Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I'm not sure how us opposing Northern Vietnam was immoral.
North Vietnam was a creation of the US. That country should never have existed. The US promised that there would be elections and the country would be unified under the winner. When they realized that Ho Chi Minh was wildly popular and would easily win, they cancelled the elections and backed a corrupt regime the people hated. They then fought a war killing huge numbers of people to keep that corrupt regime in power. There was nothing moral about the vietnam war.
Not entirely sure that overthrowing dictators (or as you called them "democracies") was a bad thing
the CIA arranged the overthrow of Guatemala's democratically elected government. They did this because the government wanted to forcibly buy land that an american company wasn't using and were leaving uncultivated. They toppled a democracy to protect a corporation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Ok, you can disagree with Trump support of said genocide. That is one president. You characterized our entire history as amoral, which I disagree with.
America invaded Iraq for no reason. It invaded afganistan when it could have avoided it. It invaded Vietnam for stupid reasons killing millions. It overthrows democratically elected governments, backs murderous dictators etc. I can go on and on with examples of terrible things america has done. I don't mean to say that america is evil. Most countries act in an amoral way. But america has done shitier things recently than most of them and most of them don't pretend like they are some beacon of morality like america does.
We have been somewhat imperialistic, but I'd argue that 9/10 of those made the world a much better place than had we not.
invading iraq made the world worse. Invading afganistan certainly made afganistan worse. Invading vietnam made everything worse. overthrowing democracies made them worse. Backing murderous dictators made things much worse for their people they were murdering.
America does what it is america's (or usually american politician's) best interests. The US government doesn't care if something is moral or just. They care about power and money. If murdering women and children will get them that, then they will murder them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
You didn't what? You 100% said that we were imperialistic and amoral.
America is definitely imperialistic. Are you attempting to deny that?
And yes america is amoral (please note I did not say immoral). It does things that benefit it politically and financially at the expense of others. The US government doesn't give a shit if they have to kill people to spread their political influence and power. Or to just make more money for the politicians calling the shots.
For example, Trump is continuing to support the Saudi genocide in Yemen because he makes alot of money from the Saudis. He is helping them murder women and children for money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Ok, you should definitely tell foreign investors that if they want to fire an incompetent employee, that won't be possible because the union will sue them.
i never said that was a good thing. You are straw manning me.
You should also let them know that they can't do anything to discourage unionizing and pay them whatever they want and promise pensions they will never be able to afford. If they don't, they can just take millions in losses per day.
absolutely we should do that. No company should have the power to prevent their employees unionizing.
Are you assuming that people cannot move? 6.8 million job openings, and you are assuming they will have one choice of job or starve?
most americans can't afford even a reasonably small unexpected expense without going into debt. Most americans cannot afford to leave their job without another one already lined up. This leaves them trapped. Also, without labor laws to enforce safety standards, most companies would reduce safety. So if all companies are unsafe, what exactly would their options be?
Wait a minute. This machinery is IDIOT PROOF, yet it likely to kill many workers who will then be replaced (despite the fact that we have millions of more jobs than people?!?!?). Give me a break.
umm yes. What exactly is your objection to those facts?
Ok, sure, I'm fine with regulating leveraged loans. No one is arguing for "unrestricted greed". Trump has cut regulations, but at the same time, he is passing thousands of new ones.
you are arguing that regulations are bad. I am arguing that they are good. You are advocating for heavily reducing the restrictions on avarice. That avarice pretty much always results in misery and death for the working class.
Central planning works.... for a very limited amount of time. Once you run out of preexisting wealth or resources shift values unfavorably, they get screwed very quick.
no one is advocating for a centrally planned economy.
First off, tell me how making license plates is the same as "work in Siberia with shoddy housing and just enough food to not starve to death". Also, they still use penal labor, so... nice try.
so america and russia are equally exploitative of the weak and powerless.
Legally speaking, negligence is failure to use proper care. If employees are getting injured or killed from no fault of their own, the employer would arguably not be using proper care.
if the law says the employer doesn't have to take any safety precautions, then if an employee gets hurt the employer can honestly say they took all the precautions necessary. The employee will just be screwed.
