure of the details as to how diplomacy prevailed over war in that case. The Saudi's ended up siding with us for whatever reasons, and we them.

At any rate, Saudi oil is running out in our lifetimes (source is my roommate, a Saudi engineer working in the oil industry). So this issue might have a shorter fuse than we think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

It's not because the US needs to overspend on military to protect itself.

---

I was thinking more along the lines of securing resources to maintain economic dominance. Oil. Geopolitics seems to me to revolve around the petrocurrency. It's not about protecting themselves from military threats, it's about protecting themselves from someone else controlling global resources and shutting USA out. That would hurt America a lot more than a bomb in New York.

Quote:

---

All you have to do is look at a graph showing how the US spends more on military than the next ten biggest spenders combined to get an idea of how out of control it's gotten.

---

Even the Russians can't compete with this level of corruption. Obviously the interests of arms dealers and lobbyists are an important factor.

Quote:

---

Not sure what this has to do with the conversation. No country is anywhere near capable of sinking the dollar, and military spending is not what's keeping it up.

---

I agree that no country can sink the dollar. Those who have tried have been destroyed. We're moving into conspiracy theories here, but there were suggestions that Saddam Hussein was trying to sell his oil in Euros while others were looking to dump their dollar reserves and boost their alternative currency reserves, ie take contingency measures predicting the collapse of the dollar. America nipped it in the bud. Whether this is true or not, idk, but it makes some degree of sense on the surface.

Military spending is what's keeping the dollar propped up, at least to a degree. America need a powerful deterrent against their enemies.

Quote:

---

According to them, military power comes from economic power, not the other way around.

---

This may be true, but military power may be necessary to maintain economic power, at least in today's world.

Quote:

---

Historically, there is a pattern of being the strongest country on the planet and the response to the inevitability of losing that status (someday) is to spend more and more on military to try to protect that status with the effect being that the status gets lost faster than it naturally would.

---

History doesn't take into account technology. For example, the first nation to create a viable army of nanobots will be very powerful and might never lose their status as top dog. How do you dislodge them from their economic dominance? They can take what they want, they can defeat who they want, they can infiltrate and control anyone they want.

Quote:

---

The UK, France, and Spain have all been in the US' position in the last few centuries.

---

This was before toasters existed, let alone thermonuclear weapons.

USA might not maintain their status as the world's most powerful nation, but history isn't a consistent and reliable indicator of what happens in the future. Eventually, someone will remain at the top and be impossible to dislodge. That might be USA.Or it could be someone else.

Quote:

---

For the US, this problem is multiplied by the corruption that leads it to not just overspend, but overspend to an absurd degree.

---

This will probably be their downfall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mojo

The shareholders are still spending that money in the US, presumably...

---

Well, at least some of it for sure.

Quote:

---

Saudi Arabia was "this close" to being another Vietnam, as I understand it. They had the oil and both the US and the Soviets wanted access to it. I'm not sure of the details as to how diplomacy prevailed over war in that case. The Saudi's ended up siding with us for whatever reasons, and we them.

At any rate, Saudi oil is running out in our lifetimes (source is my roommate, a Saudi engineer working in the oil industry). So this issue might have a shorter fuse than we think.

---

I'm not sure why we (the West) are allied to Saudi Arabia instead of just taking their oil. We could've taken control during WWII. But we didn't. But yeah, their oil will run out, and when it does they become an irrelevance. That's when Venezuela becomes a major player, one way or another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I was thinking more along the lines of securing resources to maintain economic dominance. Oil. Geopolitics seems to me to revolve around the petrocurrency. It's not about protecting themselves from military threats, it's about protecting themselves from someone else controlling global resources and shutting USA out. That would hurt America a lot more than a bomb in New York.

---

Right, but the US doesn't need middle east oil anymore. I suspect their interest in that region is largely fuelled by the Israeli lobby and the military-industrial complex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Even the Russians can't compete with this level of corruption. Obviously the interests of arms dealers and lobbyists are an important factor.

---

It does seem rather hard to justify that the most powerful country in the world, which leads a coalition of many of the other most powerful countries, spends so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Military spending is what's keeping the dollar propped up, at least to a degree. America need a powerful deterrent against their enemies.

---

Which enemies are threatening America again? If you say Russia I will lol.

The enemies the US has been cultivating would have no chance against 1/100th of America's strength in a conventional war. That's why they fight guerrila wars that emphasise different objectives. Rather than fighting for territory or to destroy the other side's army, they use ambush tactics to sap morale. This is a serious problem when you invade a country where the population hates you, and regular people are willing to die just to get you out of their country. These kinds of wars are practically unwinnable. You can't beat this kind of warfare by just pouring money into your military. You should just save your money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

This may be true, but military power may be necessary to maintain economic power, at least in today's world.

---

It always has been. But, it's a question of ROI. If you spend trillions on a war that gains you billions (or nothing, which is more common) in economic gain, you're weakening your economic strength which in turn will weaken your military strength. You want to spend your resources effectively, by fighting wars where you're either directly threatened or where you can expect the economic benefits to outweigh the costs. Granted, there are other reasons to fight, but the idea that any of the wars the US has been involved in since WWII have benefitted it seems pretty unlikely to me.

So why fight them? I'm not sure, but certainly the military-industrial complex likes war, so there's that force pushing. Also, the populace tends to get behind the leader when wars happen, so there's another incentive in an election year. These seem to be more likely reasons than that those wars are good for the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

History doesn't take into account technology. For example, the first nation to create a viable army of nanobots will be very powerful and might never lose their status as top dog. How do you dislodge them from their economic dominance? They can take what they want, they can defeat who they want, they can infiltrate and control anyone they want.

---

Military spending on research is definitely worthwhile. You don't want to be caught using a musket when the other side is using AK47s. Not sure what % of total US spending is on research, but I'm guessing it's much less than 50%.

One problem though is high-tech weapons are expensive. It takes $100k to train and equip a single US soldier, never mind what tanks and planes and ships cost. $100k is a lot to spend on a guy that can get killed by a bomb some peasant made using fertilizer and spare clock parts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

USA might not maintain their status as the world's most powerful nation, but history isn't a consistent and reliable indicator of what happens in the future. Eventually, someone will remain at the top and be impossible to dislodge. That might be USA.Or it could be someone else.

---

Anything's possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Of course it's more corrupt than my naive mind can imagine.
The shareholders are still spending that money in the US, presumably... whether toward corrupt purposes or not. It's probably not a good point I'm making... just that the cost of the bombs goes to Americans who make bombs. Those Americans (not just the shareholders) use the money to raise their families and pay their bills and all the whatnot that is their lives.