Have you ever discussed how any of this actually works with someone from management? You think you can just be careless enough to let someone die and not get a shit storm?
of course there would be. Because the law requires employers to protect their workers. It has for decades. Do you think there was a shit storm when am employee got killed in say the 1920's. There wasn't because it was just normal. If we repealed regulations, things would start sliding back in that direction.
Employees make a lot more money suing employers for negligence than they do with workers compensation.
Because the law says the employer needs to protect their workers. If the employer doesn't do that, they get sued. If the law says the employer doesn't have to do that, then the employer would win the lawsuit.
People are not just expendable.
you clearly have little understanding of how corporations see employees.
There is a huge demand for workers and you think they can just afford to kill people off and not suffer consequences.
People might be upset for a little while. But in a matter of days or weeks something would happen that would distract them and everyone forgets all about it. It happens all the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I prefer that a president sticks up for his country, yes. No pride in your country, says a lot about you.more slander without substance.Then you said this in our other thread:
no i didn't.
Great in the world power sense of the word (ex alexander the great). Not in a morality sense. America has pretty well always been an imperialist amoral country.And you wonder why I say you have no pride in your country? LMFAO
Because I know history better than you do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
really, defending an invasion in a war is offensive
When did Iran invade america? I must have missed that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
i never said he did peace, i said he was defensive
committing acts of war is offensive. not defensive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Yes it does. We are in an economic boom as of now
And yet wages have been stagnant for years. The environment is taking critical damage. The economy is booming, but virtually all of that wealth is going to a tiny segment of society. This is not sustainable and leads to a recession.
We aren't in a Great Depression right now so his policies of extreme regulation won't work.
no one is talking about extreme regulation.
Blame the liberals for abusing his policies and worsening the middle class.
corporations are making record profits but wages have stayed stagnant. That is destroying the middle class. That has nothing to do with liberal policies. It has to do with corporate greed and a lack of liberal policies. Because companies can get away with paying their employees peanuts while they make billions, the working class is getting destroyed.
FDR helped the middle class, the Liberals have ruined it and Bernie will do the same thing.
FDR helped the middle class. decades of both republicans and democrats siding with corporations over people (ie corporatists) have ruined it. Bernie would start the process of fixing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Toyota doesn't have unions in their US factories, which is precisely why they kick GM's ass in sales, car quality, and profits.
Toyota can get away with treating their employees worse. You're right that this kind of union busting gives them an advantage. We should use the law to prevent that.
The point is that they would be uneven- not all companies are the same. Not sure how many workers you could attract with super deadly work environments.
If your options are to work in an unsafe environment or your family starves, you will do what you have to do. All you have to do is look at the industrial revolution. Workers suffered and died in large numbers to try to feed their families. If every company cuts safety corners to save money, then workers get no choices.
It would depend on what type of work that worker is doing. If they are counting paper clips, maybe they could afford to let them die. If they are operating million-dollar machinery, they would generally want to keep someone who is competent and efficient.
Why? Expensive machinery is more and more designed to be idiot proof. You can teach someone to run it in a day or 2. If they get maimed or killed it isn't very expensive to replace them. Alot cheaper than it is to install expensive safety equipment and do regular safety checks on the machinery.
Well, an issue was that there were large monopolies and corruption during that time as well. So, barring those, the industrial revolution would have had less death and worker unrest. How do you figure laissez-faire capitalism leads to recessions?
Unrestricted greed leads to a boom and bust cycle. Look at the 2008 recession. Banks were able to make ridiculous money making terrible bets. All the banks got in on it because the profit margins were crazy high. When those bets eventually went bad they all lost huge amounts of money and triggered a massive recession. Some government regulations could have prevented the banks from making those ridiculous bets. They would have bitched and moaned about how government regulations were costing them money, but a massive financial crisis would have been avoided and everyone would have saved a TON of money.
Well, let me tell you exact how things went. So, how did he fuel this industrialization? Was it natural, like with market forces, and everything adjusted efficiently? Or did central planning fail once again?
central planning lead to a massive increase in industrial capacity due to central planning. This arguably gave them the ability to win WW2 while america was dicking around. There was a significant human cost to this process. From that point of view it was a failure. From a purely industrial point of view it was a huge success.
They also used prisoners to do a lot of the dangerous labor. Go Russia! Even worse working conditions than heartless capitalists!
America is still using prisoners for cheap or free labor. Tell me again about how evil russia is for doing this 100 years ago....
Well, I don't see anything wrong with imposing very large fines if a worker dies because of EMPLOYER negligence. It should be up to the company, who knows their operations better, to decide what is safe, rather than the government who has no idea how every single different company is structured.
That's exactly the problem. If the employer gets to decide what is safe and what is not, then literally nothing is negligence. If they are setting the rules, then whatever they decide to do is the right thing to do. And since companies love saving money, they would cut down of safety equipment, reduce checks of the machinery etc leading to the unnecessary death and dismemberment of their employee.
When do you believe America was great? I'd like to explore that.
Great in the world power sense of the word (ex alexander the great). Not in a morality sense. America has pretty well always been an imperialist amoral country.
The US government and the people of america would pay much, much more.More than $2 trillion? Doubtful.
It would be much, much more than that. Think of it like this. The government has rules about what safety equipment needs to be installed and how often machinery needs safety checks. If the company could skip on the safety equipment and safety checks, they could save 10's or 100's of thousands of dollars in man hours and equipment. But it would significantly increase the number of employees being maimed or killed. The company doesn't care about that, they can just replace them and make more money. But the worker is now crippled. They can't work any more. The government has to pay them disability and/or unemployment for the rest of their life. So the company is happy because they save alot of money and they can offset the costs associated to the accidents to the government. For the company it is a big win, for society and the government it is a massive loss. Not to mention the people who have gotten killed or crippled and the pain and suffering to them and their families.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I never block anyone, even hypocritical posters who post TO me, but have blocked me.
I blocked you a long time ago after we had a long discussion where you completely ignored what I was saying and just consistently lied and used straw man arguments.
But its nice to know you've flip-flopped on how wonderful Hillery is.
Another lie/straw man. I have never said Hillary is wonderful.
During the election, high off the gas-lighting MSDNC had given you, you were singing hosannas in her honor.
Yet another lie. See why I blocked you? Hillary was a better choice than trump. But the vast majority of politicians would be better than him. She was always a shitty candidate though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
How do you figure it took us longer?
because Russia industrialized incredibly fast.
I wouldn't trust a union to solve pollution because that indirectly affects their workers. Why couldn't they solve workplace safety issues?
If they had enough power, maybe they could. However you yourself have argued that they are already too powerful and need to be weakened.
Additionally, safety would be extremely uneven. Some companies with strong unions would have good safety standards. Other companies with weaker or more corrupt unions would have shitty safety standards. People would still die.
Not sure having employees burn to death was efficient. Don't you know how expensive it is to train new workers?
Depends on the industry. If it is a computer programmer, expensive. If it is a factory worker, it is dirt cheap. That is why factories treated their workers as expendable until the government passed labor laws.
I can't find where you got your data, but I'm guessing you didn't provide data for the following five year plans because that growth was unsustainable, yes?
True, it was explosive growth that couldn't be sustained. But so is lassez faire capitalism. The massive problems it causes leads to death, recessions and worker unrest.
Just a side note, how many people died to make that happen? Probably a hell of a lot more than died in America.
I'm not sure. A hell of alot of people died in america because of capitalism.
Not defending anarcho-capitalism. Laissez Fairre is more meant as a relative term in this context. Obviously the government did some things during that time, but it is labelled "Laissez Fairre" because they kept interference to a minimum. That isn't a bad thing.
That very much depends on what that minimum is. In practice what that meant is that if a few dozen poor people burn to death the government just looked the other way.
I didn't put quotes around it when I said those things, so I wasn't quoting you on that. Nor is "taxing the crap" out of someone a defined term.
You are pretending I have made those arguments when I have not.