---

Sure, but if instead of paying that guy to work in a bomb factory you pay him to be an educator or health care professional, he's still going to spend his income on all those things. So it all balances out. The difference is the product of his labor (the bomb itself) doesn't generate wealth or well-being in the country the way education and health care do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

Right, but the US doesn't need middle east oil anymore. I suspect their interest in that region is largely fuelled by the Israeli lobby and the military-industrial complex.

---

Well, certainly Israel's interests are important, but I'm sure USA do need Saudi oil. Maybe I'm wrong, perhaps they do have access to sufficient resources outside of the ME, but American oil alone surely isn't going to cut it.

Quote:

---

Which enemies are threatening America again? If you say Russia I will lol.

---

Yeah I think you should know by now that I don't consider Russia to be an actual threat. USA and Russia have a mutually beneficial "rivalry" that ensures both of them can spend large amounts of money on the military without raising too many eyebrows at home.

But America does indeed have enemies who would love to see the end of USA's status as the world's leading superpower. Iran are one, and Iran are allied to Russia, which does complicate matters. I don't think Russia will risk war with America to support the Mullahs, but if America were weaker, maybe they would. Perhaps America doesn't have any serious enemies because nobody is actually capable of winning an all-out-war against them.

Quote:

---

These kinds of wars are practically unwinnable.

---

It depends on your goal. If the aim of the war is to cause economic hardship, without doing so to USA, then they are most certainly winning them. Iran should be a great deal more economically successful, they have fantastic universities and a large population of motivated people. USA have done their best to keep Iran economically stagnant, and have succeeded.

America's military power provides a deterrent against anyone who considers attacking them.

Quote:

---

But, it's a question of ROI. If you spend trillions on a war that gains you billions (or nothing, which is more common) in economic gain, you're weakening your economic strength which in turn will weaken your military strength.

---

I think neither of us are well placed to assess the economic gain from warfare. It's not just about what USA gains, it's about what other nations lose. And we have no idea if the trillions spent by USA is only worth billions in economic gain. The people pulling the strings in USA are much better placed to make those judgments. But perhaps you're right, maybe they are overspending and it will all come crashing down. Maybe those in control are too greedy or too stupid to crunch the numbers. Greedy is much more likely.

Quote:

---

but the idea that any of the wars the US has been involved in since WWII have benefitted it seems pretty unlikely to me.

---

They remain the prime global superpower, the leading global economy, and nobody would dare attack them. Sure they've benefited.

Quote:

---

So why fight them? I'm not sure, but certainly the military-industrial complex likes war, so there's that force pushing. Also, the populace tends to get behind the leader when wars happen, so there's another incentive in an election year. These seem to be more likely reasons than that those wars are good for the country.

---

Internal political reasons are certainly a factor. And the war hawks like war because it makes them money, I think that's really all there is to it from their pov. I don't think they are literally bloodthirsty, but I can even begin to put myself in their shoes so idk.

Quote:

---

One problem though is high-tech weapons are expensive.

---

They will get cheaper.

Quote:

---

$100k is a lot to spend on a guy that can get killed by a bomb some peasant made using fertilizer and spare clock parts.

---

It's peanuts to a government, especially USA. Look at it this way... it costs a million to train ten soldiers, and if two die, then they spent a million on eight soldiers. Still peanuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It depends on your goal. If the aim of the war is to cause economic hardship, without doing so to USA, then they are most certainly winning them. Iran should be a great deal more economically successful, they have fantastic universities and a large population of motivated people. USA have done their best to keep Iran economically stagnant, and have succeeded.

---

I'm talking about military expenditures and military conflicts. You're talkng here about economic war, which is not the same thing.

The goal with the sanctions is to make the Iranian people so miserable they overthrow their government, presumably to replace it with some version of a democracy that is pliable to the US. As long as the sanctions are all we do, we can win the long game with that strategy. Getting into a hot war isn't going to help achieve that aim it's going to hurt it.

When Trump killed Sulemani, millions of Iranians instantly forgot how much they hate their own government and remembered how much they hate America. This only strengthens their regime, and that alone makes it a dumb move. But, he also made his own people forget about impeachment for a few days and he made the military happy, so in that sense it was probably a good move, assuming the propaganda machine can convince them Iran actually poses some kind of serious threat to the US (lol).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

America's military power provides a deterrent against anyone who considers attacking them .

---

I agree, but like I said there's no-one who can threaten them anyways. Even if their military budget were cut by 50%, they'd still be spending twice as much as the next biggest spender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

And we have no idea if the trillions spent by USA is only worth billions in economic gain.

---

You would have a hard time convincing me that the US benefitted at all economically from Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. Otoh, the costs of those wars are certainly much easier to estimate and they run into the trillions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

The people pulling the strings in USA are much better placed to make those judgments.

---

Arguably they're worse-placed because even if they have all the information their strings are being pulled by someone else.

I also wouldn't put too much faith in the wisdom of our dear leaders. There's plenty of occasions in the past when leaders have done things that clearly weren't in their country's best interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

But perhaps you're right, maybe they are overspending and it will all come crashing down. Maybe those in control are too greedy or too stupid to crunch the numbers. Greedy is much more likely.

---

They can get away with it for a while, but eventually it will catch up to them, if historical patterns continue to hold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

They remain the prime global superpower, the leading global economy, and nobody would dare attack them. Sure they've benefited.

---

Control condition needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

They will get cheaper.

---

The drone the Iranians shot down a few months ago cost $123 million.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It's peanuts to a government, especially USA. Look at it this way... it costs a million to train ten soldiers, and if two die, then they spent a million on eight soldiers. Still peanuts.

---

Obviously you can't fight a war with 8 soldiers. To train an army of a million men, the US would have to spend $100 billion. That's $300 for every single person in the country being spent on guns and not butter. Maybe not too much though right? Well, that's before you move them around the world and start feeding and supplying them with ammo and medicine and other logistics and supporting them with tanks (a hundred costs $1bn) and planes (12 for $1bn) and drones (8 for $1bn) and ships (average warship costs more than $1bn), and train people to use them, and buy the fuel and spare parts and so on and so forth. It adds up pretty quick.

The best thing that technology has done for us is to make major wars too expensive for first world countries to fight. If the US got into a hot war with Iran it would be ridiculously expensive and their economy would definitely suffer. Iran is not a pushover the way Iraq was, and the terrain is more like Afganistan than Iraq.

Iranians love western culture. They wear blue jeans and have garage punk bands.

Iran is a terrible country to go to war with. We could win the hearts and minds of the Iranian people so easy.

We have a fair number of Iranian physics graduate students here at Wash U. So many that they hold a Nowruz festival every year and throw a traditional Persian new years party for us.
The party has an open invite to the whole campus. It's a great event.
I've heard it's one of the biggest inter-depertmental celebrations on campus.


***
Vietnam has McDonalds and Baskin Robins in downtown Hanoi. Hard to say America lost a culture war against the Soviets, which is exactly what the Vietnam conflict was about.

Korea more of a mixed bag. S. Korea, at least, is another example of a place that is a very strong ally with the US. As far as cultural victories go, S. Korea goes to the US.
Hard to argue that N. Korea went to the Soviets, too. N. Korea isn't really supported by the Russians so much as the Russians don't want to deal with the fallout of refugees that is expected to happen if/when N. Korea joins the international communities.
Besides, Korean war gave us M*A*S*H, which put Alan Alda in the spotlight which 100% made the world a better place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Vietnam has McDonalds and Baskin Robins in downtown Hanoi. Hard to say America lost a culture war against the Soviets, which is exactly what the Vietnam conflict was about.

---

I think ideology was the key issue in that war. Don't think you won that aspect since the whole country went commie. But for that matter, so what? The concern at the time was that communism would spread throughout SE Asia. Didn't happen.

Yeah, and not sure any Vietnam vet would appreciate someone saying you won the culture war, thus implying it was worth their sacrifice. Was the war itself a necessary condition leading to BR and MacDs getting franchises in Hanoi? Kinda doubt that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Besides, Korean war gave us M*A*S*H, which put Alan Alda in the spotlight which 100% made the world a better place.

---

Totally worth it just for Hawkeye ;)

That war was a draw. But, it was partly predicated on the same 'domino effect' idea as Vietnam, like communism was this virus that was going to spread all over the world. Not an outlandish idea in the 1950s, but didn't really turn out to be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

I'm talking about military expenditures and military conflicts. You're talkng here about economic war, which is not the same thing.

---

They are not mutually exclusive. Ok, the economic war against Iran has not, until now, been fought with weapons, but most wars that American military have engaged in since WWII have been, at least to some degree, economic wars.

Quote:

---

The goal with the sanctions is to make the Iranian people so miserable they overthrow their government,

---

I think this is way too simplistic. I think the goal of sanctions against Iran is to hurt their economy, which in turn impacts on their military capabilities. If USA wanted Iranian people to overthrow their government, then they would be funding and arming internal opposition groups, like they did in Syria.

Quote:

---

When Trump killed Sulemani, millions of Iranians instantly forgot how much they hate their own government and remembered how much they hate America.

---

I suspect you think Solemani is actually revered amongst these people. I don't think that's true. I think the opposite is true. Solemani was responsible for crushing uprisings in Iran, he was hated by a lot of people and there were celebrations when news broke. Those celebrations were somewhat muted when they remembered they still have to worry about those in power who remain alive and well. The people on the streets "mourning" are probably doing so under duress. I do not know this, it's what I suspect. I find it hard to believe that Iranian people could actually celebrate this guy. I suspect a lot of people feel this guy got what he deserved and hope his successor is less brutal.

I don't think Trump gives a fuck about impeachment. He's not going to be removed from power, we all know it. Impeachment is only something to worry about if your own party supports it. Otherwise it's just theatre.

Quote:

---

I agree, but like I said there's no-one who can threaten them anyways. Even if their military budget were cut by 50%, they'd still be spending twice as much as the next biggest spender.

---

I'm in no doubt they're spending more than they need to in order to maintain their dominance, but I have no idea if their spending is unsustainable.

Quote:

---

You would have a hard time convincing me that the US benefitted at all economically from Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. Otoh, the costs of those wars are certainly much easier to estimate and they run into the trillions.

---

idk about Korea and Vietnam, but Iraq, USA certainly did benefit economically, assuming Saddam Hussein was actually trying to sell his oil in Euros. That sent a message out to every world leader that if you try to replace the dollar as the world's petrocurrency, then assassination is a serious risk.

How much is the dollar petrocurrency worth to the American economy? I'd wager it's in the trillions.

Quote:

---

I also wouldn't put too much faith in the wisdom of our dear leaders. There's plenty of occasions in the past when leaders have done things that clearly weren't in their country's best interests.

---

True, but it's another matter to argue they made a mistake. Perhaps they have been bought off. People in these positions are a lot smarter than I am, and a lot more psychopathic. I can't get into their heads.

Quote:

---

The drone the Iranians shot down a few months ago cost $123 million.

---

Yeah, because of corruption. They could likely make it for a couple of million, but that benefits the taxpayer, not the shareholder.

Quote:

---

Obviously you can't fight a war with 8 soldiers.

---

I wasn't suggesting you can. I'm just saying that the money lost in training a soldier who dies is peanuts to a government, even if as many as 20% are being lost, which is a huge number. Ok so it's $100b to train a million soldiers. So if 20% were killed in action, then it cost $100b to train 800k soldiers.

Meanwhile, the average hurricane costs $20b. Seriously, we're talking peanuts here in the context of military and government spending.

Quote:

---

Iran is not a pushover the way Iraq was, and the terrain is more like Afganistan than Iraq.

---

I'm sure with the right tactics, we could defeat them without too much economic hardship on our end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I think ideology was the key issue in that war. Don't think you won that aspect since the whole country went commie. But for that matter, so what? The concern at the time was that communism would spread throughout SE Asia. Didn't happen.

---

That's fair.
It did take 20 years before the US re-opened formal relations with Vietnam. While the relationship has only gotten stronger since Clinton, it's missing the point to connect the dots without the 20-years in between.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Yeah, and not sure any Vietnam vet would appreciate someone saying you won the culture war, thus implying it was worth their sacrifice. Was the war itself a necessary condition leading to BR and MacDs getting franchises in Hanoi? Kinda doubt that.

---

Those vets are not political or economic experts, so their opinions or hurt feelings over the reality of the outcome isn't relevant to this discussion, right?

Don't get me wrong. America pretty much shit on the Vietnam vets, and that was appalling.
I'm not arguing that we should have sent them to Vietnam.
I'm not trivializing the effect the deployments had on those vets.
It's just a different discussion than what we're talking about.


IDK exactly what you mean by "necessary" in the above. It certainly accelerated the presence of US interests in the region, and cemented them.
Maybe it was necessary to get those things on this time-scale, I guess.

***

Quote:

---

That war was a draw. But, it was partly predicated on the same 'domino effect' idea as Vietnam, like communism was this virus that was going to spread all over the world. Not an outlandish idea in the 1950s, but didn't really turn out to be true.

---

'Cause GI Joe was there, obv.

The fall of the Soviet Union didn't happen in a vacuum. It wasn't all US maneuvering, but Korea, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, others... all proxy conflicts in the cold war.

Ong makes a good point that sometimes war isn't about making a profit. It's about outspending your opponent and crushing their economic viability. This happens all the time in US legal cases. They're called SLAPP cases. Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. In effect, it's when a large, wealthy entity files frivolous lawsuits against smaller, less wealthy competition. This ties up the smaller entity's funds, forcing them out of the public sphere, whether as a business competitor or a news agency reporting unfavorably against them.