You are 100% in favor of raising taxes on the upper brackets and even are in favor of a wealth tax.
correct, I am in favor of going back to the sort of taxation levels that made america great. It is only in the last few decades that tax levels on the rich have dropped through the floor.
You are also in favor of more regulation, even though compliance costs for companies are already in the billions.
and that compliance saves potentially millions of lives. Are there costs to running a safe business, of course. They could save lots of money if they didn't bother with safety standards or they could just dump their toxic waste in the river. But that isn't good for society. It isn't good for america. Billionaires and multi national corporations would save lots of money if those regulations were removed. The US government and the people of america would pay much, much more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
So, should NATO be disbanded?
No. But out spending any potential rivals by 5 to 1 is ridiculous.
Also, Russia has been very imperialistic as of late. Crimea ring a bell? Ukraine probably wouldn't exist if Germany was leader of the free world.
Umm what? America did nothing to help Ukraine.
ou see, you say that spending billions on the military is bad, but.... then you mention how nobody will get into a fight with them because they "outgun" everyone else. If they keep under-contributing, they probably won't. You wonder why we outgun everyone else? Because the US props them all up.
So your argument is that you have to massively over spend, or don't spend anything? Even without the US, the rest of NATO still massively outspends russia on their militaries.
Our invasion did not create the power vacuum, Obama's mishandling of pulling out troops did.
No. The invasion of Iraq shattered the power structures there. America temporarily filled that vacuum by acting as an imperial power. When obama tried to put a stop that imperialism the republicans were pushing, the situation continued to deteriorate. Bush shattered the region. Bush created the situation where ISIS could gain power.
Help how? By bombing women and children and creating more terrorists? Because that is what america is doing.They can help however they see fit.
That's just the problem. America hates how they want to help. You can't stop terrorism by murdering women and children. Every time the US drone strikes a funeral, they kill a handful of terrorist and make dozens more. The only way to really stop terrorism is with peace and property. You can't do that by drone striking everyone and tearing up peace deals.
Obama was weak against Russian aggression against Ukraine, he allowed the Russian oil industry to boom, and Trump is pushing for higher NATO contributions just to name a few.
basically, he deployed troops in areas that already had nato troops. He bullied and pissed off america's allies weakening the alliance. And he happened to be president while america was producing more oil.
Oh yes, those are some terrifying acts against ruissia. Lol do you even read these things? Nothing in this list are actually harmful to russia.
I prefer that a president sticks up for his country, yes. No pride in your country, says a lot about you.
more slander without substance. You want america to bully and harass countries. That isn't sticking up for your country. That is just shitting on other countries and making it that much harder for america to get things it wants.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I'm not talking about the specific Industrial Revolution. I am saying that when Russia was becoming an industrialized country. That happened under Stalin. Industrialization didn't have to happen during the 18th and 19th centuries, there are plenty of agrarian countries still in existence.
The industrian revolution, by definition, is when industrialization began and when a large amount of it happened. Russia went from a 2nd rate power to a super power in a couple decades. It took america much longer than that.
And the unions (not the toxic ones like UAW of today) came in and negotiated better wages and working conditions. Individuals, not the government, worked it out.
lol no. Workers were literally burning to death because employers were locking them in until the government forced them to stop. Unions are good for fighting for wages and things like that. But when it comes to safety standards, pollution, etc. a union will never be able to do anywhere near as much good as a government.
That is precisely how it should work. Different companies operate in different ways and broad governmental regulations that are supposed to apply to entire industries are bound to cause inefficiencies.
You're right. It was more efficient to lock employees in the building so they couldn't take breaks or steal things. It also lead to lots of dead people. Efficiency is important, but worker safety and rights are far more important.
Well, for one, I can't think of one country with socialism has ever had a good outcome, not even during their industrialization.
The soviet union increased their total industrial output by 118% during the 1st five year plan. They industrialized much faster than america did.
Laissez Fairre capitalism started being practiced in the mid-18th century, right when you said the Industrial Revolution started. Honestly, it arguably caused the Industrial Revolution. Are you going to say that incentives for individual prosperity and limited governmental barriers to entry didn't create this era of prosperity?