If this happens on smaller scales, it would be naive to say it doesn't happen on bigger scales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I think this is way too simplistic. I think the goal of sanctions against Iran is to hurt their economy, which in turn impacts on their military capabilities. If USA wanted Iranian people to overthrow their government, then they would be funding and arming internal opposition groups, like they did in Syria.

---

They have shortages of medicines in Iran, people are dying because they can't import meds. Explain to me how that is keeping them from being a military power. It's punishing the people so they'll turn against their gov't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

If USA wanted Iranian people to overthrow their government, then they would be funding and arming internal opposition groups, like they did in Syria.

---

Who says they aren't? They've done it before in Iran, you think they've stopped now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

IDK exactly what you mean by "necessary" in the above. It certainly accelerated the presence of US interests in the region, and cemented them.

---

You think bombing and invading Vietnam made them more amenable to US companies than not bombing and invading them would have? I dont see how this can be, but I guess we'll never know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

The fall of the Soviet Union didn't happen in a vacuum. It wasn't all US maneuvering, but Korea, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, others... all proxy conflicts in the cold war.

---

On that topic, the Soviets were definitely overspending on their military, something like 15% of their gdp. US currently spends about 3% for comparison. That was definitely a contributing factor to their collapse.

re: $123 million dollar drone cost

Quote:

---

Yeah, because of corruption. They could likely make it for a couple of million, but that benefits the taxpayer, not the shareholder.

---

I'm guessing the R&D costs are wrapped up in that figure.
Perhaps also more rigorous quality controls on items where the intended use has greater consequences than your typical consumer good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

They have shortages of medicines in Iran, people are dying because they can't import meds. Explain to me how that is keeping them from being a military power. It's punishing the people so they'll turn against their gov't.

---

USA have shown that they are not averse to simply forcing regime change. If USA are trying to create a civil war in Iran, well they've been doing a remarkably shit job of it. I'm not buying the idea that USA's goal is to turn the Iranian people against their government, forcing an overthrow. If that was their aim, they would have succeeded by now. I'm of the opinion that the point of economic sanctions is to stifle their economic and military competitiveness, and that'll be because of Israeli and Saudi lobbying. The Saudis in particular couldn't give a fuck about the Iranian people, the Iranians are Shiites, so from Saudi Arabia's pov, they don't want to see a new government in Iran, they just want to see Iran suffer. Israel, idk what their problem with Iran (and by extension Shia Islam) is.

Quote:

---

Who says they aren't? They've done it before in Iran, you think they've stopped now?

---

Well if it's happening, it's very clandestine and very unsuccessful.

Quote:

---

You think bombing and invading Vietnam made them more amenable to US companies than not bombing and invading them would have? I dont see how this can be, but I guess we'll never know.

---

First of all, that's kinda a scandalous quote to leave off this part.

Quote:

---

Maybe it was necessary to get those things on this time-scale, I guess.

---

I'm pretty sure the answer to your above question is stated here as a resounding, "dunno."

But whatever.
You seem to be talking like the US went to war against Vietnam. That's not a very clear representation of the conflict. The US was fighting alongside some Vietnamese, and the Soviets were supplying munitions and logistics to other Vietnamese. There was a civil war in Vietnam, perhaps a rebel uprising, and 2 OP neighbors decided to back opposing sides.

(As I understand it. Admittedly, I am not an expert on this.)

The US was overrun in the end when financial support was cut by Congress. This is the seed that has put the US in the position I described earlier. Once the troops are in the field, the notion of cutting the funding on them gives us cultural flashbacks to Vietnam. (obv. hyperbole, but still apt, I think)


Geez, I'm just talking out my ass mostly. I only know my cultural understanding of the conflict. I've never really researched it beyond watching a few documentaries, none recently, and a few Hollywood movies.
If you like a good semi-fictional Vietnam movie, Hamburger Hill (1987) was a solid film. Like all war movies, it was hard to watch in parts, but I was totally sucked into it. I'd rate it up there with Full Metal Jacket, though FMJ still top Vietnam movie, IMO. With FMJ, you get 2 for 1. Great bargain, and both excellent films.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mojo

I'm guessing the R&D costs are wrapped up in that figure.

---

Probably, but that should decrease over time as these costs are recouped.

Yes. We only have 1 number of the cost, though.
Also, the production is a limited run, so the amount that can be recouped is not the same as a retail good.

Also, the technical training of the mechanics and operators is additional cost, but I wouldn't guess that would be wrapped up in the $123 million stated cost.

I still think $123 is a gross overestimate, and accounts for government corruption.

*$123m of course

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

USA have shown that they are not averse to simply forcing regime change. If USA are trying to create a civil war in Iran, well they've been doing a remarkably shit job of it. I'm not buying the idea that USA's goal is to turn the Iranian people against their government, forcing an overthrow. If that was their aim, they would have succeeded by now. I'm of the opinion that the point of economic sanctions is to stifle their economic and military competitiveness, and that'll be because of Israeli and Saudi lobbying. The Saudis in particular couldn't give a fuck about the Iranian people, the Iranians are Shiites, so from Saudi Arabia's pov, they don't want to see a new government in Iran, they just want to see Iran suffer. Israel, idk what their problem with Iran (and by extension Shia Islam) is.

---

That might be part of it, the pressure from their allies to be dicks. But, by and large the US wants to be able to trade with Iran, to invest in it and make money. When Mossadegh kicked them and the British out after WWII, they took him out and put in the Shah.

Then, when the Shah was losing popularity and looked like he was on his way out, they backed the Ayatollah, because he promised them he'd install a democracy. Then once he got into power he flipped them off. It was the ultimate troll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Well if it's happening, it's very clandestine

---

As it's always been. I'm not saying they are doing it for a fact. I'd be surprised if they weren't trying to foment insurrection though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

and very unsuccessful.

---

There's been a lot of protests in Iran in the last decade, revolutionary spirit is pretty strong from the Iranians I've talked to. Of course, now that Trump has assassinated one of their leaders they have a bigger enemy they'll be more interested in fighting against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

*$123m of course

---

It's not even the most expensive one.

https://militarymachine.com/top-35-m...litary-drones/

Quote:

---

Northrop Grumann X-47B: $405 million per unit

---

Also, if a common jet figher costs $90m per unit, it wouldn't surprise me an unmanned, remote-control drone costs significantly more per unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

That might be part of it, the pressure from their allies to be dicks. But, by and large the US wants to be able to trade with Iran, to invest in it and make money.

---

Again, this is simplistic. Iran has the third largest proven oil reserves on the planet, so yeah USA will have an interest in trade with Iran. However, there's no hurry. USA are allied to a nation with even more oil... Saudi Arabia. And they are attempting to put into place a puppet government in the nation with the largest reserves... Venezuela. Maybe the idea is to stifle Iran's economic output so there is more oil for them to come for when Saudi Arabia and Venezuela are drying up.

Quote:

---

Then, when the Shah was losing popularity and looked like he was on his way out, they backed the Ayatollah, because he promised them he'd install a democracy. Then once he got into power he flipped them off. It was the ultimate troll.

---

I doubt America care about the Sunni and Shia (I can't say that without without of Sunny and Cher) situation. But they will have an overall strategy, and for whatever reason, that involves squeezing the balls of Iran. Obama, for whatever reason, decided he wanted better relations with Iran. Trump came along and said nah, Saudi Arabia and Israel are my allies.


Like I say, Middle Eastern geopolitics is way beyond my comprehension. I have no idea what game they're playing. I just think that USA are winning.

Quote:

---

As it's always been. I'm not saying they are doing it for a fact. I'd be surprised if they weren't trying to foment insurrection though.

---

There's probably low level infiltration in every country on the planet. America certainly have interests here in the UK. And no doubt we have interests there. They were concerned about a Corbyn government here, I assume they were worried how it might impact on our NATO commitments and foreign policy. Funnily enough, that's the only appeal Labour really have to me, because I don't like our foreign policy. I'd prefer us to be neutral, but if we are going to be active in geopolitical matters, then I'm glad we're allied to USA.

Quote:

---

There's been a lot of protests in Iran in the last decade, revolutionary spirit is pretty strong from the Iranians I've talked to. Of course, now that Trump has assassinated one of their leaders they have a bigger enemy they'll be more interested in fighting against.

---

Trump just assassinated the very person who was crushing that revolutionary spirit. I'm unconvinced that the Iranian people who want a change in government are angry with Trump about this. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Quote:

---

Also, if a common jet figher costs $90m per unit, it wouldn't surprise me an unmanned, remote-control drone costs significantly more per unit.

---

I don't see why it should cost more, once R&D is no longer a factor. It's just metal and electronics. I can buy a small drone for £100. Probably, I didn't actually check that. But I know people with drones, and they're not exactly wealthy folk. I appreciate a military grade drone with weapons is going to cost a ridiculous amount more than a shitty drone with a GoPro attached to it, but compared to a plane, it should be a similar amount of material.

Training pilots isn't cheap, either. It'll be a lot cheaper to train someone to fly a drone than a plane. I could fly a drone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Trump just assassinated the very person who was crushing that revolutionary spirit. I'm unconvinced that the Iranian people who want a change in government are angry with Trump about this. Quite the opposite, in fact.

---

You keep bringing this up. Not sure where you heard it, but it's about as true as the story that Saddam had WMDs. Sulemani led the special forces, they have nothing to do with internal repression.

Also, lol that the hundreds of thousands of people marching at his funeral were coerced into it. What, the army went around a hundred thousand houses and told them 'hey you, get going, we need you at the funeral.'

De-escalation by assassination!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMPKHs6so68

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

You keep bringing this up. Not sure where you heard it, but it's about as true as the story that Saddam had WMDs. Sulemani led the special forces, they have nothing to do with internal repression.

---

I'll dig more into this myself. It's not out of the question that I've been duped by propaganda, but then again so might you have been.

Certainly Saddam did not have the WMDs that we claimed he did, I'm not disputing that. As I understand it, Saddam wanted to sell his oil in Euros, and that's why he was attacked. USA couldn't admit this publicly, as it would be admitting that this is all about economics and not security.

As for the Iranian attacks, it seems that the missiles they launched were deliberately light in payload, that they were only intended to look good in the night sky while not actually causing an inevitable response by USA. If that's true, if no US citizen is killed or injured, then it will be interesting to see how Trump handles this. Iran are certainly afraid of further escalation, if they weren't then they would've hit America hard.

Lololol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSrC7-ERrE4


Hmm... I can't embed video using the GUI. Let's see if this works.

This guy probably saw Parnes on Maddow and was like: if people like barrel chested men with bad hair going public against the advice of their legal council, they'll love this! Hold on, let me just get comfy. Done! Are you shooting?

https://twitter.com/rfhyde1/status/1...256055808?s=20

A Warren supporter said I probably also believe rapists because I said I doubt that Bernie said the thing. Another one told me I'm perpetuating a system of white slavery by defending him. It pains me to say this, but the GOP doesn't have the monopoly on retards like I thought it did.

Quote:

---

A Warren supporter said I probably also believe rapists because I said I doubt that Bernie said the thing. Another one told me I'm perpetuating a system of white slavery by defending him. It pains me to say this, but the GOP doesn't have the monopoly on retards like I thought it did.

---

lolfuck.

People are so weak minded. Warren is down in the polls and stirred the shit.

Bernie probably did express cynicism about the electability of a woman in this cycle. That is a legit concern and is completely different from the question of should a woman be president, or could one execute the duties of the office. Any intelligent interlocutor would understand that it's a legitimate concern, even if they don't share it, and also understand that it's not something that would play well in public.

When you look at it like that, Warren's outting of the comment is super cynical and self serving.

Even Morning Joe immediately called it what it is, but I am legitimate concerned that a good chunk of these outrage-culture fake feminists might actually get triggered enough to stay home for the general because of inane shit like this. And it's still in the news cycle. Vanity Fair published another article on it today. This truly is 2016 all over again when it comes to the media completely losing focus on the issues that matter.

In impeachment news: two of the lawyers on Trumps defense team were also representing the late Jeffry Epstein. If we're talking outcomes, I'm pretty stoked about the prospects here!

Trump is not on trial the way we usually think of a criminal trial.
It's not, strictly speaking, a legal event at all, and not even a part of the criminal justice system.
Despite his previous public statements, he has no right to due process, because he's technically not accused of being a criminal.
He's accused of violating the Constitution.

Impeachment is not a prosecution, despite the Republican Senators using language that implies as much. Calling for the House to send the Articles of Impeachment in a "timely manner" reflects an accused criminal's right to face their accusations in a timely manner.
It's a smoke screen to confuse the court of public opinion.

There is no appellate process following impeachment. Whatever ruling the Senate makes is final.
Impeachment is a legislative branch process.
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over impeachment matters, despite the Chief Justice ruling over the Senate impeachment proceedings. Note, the Chief Justice has only an advisory role in this matter. The Chief Justice has no authority in impeachment.

How the fuck is this even legal? 1h47m - watch till 1h50m.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vhecWdVMwI&feature=youtu.be&t=6331

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Trump is not on trial the way we usually think of a criminal trial.
It's not, strictly speaking, a legal event at all, and not even a part of the criminal justice system.
Despite his previous public statements, he has no right to due process, because he's technically not accused of being a criminal.
He's accused of violating the Constitution.

Impeachment is not a prosecution, despite the Republican Senators using language that implies as much. Calling for the House to send the Articles of Impeachment in a "timely manner" reflects an accused criminal's right to face their accusations in a timely manner.
It's a smoke screen to confuse the court of public opinion.