Laissez Fairre is basically just letting the rich do whatever they want to whoever they want. That can cause them to make lots of money, that is true. It can also cause them to enslave people, burn their workers alive etc. Removing all restrictions on greed and avarice is an extremely dangerous thing. Putting reasonable limits and rules in place gives you all the advantages of capitalism without the massive levels of abuse Laissez Faire capitalism causes.
Perhaps we should tax the crap out of anyone successful and regulate so much that compliance costs can only be afforded by big firms? And you wonder why more small business owners vote Republican than Democrat.......
This would be reductio ad absurdum. I have never said to "tax the crap out of anyone successful" or to "regulate so much that compliance costs can only be afforded by big firms". You are making up things and pretending I am saying them. It is a sign that your argument is weak.
It could have been someone else, but aren't you the guy that said taxation is "socialism"?
I don't believe so.
But somehow giving government all control over the medical insurance sector is somehow not socialism?
correct. That would not qualify as socialism.
Not sure I have heard many "reasonable regulations" either.
things like requiring companies to have fire escapes. That sort of regulation saves lives. If it wasn't in place, alot of companies wouldn't bother and people would needlessly burn to death. It used to happen much more commonly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Maybe to defend Iraq from another extremism or iran influence, solemi was a terroist, pig is rotting in hell
So he committed an act of war to get peace? That is incredibly stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
How So? Trump has stayed consistently defensive
He sent more troops into Iraq and Saudi Arabia. He has attacked Iran. That isn't defensive. That is offensive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Now there dead!
What?
HAHA, obama's foreign policy was a disaster and especially this
Trump's foreign policy is the same as Obama's. The only difference is Trump is even more belligerent and pushing for war.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Why would you think that?Without laissez fairre economics, we probably wouldn’t be very industrialized. Certainly not a superpower.
You can criticize the Industrial Revolution working conditions and such, but that period of little government regulation saw some of the greatest improvement in GDP, GDP per capita, innovation, and there was good wage growth
It also saw almost unparalleled suffering for workers. The rich got massively richer while the poor struggled to survive.
On the other hand, socialist countries during their industrial eras, such as Russia, didn’t end up so well.
The industrial revolution was in the 18th and 19th century. There were no socialist countries. Russia only became communist 80-100 after the end of the industrial revolution. So no, a capitalistic, cutthroat american system out performed an incompetent monarchical system. In some senses it was just 2 different version of oligarchy competing.
And even then, no one is advocating for Socialism in america. They are advocating for reasonable regulation and limits on the abuse and greed of capitalism. That isn't socialism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Funny, people who voted for Hillery are calling her a bad choice now.
Hilary was a bad choice. Trump might be the worst choice ever. The lessor of 2 evils is the preferable choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I still think Europe would side with us over China, even with Trump damaging relations.
Why? The American government has proven it doesn't care about it's allies. It will do whatever it wants, whenever it wants and they can all go to hell. It proved that with the Iran deal, it proved that when they murdered Solemani.
If Trump escalates a war/trade war with China, why would you think Europe would back the US?
Created:
-->
@Imabench
Trailing Sanders by 7 points nationally after being ahead of Bernie by 12 points in October also doesnt make it impossible for her to bounce back either
I agree, it wasn't impossible for her to bounce back. It still isn't. But it is highly unlikely at this point.
Bloomberg is taking a big chunk of her upper middle class white votes (which is the core of her support). Her medicare plan was trash and that hurt her with progressives. Her failed smear on bernie hurt her alot more and showed she was a backstabbing politician 1st, a progressive 2nd.
Unless something big changes in the next few weeks, her path to winning is more or less gone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
A country is supposed to be lassiez fair when a country booms and socialist in a bust. Maybe Bernie is good for the Great Depression, not for the Roaring 20s
This kind of thinking is kind of the problem. The laissez faire environment is what sets up the conditions for the bust that follows. Socialist policies then have to clean up the mess. When things go back to laissez faire you get a spike of the rich making lots of money, then another bust. If you kept good policies in control the whole time you could avoid more of this spike and crash cycle.