There is no appellate process following impeachment. Whatever ruling the Senate makes is final.
Impeachment is a legislative branch process.
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over impeachment matters, despite the Chief Justice ruling over the Senate impeachment proceedings. Note, the Chief Justice has only an advisory role in this matter. The Chief Justice has no authority in impeachment.

---

I don't understand much about the actual process... as does no one as far as I could gather. I struggle to understand in what reality it would be considered good optics to hire Ken fucking Starr and two of the lawyers who represented Epstein to do anything at your impeachment trial. How could this ever be a good thing? I mean, I'll take it, but what the fuck!

IDK. Everything I know about impeachment, I've basically learned in the past few weeks through repeated google searches.

The start of the impeachment trial involves the entire Senate taking an oath, which includes being impartial in the trial.
If Senate leaders can go on the record saying they will not follow their oath to be impartial in the impeachment trial, then what even matters?
They've basically said, "We can't find the President corrupt, because we're corrupt. QED."

With all the open lies and misdirection working like a charm, why not Ken Starr?

I mean, how is Giuliani remotely credible as anything but a shyster?

Typical transcript of a Giuliani interview:
Reporter: Did you do [it]?
Rudy: No. How could you accuse me of that?
Reporter: So what did you do?
Rudy: I did [It].
Reporter: So you did [it]?
Rudy: No. How could you accuse me of that?


I've seen it multiple times. How is he not publicly discredited?
If Trump's supporters will accept Giuliani, why not Starr?

Fair enough.

https://youtu.be/7AHbCvdPbd8?t=30

I wouldn't vote him off the house either. Looking back, the biggest mistake of the entire Trump admin probably was not to just put cameras all over the White House, DOJ and Mar-a-Lago and turn it into a 24h reality TV show. Could you imagine the ad sells!

Today the DOJ also released the comically redacted Mueller documents that they were required to release under the freedom of information act. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...secret-memos-4
link to the actual docs at top of the page. 174 pages, almost entirely redacted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

How the fuck is this even legal? 1h47m - watch till 1h50m.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vhecWdVMwI&feature=youtu.be&t=6331

---

This is hilarious... i'd vote for all of them.

Goddamn. 3-day weekends are the best. We should do this every week.
(America took Monday off for Martin Luther King Jr. Day)

If Trump's reelection campaign is rooted in a single promise of 3-day weekends every week, it'd win my vote.

Not that anyone's voting for Biden, anyway.
Stupid Democrats pushed everyone worth voting for out of the race. All we have left is grandpa A and grandpa B, neither of which is appealing to any swing voters.

Trevor Noah said it well when he said the Democrats are going to lose because their platform is to "beat Trump." It's an anti-platform. They don't stand for anything; they stand against something. Trump's vision of America may not appeal to them, but they're not offering any alternative vision. All they offer is "not Trump."


Sorry, but I'd rather have a leader with a strong vision that I disagree with than a leader with no vision to agree with.


What was the quote from a while back, "Strong convictions, weakly held." I had to let it sink in, but I think I support it. You have to trust yourself and what you know. You have to be willing to stand up for what's right as you see it. You have to be willing to learn and change what you know, and to adjust your convictions as you grow.

I'd rather have a leader who at least stands for things, rather than against things.

Are you now describing the policy platforms of the candidates or the media discussion about them?

If a candidate adds 3-day weekends to their platform, I'm in.

The Democrats running for 2020 had some good ideas from interesting people, but in the end all the interesting people have been pushed out of the race (I'm not sure if it's the media or the DNC that does the pushing).

What's Biden's platform? A tongue in cheek indictment of Trump.
From joebiden.com:
"We are in a battle for the soul of America.
It’s time to remember who we are. We’re Americans: tough and resilient. We choose hope over fear. Science over fiction. Truth over lies. And unity over division. We treat each other with dignity, we leave nobody behind, and we give hate no safe harbor.

We are the United States of America. And together, there is not a single thing we cannot do."



Sure, Sanders has a ton of stuff to stand on, but he's lost this race many times before. What's different, now?

Was just pretty surprised to see that comment from you. What the candidates speak publicly during the campaign trail is based on carefully selected talking points, and what you actually see is the media-mangled edit of them. Both the campaigns and the media seem to have decided, over the course of several past elections, that the general public is too dumb or busy to care about actual policies, so they stick with catchphrases instead. Trump got elected on MAGA, lock her up and build the wall. I suppose you could call those "a vision", but those are as clear as his defined policies get. Anything he says is self-confliting and vague, which is sort of brilliant in the sense that it forces/allows the listener to inject whatever message they want to hear into it. In contrast, here's some stated policies by the dems:

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans
https://berniesanders.com/issues/
https://joebiden.com/joes-vision/
https://peteforamerica.com/issues/

Now, everyone is of course free to agree or disagree with the policies, but to say that they stand for nothing except "not Trump" is not accurate. It sounded more like you're basing your decision purely on public media discourse, not on researching what the candidates are proposing and what they stand for.

What Coco said. I think you're thinking of some people's representation of the candidates platforms, not on what they're actually about. Bernie is like a broken record on what his policies are: No-compromise medicare for all, Green New Deal, get out of foreign wars and cut military spending and tax the shit out of billionaires and wall street. He has bills ready to go on all of those. Nobody is really wasting their time talking about Trump as far as I saw.

Bernie is polling badly on how electable people think he is. He's actually polling pretty well if you poll voters directly and not on their opinion on other voters.

Biden sucks, he shouldn't even be able to run on a democratic platform. Warren is no bueno for anything but treasury, but she's done anyway, so no use in breaking her shit down.

I think a lot of people are starting to see through the transparent smear campaigns that corporate lefties run against Bernie, and the polls reflect it. I'm rock hard over the fact that the NYT and CNN will have to put Bernie in their headlines now that he's leading national polls when they put him behind Klobuchar as of yesterday.
I think he has a very good chance to run away with it this time.

Look at their stupid faces!

https://twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/statu...457015296?s=20

https://twitter.com/banditelli/statu...07600999960579

XD

I didn't cite any media aside from Joe Biden's election page.

What part of Biden's vision is NOT a tongue-in-cheek indictment of the current administration?


I don't see where you've gotten the idea that I'm paying any attention to American news media. I've repeatedly (though not recently) derided it as antithetical to forming an unbiased world view. The problem is that our news agencies are incentivized to keep our attention, not to convey truth to us. The problem is that it's our responsibility to incentivize them in our best interests, but we, as a populace, do not do so. The result is a poorly written melodrama akin to daytime soap operas.

Another problem is that I can't get anywhere by watching both sides and trying to find the middle ground, between the bias. There's just so much bias and hyperbole that I have no idea where to even start to unravel it all. Whereas international news sources tend to be more trustworthy when reporting on American politics. I find they have a slightly negative slant against all things America, but that's easy to see through, IMO.