His socialism benefited society, Bernie's hurts it.
Why? If you accept that socialism was good when FDR did it, why is it bad now? How is it fundamentally different?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Couldn't it just be that she hates his ideas and doesn't like what he is doing to the("her") party?
If her criticisms had been about his policies, then sure. They were not. They were personal. IE "nobody like him".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
But not only is she a sore loser regarding the election, she has also proved that she's a sore winner regarding the primary.
The worst part, to me anyway, is that bernie did endorse her. He did about 40 rallies for her during the election. And she still hates his guts for daring to run against her.
In her mind she was the anointed one and anyone who dared to challenge her is a terrible person.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
I disagree with parts of your assessment, but I think your main conclusion is correct. The kind of people who like clinton would never vote for bernie sanders anyway. The fact that the establishment likes Warren and hates sanders only fuels sanders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I prefer to treat allied independent nations as equals rather than try to give orders to them. You're right, that tells you i'm not a dick.lol you prefer treating American allies like equals rather than holding them accountable. That says alot about you.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Nah man. It was because she was a woman. And, like Bernie said to Warren, "women can't be president". lol;)
nah. If it was that she is a woman then it would be about her. It can't ever be about her... For she is Hillary Rodham Clinton, bringer of Wokeness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yes, the US spends too much on the military. We spend 3.5% of our GDP on it. However, the NATO requirement is a meager 2%. 19 of 29 countries aren't meeting it, Germany included. How is that for the "leader of the free world"? Completely unable to defend said free world.
Those targets are based on a cold war world where the possibility of a war with russia was very real. Even without spending 2% NATO countries spend more than most of the rest of the world.
It is the lack of contribution and the expectation that we will do most/all of the work when they have some sort of threat to deal with. That is why they are being poor allies
Contribution to what exactly? how does spending a billions on tanks actually accomplish anything? They aren't at war. There is little to no chance of them getting into a war because collectively, NATO massively outguns everyone else.
Woah there, bucko. The Democrats, Obama and Hillary Clinton, created ISIS.
The US invasion of Iraq created the power vacuum. That's on Bush.
But, yeah, Middle Eastern terrorism is much more harmful to them than us, so you'd think they would try to help with it every once in a while.
Help how? By bombing women and children and creating more terrorists? Because that is what america is doing.
Dude, Trump has been harder on Russia than Obama ever was, so cut that crap immediately.
How exactly is that? He has had to be arm twisted at every step into doing anything at all about russia.
I would prefer his American nationalism to Obama bending us over during his "apology tour
lol you prefer treating american allies like crap than treating them like equals. That says alot about you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Generally, outside of trade, the relationship is rather parasitic. Most NATO countries can't even contribute the minimum % of GDP to their own defense.
because it is unnecessary. Cuts to military spending started to be made because there was no real threat that required that level of spending. As an alliance, NATO's military spending massively dwarfs anyone they could theoretically fight. Don't blame other countries because the US is addicted to massive, runaway military spending.
They expect us to bail them out. Most countries aren't very good allies to us, either.
How? What are those other countries doing that undermines america?
Terrorism like ISIS is a much bigger threat to Europe than the US, but what did they do to stop them? Very little.
The US created ISIS. The power vacuum that was created by the american actions in the middle east created the problem. Then republicans whine that other countries wont spend billions of dollars to help clean up the US's mess.
How do you figure that Germany is somehow the leader of the free world? They are slowing down economically and are dealing with a gigantic refugee crisis. Not doing too great.
In order to be a leader, people have to be willing to follow you. America has decided that it doesn't give a crap what anyone thinks. It will invade anyone, murder anyone, sanction anyone they want at any time no matter what anyone (even their allies) have to say about it. At least under Obama or even bush, the US government pretended like they cared what their allies think. Trump has dropped the game entirely and is just trying to dictate orders. The only "allies" he listens to are the Saudi's and the russians.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Anything you do that calls attention to the message and makes more people aware of it amplifies it.
It is playing on every network, mostly without the criticism it deserves. I cannot possibly amplify that. I can draw attention to how terrible it is.
Are you kidding? She is at the very center of the democratic party.I don't think so. She's basically a punchline.
To you, sure. To the DNC, to the staffers in the Warren campaign (among others), to the millions of "woke" people who just want a woman president and don't care what policy's they support, to the countless bundlers and political donors, no you couldn't be more wrong. Hilary clinton still has a long reach in the democratic party.
And?
Have you gotten meetings with all the major candidates? The reason they want to have meetings with her is because she is still a powerful figure in the democratic establishment.
Exactly. She is a ship that sunk. She herself is a lost cause that has no relevance any more. But that doesn't mean she didn't hire competenat staff or have powerful allies. That's exactly why you would have a meeting with her, to poach her resources and use them to your own ends. Doesn't make her the "center of the democractic party." She's a corpse and the vultures are feasting on her remains.
Those people who were her allies, are still her allies. She has all the most powerful people on speed dial and if she calls them, they will damn sure answer. You might not have any respect for her (and I would agree), but the rich and powerful in washington still very much care what she has to say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Exactly! Tribute as a means to world peace is not shameful.
Trade is not tribute. it is trade. You give something to them, they give something to you. That is the cornerstone of civilization.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Pointing out the ridiculousness and stupidity of someone is not amplifying their voice.Yes it is.
No it's not. She already has every media outlet pumping out her messaging. Calling out the ridiculousness of her message does not amplify it further.
Except she's not relevant to the Democratic party anymore.
Are you kidding? She is at the very center of the democratic party. She isn't running, but most of the major candidates running have had meetings with her. Most of the major campaigns are filled with staffers that are friends and allies of Clinton. The DNC is filled with her cronies. She is still extremely relevant until she, or the people she has all those connections with, are gone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Under Hillary, we did when we gave Uranium to the Russians. No shame in surrender for the sake of world peace.
trade is not surrender, it is trade. Everyone trades with other countries. It is how the modern economy works. To think that trading with a country is "surrendering" is extremely isolationist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Europe and the US are in NATO. We got an alliance.
Trump regularly trashes NATO. Several of the biggest NATO partners were in the Iran deal and trump burned it without giving a shit what they think. If you think that alliance is still solid, you haven't been paying attention to what trump is doing.
Africa, your right, but this can change. Not in much of the rest of Asia. India is still our ally. Many Asian countries are our ally.
Are you kidding? China is pouring huge amounts of money into asia, including India.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Germany had the right idea. If you want world peace, surrender to Russia.
Buying things from a country is surrendering to them? So america has surrendered to half the world?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
So you're taking this woman who you think is out of touch and entitled and... amplifying her voice?
Pointing out the ridiculousness and stupidity of someone is not amplifying their voice. It is providing evidence as to why the establish of the democratic party have utterly failed and need to be replaced.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
lol they screwed him over in favor of Clinton and how she's helping them screw him again in favor of Biden, or pretty much anyone else.
I think she actually believes this nonsense though. She can't mentally handle the fact that she was a bad candidate and lost to trump, so she needs a scapegoat to explain. It must be russian hackers and Bernie bros that were the problem, not her. Never her.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You are right. Those missiles would have gone to Hezbollah and Hamas. Those bastions of world peace.
As opposed to america which arms different terrorists and mass murderers? American weapons are killing civilians all over the world. Why do you feel that Iran is evil for taking plays right out of the american playbook?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Why do we care?
Fair point. I don't really care what she has to say. But alot of people still value her opinion (for some reason). I think every time she speaks about bernie or the primary she shows us more and more how out of touch she is with the country and what an entitled, bitter woman she is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
If POTUS, I'd sanction China entirely until they give Hong Kong and Macau independence. We can get stuff from Europe and Africa instead of China. I'd rather build ties with Africa and Europe than with China. I hate China and building ties with Africa helps to weaken China.
Why do you assume those countries would prefer to deal with the US instead of China? China is much less likely to fuck with them than the US is. China is building solid ties throughout asia and africa.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
EU buys 20% of Iranian oil which is then used to pay for missiles to shoot Canadians.