Warren or any other Dem doesn't belong in this conversation except to convince me there's any hope their name will be on the November ballot.
Otherwise, their platforms are not relevant to the election.
My point is that anyone with a positive platform has been pushed out of the race.
Sanders def. has a positive platform, the same one he's ran on and failed to win multiple times before.
The only people left in the race have either an anti-platform (Biden) or are historically a notorious loser in this contest (Sanders).



BTW. Only half-joking about the 3-day weekends. They're the best. We should do that more often. Maybe every week is too often, but more would be better, IMO.

Sanders has an insane uphill battle to climb. Nobody in the political establishment on either side wants him. They live off of corporate donations, the MIC and nepotism. A candidate who doesn't take money from super pacs, wants to overturn citizens united and shrink the military budget is bound to get pummelled by both sides. If you think this was ridiculous:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DnkSju8X...pg&name=medium
https://fair.org/home/washington-pos...s-in-16-hours/

This will get turned to 11 if he becomes the nominee.

The reason I think he'll make it is because I think a lot of people are coming to the realization that what has to happen is not gradual change, or a lesser of two evils. If you don't want your children to die in a literal fire tornado, watch california become an island state, and lose any pretense of democracy, there needs to be a political revolution.

I don't think that realization was there in 2016. Hillary was very popular and there was a post-Obama sugar high. You just had a black president, now you're going to have one with a vagina, and and all that kumbaya bullshit while you're continuing the same mass destruction of nations and environment that the US has continued since the cold war.

I really think this one is different, and I hope I'm right. I think Sanders would be instrumental in leading a global movement to cut fossil fuel dependence in a timely fashion, and that is by far the most important issue.

I'd vote for Gabbard, Buttigieg, or AOC happily (I don't think AOC was running, but I'd vote for her if she were).

If Sanders is on the ballot, I'll vote for him.
I don't think he can win, but I think he has vision. I even like some of his vision.

What's Warren's platform? Basically it's Sanders' platform with some stuff that you'd think they probably both agree on, but just prioritize differently.
Either one is fine with me, but neither is attracting any Rep voters.
No one the Dems had in the running was attracting any Rep voters that I could tell, but I don't really look too deeply into early polls.

If it's between Trump and Biden, I'll abstain.

I'm not voting for no-vision Biden, and I'm not voting for isolationist Trump.



Of course, this is all a distraction from the deeper issue. It's not the politicians fault that they tell us what we want to hear. That's just their job. The real fault is that we down here on the ground are in our little camps. Reps don't talk to Dems on our level, so why would our politicians alienate themselves from us, their constituents by acting differently?

I try to engage in political conversations, but it's both too easy and too difficult. It's too easy to get a conversation going, but near impossible to keep it civilized and productive. I can count the number of times someone changed their mind in one of those conversations on one hand. At least during the conversation. Some things take time to sink in, obv.

Those three could hardly be more diametrically opposed. I think you thinking Buttigieg is electable and naming him in the same breath as Gabbard and AOC is a symptom of you not following the election much.

AOC is too young to run. She's a very realistic front runner for 2024 or 2028. My personal favorite would be Ilhan Omar, and not just because of how much it would trigger retards, but also because I genuinely think she would make a great president.

You hit the nail on the head with Warren. Warren is a reactionary. Bernie's platform looked super popular, so she adopted it. She has no moral guidance whatsoever, and will do whatever she thinks is most likely to benefit herself.

I think the focus should never be to changes someone's mind. You win by mobilizing like minded people. I'm more open that some Trump voters could be won than I was a year ago, but to make it the focus could backfire spectacularly.

I think not voting for whoever the democratic candidate is, would be a huge mistake. Biden is an awful, awful candidate, but here's what 2 term Trump will accomplish: another supreme court nominee, which means: Roe V Wade gets overturned, Flores agreement sacked. That opens the door for a nation wide abortion ban and systematic torture of migrant children.

Naming judges is the most powerful thing a president does, and the more fiercely partisan judges he puts up, the less likely it is for the US to return to normalcy without a violent revolution.
As bad as Biden would be, he would stop the bleeding and he's unlikely to go 2 terms anyway.

I've never said "electable" about Buttegieg. I said I'd vote for him happily.
I've only seen him speak a couple times, but he did say things which appeal to me, like being pro abortion clinics and anti death penalties.
I can't honestly say I know if he has a compelling vision for America, but I kinda do doubt that pasty-faced white guy wants to really change the status-quo all that much.

Yeah... Gabbard and AOC are actually inspiring people to listen to, and putting Buttegieg in that list was folly.
He's more of an "OK, this can't be all bad, right?"
Where they're more of a, "God damn she's gonna get shit done!"

Fair criticism of my point to call me out on that.

I've not heard of Ilhan Omar, yet. I'll get on it.


No. The focus isn't to change someone's mind.
And while you're right that mobilizing like-minded people is the final step at decision time, it's not part of the process to decide.
The focus should always be to change your own mind, IMO.
It's just so hard to remain inquisitive and humble when someone starts preaching nonsense, I find.


***
I don't agree with much of Trump's vision for America, but at least he has one.
If the majority believe in him, then that's cool. It's their right to self-govern, and as messed up as it is, America does not have a lock down on corruption by any means.

If America "needs" a violent revolution, then that's what I want for America. I sure hope we don't need that, but it's not Trump's doing when you put it that way. It's America's doing. Trump represents a popular ethos. He's not acting in a vacuum. Even amidst Ukraine and obstruction of justice charges that are basically black-and-white cases at this point - if the recent documents scrawled on napkins are legit - even amidst all that, his supporters still support him.

I get it that it's tempting to call them all meat-heads, but they're ~1/2 of America, land of innovation... is America half-full of meat heads? Or is it possible that we're (you and I) the ones who are out of touch with the pulse of our times?

If the Democratic Party is so far out of touch with the American people that it needs to fall completely before the Republican party can even face a real challenge, then that's democracy in action.

America has weathered far worse than some reactionary judges. FFS, the first SCOTUS ruled that the person who wrote the constitution didn't know what he was talking about as far as the extend of the power afforded to SCOTUS. Reactionary judging is a foundation of American jurisprudence.

Agree with Mojo the US media is pretty much unwatchable if you're trying to get a clear picture of things. I can only watch it for entertainment and even then the bias makes me cringe at times.

I think people vote for lots of reasons, many of which are just weird. An example of a weird reason is just how entertaining the candidate is. Even if you're only laughing at him, Trump is by far the most fun politician to watch on TV. Hillary made me want to gouge my eyes and ears out when she spoke.

There also seems to be a strong distrust of the corrupt establishment motivating many people. Trump ran against the establishment, but since he's been pres, has been ironically the most corrupt and self-serving pres ever. Doesn't mean his supporters see that, though, b/c they're watching Fox which does nothing but suck Trump's dick. Imagine having that soundtrack in your head every day for four years and how completely brainwashed you'd be by then. That's about 1/3 of Americans right there. Another 1/3 is watching the other side and being brainwashed in the other direction (though to be fair, the other side has an easier job because the facts seem to be much closer to matching their worldview that Trump is an awful pres).

While Bernie would be a good candidate imo for reaching out to anti-establ. voters, his downfall is he's going to continue to get called a communist and in the US you'd be better off being a baby raper than a commie in terms of electability.

Not sure Biden will beat Trump but do think he has the best chance. He might be establishment, but if even 10% of the nihilism of Trump's presidency sinks in with people, they'll see that the establishment might suck, but it's still better than the Orange Republic.

The problem with Bernie is that he really, really appeals to my sense of hand-off governance. That's just not a popular theme in the US.

That one headline oskar posted in all those headlines where it said, "Bernie Sanders pledges the US wont be No. 1 in incarceration. He'll need to release lots of criminals."
That's a real punch in the crotch.
The fact that the "land of the free" is No. 1 in incarceration already means we've put vast amounts of people in prisons that no one else in the world would consider criminals.
We're stripping productive citizens from our work-force and costing ourselves out the wazoo to pay for their cells, food, guards, etc.
It's absolutely hurting our family values, and hurting our economy.
Yet, people just pretend the busted system is fine.
People pretend non-violent offenders don't deserve families 'cause that will incentivize other potential offenders to not offend... despite the abounding evidence that doesn't work, has never worked, and we're screwing ourselves.

I don't get it.

I don't get that people feel like they should have the right to place land-mines on their property to deter burglary.
I don't get that people think it's OK to shoot someone running away from you.
I've heard it multiple times, though. It's like the Geneva Conventions only count at war, but not on a Sunday evening in your neighborhood.

I really don't get it.

As if saying, "Sorry. I was wrong, and it affected you. That's my bad. Can I make it up to you?" is somehow not among the strongest things you can do as a person.

People... so incomprehensible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I've only seen him speak a couple times, but he did say things which appeal to me, like being pro abortion clinics and anti death penalties.

---

That's more substantial than anything I've heard him say. He's the: we don't need policies, we need a core directive from which we will then derive our policies - guy. Also I'm open to taking your super-pac's money if you have any suggestion on how our core directive should translate to policy!
I'm paraphrasing.

https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/st...017567232?s=20

I don't have a Twitter account, so the Twitter links aren't useful to me.
Sorry, oskar.

I've been torn over whether it's more rude of me to ask you to change your ways just for me or to continue not really getting your entire point.

I decided to choose the middle ground and tell you that I don't use Twitter, and allow you to do whatever you want with that info.

That is some serious boomer territory. Twitter is literally just RSS with a reply function.

Bonus: if you @tweet a b-list celebrity they're almost definitely going to reply.

https://i.imgur.com/PbiAWZF.png

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZMlZnerzVI

That's the clip from the tweet I posted earlier. I think the NYT is taking it off YT. The twitter one stays up.

The other one was the NYT editorial board reading their top 4 candidates which were: Warren, Klobuchar, Cory Booker and Pete Buttigieg. Booker was already out at that point and Klobuchar at 3%. They ended up with a double endorsement of Warren and Klobuchar.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EO92A3sX...pg&name=medium

queue oppo dump in 3...2...

Hipster, not boomer.
My distaste has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with being pretentious.
Being interrupted by a ringing phone drives me crazy.

My parents are boomers.


I guess every company is trying to get us addicted to their product/service. For me, Twitter is very effective at that aim. I have to just accept that I express addictive behaviors when I have a cell phone in my pocket or a Twitter account. I lack the self control to have access to those things and remain a good, productive person.

Not saying anyone else is bad or unproductive, FYI. Just saying this is why I've made my choice.

***
The Sanders clip is standard Bernie stuff.
Who's not endeared by an older person saying, "I don't handle Bullshit well?" That's a hallmark of a good leader, IMO. They can identify BS and they have no patience for it. Reminds me of my dad, and I often think my own diplomacy in the face of BS is only dragging out the nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Don't call me boomer, that's my father's name!

---

Ok, boomer.

What are people between boomers and millenials called?

My view is that Biden and Sanders have the best chance of closing the divide in the country. But their risk profile is vastly different. Under Biden, things might get slightly worse, or a bit more than slightly better-- with Sanders, things will get drastically better or quite a bit worse.

Warren and Buttegieg both satiate different wings of the left, but do nothing to reverse the country's division.

Oskar, what's happening in this clip? What the fuck was the deal with that aggressive eye roll from the woman?

"What are people between boomers and millenials called?"
Gen X.

You can call me a boomer, but I'm not one, so don't care. It just makes me think you have the brain worms.

Whereas I find hipsters to be the most annoying people as a group because they're almost all a bunch of pretentious jerks.
So if you want to get under my skin about it, go with hipster.

I mean, it's apt, so I can't really get too upset about it, but it is ironic that I have this one hipster trait when I otherwise think hipsterism is just one way that ego gets to be hilarious."


Though it would, like, literally make my head explode to, like, change the meaning of boomer to mean, like, "anyone older than I am who is talking like an old person. lol"
Because if there's one thing that drives an old person crazy it's the living language moving ahead of what we thought we knew.


***
Aggressive eye roll.

I know, right?

Why did the editor even include that?
Is this that "communist" slant that oskar was talking about?

Gen X? That's my generation and I've never heard that term before.

Hipsters were the most annoying people as a group, until "the left" emerged in recent times.

How can you never have heard the term Gen X? Is it a US thing?
I googled it and the top few lists of generation names have Gen X on them, but sometimes there's another name next to Gen X that I've never heard of. (Thirteeners, Boomer Busters, etc.)

Is one of those more familiar to you?


Some of those lists call Millenials Gen Y and post-milleneals Gen Z, but I thought Gen Y was a name that never quite stuck for those in the late Gen X period.

Quote:

---

How can you never have heard the term Gen X? Is it a US thing?

---

I assume so. And no, I don't recall ever using another term either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Oskar, what's happening in this clip? What the fuck was the deal with that aggressive eye roll from the woman?

---

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOv6zvDW...pg&name=medium

badly disguised lizard people

At least one Warren supporter I follow shared this explaining why he thought it reflected badly on Bernie. idk if the NYT also produces this, but if they did produce it, they thought it would made Bernie look bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

queue oppo dump in 3...2...

---

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie...o-black-slaves

lol they got nothing

Lol. All of that was from the '70's, yeah?

They're digging back over 40 years to find that stuff.
Does that tacitly state that he's not done anything all that bad in the last 40 years, then?
lol.

Gotta give 'em credit for the deep dive, I guess.