If trump hadn't torched the Iran deal and then murdered their 2nd most powerful political leader, then no missiles would have been fired. Don't pretend like america didn't have a big part to play in this tragedy.
Created:
Posted in:
outsider candidates get asked all the time if they will endorse the eventual nominee. If any one of them ever dared to say they might not, CNN, MSNBC etc would all lose their shit accusing them of supporting trump. But if some corportist shill like clinton does it, they don't care.
Created:
Posted in:
News about a hilary clinton interview came out. In the interview Hilary shows off what a bitter, entitled person she really is. She claim that "no one likes" bernie sanders when he is the most popular senator in the country.
She refused to confirm whether she would endorse Sanders if he became the nominee.
She is obviously still REALLY bitter about losing to trump and wants to find a way to make it bernie's fault. it doesn't matter that he did like 40 campaign events for her after she became the nominee. it doesn't matter that bernie fought harder for her than she did for Obama when he was the nominee. She can't deal with the fact that she was a shitty candidate that people didn't want and she needs someone to blame.
The fact that she would consider refusing to help bernie if he is the nominee when he fought for her is a really ugly look for her.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Should Hong Kong be independent from China? I think they should. It's what the locals want.
Never going to happen. China would rather kill every single one of them than give up Hong Kong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I mean, that sounds fine and all, but it really boils down to this: either you need to do something or you don’t. If it is absolutely necessary, you have to do something regardless and you can try to get as much help as possible. If you don’t need to do something, you shouldn’t.
America doesn't "need" to do anything in most of the world. By that metric, america should just stop doing anything. I think the far better way of looking at it is to look at the world as a community that you need to get along with. When america just gives it's allies the middle finger and does what it wants, it's "allies" realize they aren't really allies. Then america finds itself increasingly ignored and ostracized as decisions are made by others.
For example, right now most of america's allies are just sort of planning around the US. There is no point talking to the US about things because trump will just throw a fit or break his word at the drop of a hat anyway. Germany has largely become the leader of the free world in america's absence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Probably. Although I don't really care about the "right" or "authority". I care that it is a waste of resources and soldier lives.
Right and authority are important when you want allies and co-operation. If america want other countries to assist it in advancing it's goals, they have to feel like america is their their ally. When america acts like a giant asshole and tries to dictate policy to other countries, that only undermines foreign policy objectives.
And without allies and co-operation, things get alot more expensive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
He should wait for America to fight their war, just like every other country does.
maybe america should stop assuming it has the right or the authority to go to war with everyone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I think the entire question needs to have it's frame of reference changed. For decades we have looked at it as a criminal issue. IE don't do that or we will punish you. This created the war on drugs. But it has been a massive failure.
We need to look at it as a health issue instead. Don't throw addicts in prison, help them get clean and actually fix their life. It is a lot cheaper than locking them up and it won't ruin millions of lives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Many chemicals can affect a developing brain. That includes caffeine, alcohol, nicotine etc.
If you want to blanket ban any chemical that can do that, I would oppose that stance, but I could respect the argument. Saying that we should make it illegal to use one substance (pot) but legal to use a more damaging one (alcohol) is hypocritical though.
Canada has fully legalized marijuana and there is no drug epidemic. I'd say full legalization is a good plan. Also, that decriminalizing the use of most other drugs would also be a good idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Who gives a flying fuck about crime?If your goal was to remove and destroy guns, stop and fisk did the job better than any program or ban in the history of America.
Who gives a fuck about the guns? The point is to stop the crimes being committed with guns. If you confiscate a million guns and they can all be replaced the next day, you have accomplished nothing.
If you can't stop the flow of guns, it will never matter how many you seize.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Stop and frisk has confiscated more guns than any other legislation in the history of the USA, and the NRA wasn't even the ones to remove that ban.
Stop and frisk was a massive abuse of government power where they got to suspend your rights because they felt like it. It had virtually no effect on the crime rate at all. It was a massive failure.
Created: