Export thread
A question about Trump supporters
#1
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
Please pick how you feel about the ~majority~ of them. Also, if you are an actual human that wants to vote for Trump, I would love to hear you explain how you are not ignorant or evil! It would delight me to no end. But feel free to vote the 3rd option and go on with your life too.
#2
PatrThom
PatrThom
I almost picked the third option, and then I realized that would mean that *I* was a patriot/hero/voting for Trump. At first I thought that option was there for if I thought that THEY believed themselves to be patriots/heroes, which I believe they do.
--Patrick
--Patrick
#3
Charlie Don't Surf
I only included the third option because the previous poll actually had votes for Trump that I don't think were ironic.
Charlie Don't Surf
Oh yeah, Trump supporters absolutely think they're the heroes in their own story. but this is about YOUR (our) opinion(s).if I thought that THEY believed themselves to be patriots/heroes, which I believe they do.
I only included the third option because the previous poll actually had votes for Trump that I don't think were ironic.
#4
ThatGrinningIdiot!
ThatGrinningIdiot!
I think Trump supporters are wrong-headed, but mostly tired of the imposition of the politically correct culture pervading society, and they'll vote for a doofus who shouts obnoxious anti left rhetoric and claim him a hero for doing so. Charlie boi, when you spout off your own brand of rhetoric - it almost compels me to vote for Trump, despite me an Anishnaabek Canadian.
When people feel they are deprived of their capacity to be insenstive jackasses, the jackassery will only intensify as a result.
When people feel they are deprived of their capacity to be insenstive jackasses, the jackassery will only intensify as a result.
#5
Charlie Don't Surf
also please go on about the evils of politically correct culture that's stopping society and impeding us from greatness
Charlie Don't Surf
lolCharlie boi, when you spout off your own brand of rhetoric - it almost compels me to vote for Trump,
also please go on about the evils of politically correct culture that's stopping society and impeding us from greatness
#6
ThatGrinningIdiot!
ThatGrinningIdiot!
I never stated that there were evils of politically correct culture that's stopping society and impeding anyone from greatness. Those are your words, not mine.lol
also please go on about the evils of politically correct culture that's stopping society and impeding us from greatness
#7
GasBandit
GasBandit
Trump is not an actual candidate.
Trump is a grenade.
A lot of people who feel their best interests are not in the mind of the DC establishment want to throw a grenade at the capitol.
They don't want a politician.
They want a molotov cocktail that won't get them arrested for throwing.
Trump is a grenade.
A lot of people who feel their best interests are not in the mind of the DC establishment want to throw a grenade at the capitol.
They don't want a politician.
They want a molotov cocktail that won't get them arrested for throwing.
#8
PatrThom
I mean, if the populace really wanted a government made up of people who were actually good at running things, they would vote based on that instead of the current "what's in it for me?" mentality.
--Patrick
PatrThom
I suppose there's some actual truth to this.Trump is not an actual candidate.
Trump is a grenade.
A lot of people who feel their best interests are not in the mind of the DC establishment want to throw a grenade at the capitol.
They don't want a politician.
They want a molotov cocktail that won't get them arrested for throwing.
I mean, if the populace really wanted a government made up of people who were actually good at running things, they would vote based on that instead of the current "what's in it for me?" mentality.
--Patrick
#9
Gruebeard
Gruebeard
I selected Trump in that other poll. No, not ironically. But I wouldn't select him to run my country.
"For the entertainment" isn't ironic, right?
"For the entertainment" isn't ironic, right?
#10
Chad Sexington
Chad Sexington
I feel like 'ignorant' is too generous: I think there's a lot of genuine, malicious racism driving many of them. But, as a second, Ignorant, definitely.
#11
strawman
strawman
I love it when Charlie dehumanizes and groups people.
Then again, I'm easily amused.
Then again, I'm easily amused.
#12
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
I don't think Trump supporters are inherently ignorant or racist. Certainly some of them are, and Trump has pandered to that demographic, but I think a lot of Trump voters like him just because he comes across as not a politician, and they're fed up with the system. In a way, I think Trump appeals for the same reason Bernie Sanders appeals, he comes across as an outsider that speaks his mind and isn't a part of the system that they've grown to hate.
#13
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
My mom supports Trump because her friends do and she's a follower. She knows nothing of his politics; she likes that he's loud and angry. I have a feeling there are bunch who are just playing herd mentality. But I'd say that's true of many Bernie Sanders supporters too. There are many people who aren't politically educated, so instead of making an educated decision to find out what a person supports, they just go along with others around them.
Of course, many people also believe that the two-party system is just part of our government set-up, when really you're free to vote for anyone who's running and gets their name on the ballot.
Of course, many people also believe that the two-party system is just part of our government set-up, when really you're free to vote for anyone who's running and gets their name on the ballot.
#14
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
It's probably safe to say Sanders supporters aren't tacitly endorsing the murder of children. How else would you interpret "you have to take out the terrorists' families"?My mom supports Trump because her friends do and she's a follower. She knows nothing of his politics; she likes that he's loud and angry. I have a feeling there are bunch who are just playing herd mentality. But I'd say that's true of many Bernie Sanders supporters too. There are many people who aren't politically educated, so instead of making an educated decision to find out what a person supports, they just go along with others around them.
Of course, many people also believe that the two-party system is just part of our government set-up, when really you're free to vote for anyone who's running and gets their name on the ballot.
#15
strawman
Worse than the deaths is the absolute terror we are causing to large populations in the Middle East.
I'm not interested in Trump, and thus not interested in defending him, but if you're going to vilify him for his words, I expect you to at least internalize the actions of our current and past presidents and recognize that he is simply saying much openly that is already carried out in actuality.
The difference, though, is he's transparent about it, whereas the current regime attempts to hide their activities as much as possible. They say it's for security purposes.
strawman
It's probably safe to say that anyone who supports President Obama is tacitly endorsing the murder of children. Of course when a republican was in the office the media went into a frenzy every time a child or civilian was struck, but that's all quietly carried out now.It's probably safe to say Sanders supporters aren't tacitly endorsing the murder of children. How else would you interpret "you have to take out the terrorists' families"?
Worse than the deaths is the absolute terror we are causing to large populations in the Middle East.
I'm not interested in Trump, and thus not interested in defending him, but if you're going to vilify him for his words, I expect you to at least internalize the actions of our current and past presidents and recognize that he is simply saying much openly that is already carried out in actuality.
The difference, though, is he's transparent about it, whereas the current regime attempts to hide their activities as much as possible. They say it's for security purposes.
#16
Mathias
Yep. Evil? Really?! They're not evil people.
Problem with taking these threads (or Chuckles) seriously is exactly this kind of rhetoric.
Mathias
I love it when Charlie dehumanizes and groups people.
Then again, I'm easily amused.
Yep. Evil? Really?! They're not evil people.
Problem with taking these threads (or Chuckles) seriously is exactly this kind of rhetoric.
#17
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
I imagine many voters are on the "Never Hillary" path.
#18
Dave
Dave
The only candidate worth a shit is Bernie. Trump is racist, sexist, and dangerous - and his followers reflect this to a large extent. Hillary is a hawkish lying opportunist and her followers are either voting simply because she's a woman, because she's not Trump, or because they are snowed by the DNC and MSM who have already anointed her as the candidate.
#19
strawman
strawman
Do you have any idea what this will cost?The only candidate worth a shit is Bernie.
#20
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Less than building a giant wall, I imagine.Do you have any idea what this will cost?
--Patrick
#21
strawman
The cost of Bernie's plans are in the 18 trillion range over ten years.
Of course, Bernie's stuff will continue to cost that much over time, while the wall will require maintenance it won't require another 15 billion every ten years.
A 1:1,000 ratio is significant, and probably couldn't be termed "less"
The wall is a stupid use of our money, and Bernie desires to increase the federal government by double (employees, revenue, spending, etc) and with that necessarily comes a great loss of liberty - any power the government takes unto itself is power necessarily removed from the people.[DOUBLEPOST=1465225172,1465225133][/DOUBLEPOST]Wall: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html
Bernie: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/u...s-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html[DOUBLEPOST=1465225522][/DOUBLEPOST]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico–United_States_border
The border is just under 2,000 miles. So if each mile was 500 million dollars, then it would be 1 trillion total. To equal Sander's commitment it would have to be 9 billion dollars per mile, or about 1.7 millions dollars per foot of fencing.
As it is, the estimate of 15 billion is $1,420 per foot of fencing, or $118 per inch. This is primarily because some sections (which probably shouldn't even be fenced, given how hard they are to access) will cost a lot more, while most sections will be fairly modest in cost.[DOUBLEPOST=1465225675][/DOUBLEPOST]The funny thing is, I intended to point out how little the fence costs, but it looks like all I'm doing is shining light on just how unbelievably expensive Bernie's plan is.
You can build Trump's fence 1,000 times every ten years for the rest of this country's life and still not use as much money as Bernie wants to spend in addition to what the US government is already spending.
strawman
Well, current estimates for the proposed giant wall are in the 15 billion range.Less than building a giant wall, I imagine.
--Patrick
The cost of Bernie's plans are in the 18 trillion range over ten years.
Of course, Bernie's stuff will continue to cost that much over time, while the wall will require maintenance it won't require another 15 billion every ten years.
A 1:1,000 ratio is significant, and probably couldn't be termed "less"
The wall is a stupid use of our money, and Bernie desires to increase the federal government by double (employees, revenue, spending, etc) and with that necessarily comes a great loss of liberty - any power the government takes unto itself is power necessarily removed from the people.[DOUBLEPOST=1465225172,1465225133][/DOUBLEPOST]Wall: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html
Bernie: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/u...s-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html[DOUBLEPOST=1465225522][/DOUBLEPOST]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico–United_States_border
The border is just under 2,000 miles. So if each mile was 500 million dollars, then it would be 1 trillion total. To equal Sander's commitment it would have to be 9 billion dollars per mile, or about 1.7 millions dollars per foot of fencing.
As it is, the estimate of 15 billion is $1,420 per foot of fencing, or $118 per inch. This is primarily because some sections (which probably shouldn't even be fenced, given how hard they are to access) will cost a lot more, while most sections will be fairly modest in cost.[DOUBLEPOST=1465225675][/DOUBLEPOST]The funny thing is, I intended to point out how little the fence costs, but it looks like all I'm doing is shining light on just how unbelievably expensive Bernie's plan is.
You can build Trump's fence 1,000 times every ten years for the rest of this country's life and still not use as much money as Bernie wants to spend in addition to what the US government is already spending.
#22
DarkAudit
It is not the stated public policy of the United States to intentionally target children. Trump would make it so. And has thereby declared his intent to commit a war crime.
DarkAudit
That sounds a whole lot like "she started it," or "he did it first."It's probably safe to say that anyone who supports President Obama is tacitly endorsing the murder of children. Of course when a republican was in the office the media went into a frenzy every time a child or civilian was struck, but that's all quietly carried out now.
Worse than the deaths is the absolute terror we are causing to large populations in the Middle East.
I'm not interested in Trump, and thus not interested in defending him, but if you're going to vilify him for his words, I expect you to at least internalize the actions of our current and past presidents and recognize that he is simply saying much openly that is already carried out in actuality.
The difference, though, is he's transparent about it, whereas the current regime attempts to hide their activities as much as possible. They say it's for security purposes.
It is not the stated public policy of the United States to intentionally target children. Trump would make it so. And has thereby declared his intent to commit a war crime.
#23
strawman
strawman
That's two new mexico fences a week to pay for Bernie's plan.[DOUBLEPOST=1465225841,1465225733][/DOUBLEPOST]
It's ok, though, Obama has a Nobel Peace prize, so it's cool, it's cool.
You are correct. It is not stated public policy. It is a secret war crime.It is not the stated public policy of the United States to intentionally target children. Trump would make it so.
It's ok, though, Obama has a Nobel Peace prize, so it's cool, it's cool.
#24
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
GB got on me for going "but... but... but... BUSH!" You're just doing "but... but... OBAMA!"That's two new mexico fences a week to pay for Bernie's plan.[DOUBLEPOST=1465225841,1465225733][/DOUBLEPOST]
You are correct. It is not stated public policy. It is a secret war crime.
It's ok, though, Obama has a Nobel Peace prize, so it's cool, it's cool.
#25
strawman
strawman
Bush did the same thing with Drone strikes. If anything it's a bad mark on both of them.GB got on me for going "but... but... but... BUSH!" You're just doing "but... but... OBAMA!"
#26
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
If anything, this instead shows how little I've heard about Bernie's plans, and how much has been made of Trump's.Well, current estimates for the proposed giant wall are in the 15 billion range.
The cost of Bernie's plans are in the 18 trillion range over ten years.
--Patrick
#27
Dave
Dave
*sigh*
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/
http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-do-sanders-economic-plans-add-cost-his-revolution-2326247
Bernie's plans are economically viable, no matter what the NYT (a shill for Hillary who routinely alters columns to make Bernie look bad regardless of the facts) would have you believe.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/
http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-do-sanders-economic-plans-add-cost-his-revolution-2326247
Bernie's plans are economically viable, no matter what the NYT (a shill for Hillary who routinely alters columns to make Bernie look bad regardless of the facts) would have you believe.
#28
Mathias
DAMN YOU BERNIE!! MAKING RICH PEOPLE PAY THEIR FAIRSHARE AN SHIT!
Mathias
*sigh*
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/
http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-do-sanders-economic-plans-add-cost-his-revolution-2326247
Bernie's plans are economically viable, no matter what the NYT (a shill for Hillary who routinely alters columns to make Bernie look bad regardless of the facts) would have you believe.
DAMN YOU BERNIE!! MAKING RICH PEOPLE PAY THEIR FAIRSHARE AN SHIT!
#30
Covar
Covar
TIL that apparently I'm rich. Of course I'm also a filthy new business owner, with car payments, a mortgage, student loans, and a 401k (The only retirement money I'm ever going to see). So fuck Bernie and the notion that I'm not paying my fair share.
#31
Mathias
There are calculators out there that crunch how much your taxes would jump if all of Sander's policies poofed into existence. I think mine went up like 30%.
Mathias
TIL that apparently I'm rich. Of course I'm also a filthy new business owner, with car payments, a mortgage, student loans, and a 401k (The only retirement money I'm ever going to see). So fuck Bernie and the notion that I'm not paying my fair share.
There are calculators out there that crunch how much your taxes would jump if all of Sander's policies poofed into existence. I think mine went up like 30%.
#32
Tress
By the way, Robespierre had some good quips he would shout to the mob too.
Tress
You think that's bad? I'm a public school teacher scraping by with my car payments and rent. But thanks to the rather reckless and stupid Sanders plans, my taxes would go UP. Dramatically. Because why apply nuance and thought to your economic policy when you can just make broad generalizations? For example, just tax the shit out of people based on income without bothering to check the local cost of living. Details are for suckers!TIL that apparently I'm rich. Of course I'm also a filthy new business owner, with car payments, a mortgage, student loans, and a 401k (The only retirement money I'm ever going to see). So fuck Bernie and the notion that I'm not paying my fair share.
By the way, Robespierre had some good quips he would shout to the mob too.
#33
Covar
Covar
hence the fuck him comment.There are calculators out there that crunch how much your taxes would jump if all of Sander's policies poofed into existence. I think mine went up like 30%.
#34
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
You and I have very different political outlooks, but I agree with you wholly on this. I voted for Obama, I like a lot of the social policies he's helped to push, but he's been as much of a war president as Bush was.Bush did the same thing with Drone strikes. If anything it's a bad mark on both of them.
#35
strawman
Yes, huge increase in taxes, huge increase in government.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/
A no-name economist becomes famous because he writes an analysis that suggests Bernie's plan will fix the entire economy. A lot of other economists say terrible things about the analysis.
Who is right, the one economist who wrote it and seems to be the only one willing to stand by it, or the other economists who disagree with it?
Go ahead and accept this as a reasonable analysis if you like, but until many economists agree then I'm going to take it with a whole lot of salt.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/
Yet another article that says huge tax increases, huge increase in government.
http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-do-sanders-economic-plans-add-cost-his-revolution-2326247
I'm saying, "His plans cost 18 billion," but I don't think you're disputing this.
You're saying, "His plans include huge increases in taxes to pay for his huge increases in spending." I'm not disputing this. I think it's the absolute wrong way to go, and the articles you've suggested say such rosy things like, "This puts us more in line with the EU in terms of GDP of government spending" but this is not a good thing for the US. And if you move the discussion to recently democratic countries that have chosen socalist paths, such as those in South America, you find disasterous results.
Those countries that succeeded (if you call the many financial failures and continuing slow burn failure of the EU "success") went from essential monarchy to democratic socialism. Their culture included the idea that the government, paternalistic in nature, was primarily responsible responsible to provide and care for its citizens. So socialistic policies makes sense for their culture.
You take the US, though, largely built on the idea that the government is limited and citizens are meant to tend to their own needs, and the government only step in for crisis and tragedy, and force a different mindset, you're going to find it a very different result altogether.
The only reason Sanders is making headway is because people don't understand macro economics, and they are voraciously eating the idea that the rich are too rich and must be taxed heavily.
Now here's the rub - I simply believe these changes will adversely impact everyone - including the middle class.
You believe these changes will be positive for everyone, except, perhaps, those you declare unworthy of their wealth.
So of course I cannot support high tax, big government, citizen coddling Bernie Sanders. I've already been a significant victim of Obama's healthcare act which wasn't supposed to affect the middle class.
But I think we can both agree on one thing - Bernie stands for 18 billion on new taxes, new spending, and doubled federal government.
You like it, I don't.
strawman
Sorry to have to make you back up your claims! I know it's tough work, particularly in this case.*sigh*
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/
Yes, huge increase in taxes, huge increase in government.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/
A no-name economist becomes famous because he writes an analysis that suggests Bernie's plan will fix the entire economy. A lot of other economists say terrible things about the analysis.
Who is right, the one economist who wrote it and seems to be the only one willing to stand by it, or the other economists who disagree with it?
Go ahead and accept this as a reasonable analysis if you like, but until many economists agree then I'm going to take it with a whole lot of salt.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/
http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-do-sanders-economic-plans-add-cost-his-revolution-2326247
Yet another article that says huge tax increases, huge increase in government.
http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-do-sanders-economic-plans-add-cost-his-revolution-2326247
I think you are trying to debate a different question.Bernie's plans are economically viable, no matter what the NYT (a shill for Hillary who routinely alters columns to make Bernie look bad regardless of the facts) would have you believe.
I'm saying, "His plans cost 18 billion," but I don't think you're disputing this.
You're saying, "His plans include huge increases in taxes to pay for his huge increases in spending." I'm not disputing this. I think it's the absolute wrong way to go, and the articles you've suggested say such rosy things like, "This puts us more in line with the EU in terms of GDP of government spending" but this is not a good thing for the US. And if you move the discussion to recently democratic countries that have chosen socalist paths, such as those in South America, you find disasterous results.
Those countries that succeeded (if you call the many financial failures and continuing slow burn failure of the EU "success") went from essential monarchy to democratic socialism. Their culture included the idea that the government, paternalistic in nature, was primarily responsible responsible to provide and care for its citizens. So socialistic policies makes sense for their culture.
You take the US, though, largely built on the idea that the government is limited and citizens are meant to tend to their own needs, and the government only step in for crisis and tragedy, and force a different mindset, you're going to find it a very different result altogether.
The only reason Sanders is making headway is because people don't understand macro economics, and they are voraciously eating the idea that the rich are too rich and must be taxed heavily.
Now here's the rub - I simply believe these changes will adversely impact everyone - including the middle class.
You believe these changes will be positive for everyone, except, perhaps, those you declare unworthy of their wealth.
So of course I cannot support high tax, big government, citizen coddling Bernie Sanders. I've already been a significant victim of Obama's healthcare act which wasn't supposed to affect the middle class.
But I think we can both agree on one thing - Bernie stands for 18 billion on new taxes, new spending, and doubled federal government.
You like it, I don't.
#36
ThatGrinningIdiot!
ThatGrinningIdiot!
You want to improve all areas of your country? Just take a third from your military budget, and you're good to go.
#37
GasBandit
GasBandit
FTFYYou want to improve all areas of your country? Just take a third from yourmilitaryentitlements budget, and you're good to go.
#38
Dave
Dave
The problem with our military budget is that we overspend on equipment while cutting everything we can for the people. So we'll pay billions for planes that we just don't need (or want) while the individual soldiers are eligible for food stamps. So ending entitlements (and by this I mean corporate welfare, which is different than what Gas means, probably) and putting some fucking logic into the military budget and tax codes would go a long way to making our country economically solvent.
Of course, just like the last time we had a surplus, congress rushed to spend it all as fast as they could.
Of course, just like the last time we had a surplus, congress rushed to spend it all as fast as they could.
#39
GasBandit
GasBandit
Government only grows, as a rule. You know what Milton Friedman said - nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. That's why it's important to fight tooth and nail against every single expansion of government... because every inch it expands is an inch you'll never get back.
#40
Bubble181
Bubble181
Not necessarily true. The Belgian government's been cutting back. With huuuuge strikes and complaints and whatnot as a consequence, mind, because "what? Give me more money but I have to pay for [X] myslef?! NO!". Sadly.Government only grows, as a rule. You know what Milton Friedman said - nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. That's why it's important to fight tooth and nail against every single expansion of government... because every inch it expands is an inch you'll never get back.
#41
strawman
strawman
Yes, but (and I'm speaking completely without information here - so this is pure assumption) isn't this due in part to comply with EU financial requirements, which may be related to the whole financial mess other EU states are in? In short, are the people making these cuts doing so in order to avoid financial failures and the possibility of austerity measures?Not necessarily true. The Belgian government's been cutting back. With huuuuge strikes and complaints and whatnot as a consequence, mind, because "what? Give me more money but I have to pay for [X] myslef?! NO!". Sadly.
#42
Bubble181
Bubble181
Oh, sure. And make no mistake, it's not "other" countries - we're one of the worst. Wallonia taken as a separate entity under-performs Greece by a lot. Lucky for them us Flemish are around to, you know, work (well, that's partially stereotype and exaggeration, of course)
(well, that's partially stereotype and exaggeration, of course)
#43
Mathias
With regards to the military, I've read a really great explanation as to why we can't just cut into that budget and how the US economy would completely tank if we did.
People underestimate ( I was one of them) just how much of the US private sector is contracted by the military, AND that the US military essentially subsidizes the existence of all these wonderful European social programs so they don't have to dump money into their own militaries. For the better part of post- WWII, Russia could and would (and did to some countries) buttfuck the shit out of Europe.
Back to Gas' quote here.
Giving the government more tax money is no guarantee that money will be used appropriately or practically. I have potholes all over my daily commute that attest to that.
Mathias
Government only grows, as a rule. You know what Milton Friedman said - nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. That's why it's important to fight tooth and nail against every single expansion of government... because every inch it expands is an inch you'll never get back.
With regards to the military, I've read a really great explanation as to why we can't just cut into that budget and how the US economy would completely tank if we did.
People underestimate ( I was one of them) just how much of the US private sector is contracted by the military, AND that the US military essentially subsidizes the existence of all these wonderful European social programs so they don't have to dump money into their own militaries. For the better part of post- WWII, Russia could and would (and did to some countries) buttfuck the shit out of Europe.
Back to Gas' quote here.
Giving the government more tax money is no guarantee that money will be used appropriately or practically. I have potholes all over my daily commute that attest to that.
#44
GasBandit
GasBandit
That is a lot more charitably and less snarkily put than I usually do. "The United States Military - Spending billions defending Europe so Europe doesn't have to."People underestimate ( I was one of them) just how much of the US private sector is contracted by the military, AND that the US military essentially subsidizes the existence of all these wonderful European social programs so they don't have to dump money into their own militaries. For the better part of post- WWII, Russia could and would (and did to some countries) buttfuck the shit out of Europe.
And that's just local government! As government becomes more and more layers removed from the constituency - city -> county -> state -> federal - responsiveness to said constituency has a tendency to become exponentially worse.Back to Gas' quote here.
Giving the government more tax money is no guarantee that money will be used appropriately or practically. I have potholes all over my daily commute that attest to that.
#45
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Well, we can't trust France and Germany to defend Europe. For completely different reasons."The United States Military - Spending billions defending Europe so Europe doesn't have to."
#46
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
I'm sure @GasBandit would be more than happy to allow companies that can't make it on their own just ... die.So ending entitlements (and by this I mean corporate welfare, which is different than what Gas means, probably)
--Patrick
#47
GasBandit
GasBandit
Absolutely.I'm sure @GasBandit would be more than happy to allow companies that can't make it on their own just ... die.
--Patrick
#48
Gruebeard
But anyway, yeah, since your goal is to have overwhelming military power, keeping your allies dependant on you makes sense.
Gruebeard
Which means they're already quelled ahead of the day when y'all finally decide to formally declare yourselves an empire. (which may come a couple months after electing Trump)."The United States Military - Spending billions defending Europe so Europe doesn't have to."
But anyway, yeah, since your goal is to have overwhelming military power, keeping your allies dependant on you makes sense.
#49
Dei
Dei
Pretty sure we don't set the military budgets of Europe though. It's easy for Europeans to talk about cutting military spending when they have someone else to pick up the slack.Which means they're already quelled ahead of the day when y'all finally decide to formally declare yourselves an empire. (which may come a couple months after electing Trump).
But anyway, yeah, since your goal is to have overwhelming military power, keeping your allies dependant on you makes sense.
#50
Gruebeard
Gruebeard
Aye. . . I wonder if Europe remembers there's an average 3 year waiting period before y'all come pick up that slack.
#51
Mathias
I think during the recent Libya campaign, the Euro forces helping out ran out of bombs in a month...
Mathias
Pretty sure we don't set the military budgets of Europe though. It's easy for Europeans to talk about cutting military spending when they have someone else to pick up the slack.
I think during the recent Libya campaign, the Euro forces helping out ran out of bombs in a month...
#52
Bubble181
Bubble181
While funny, not true. We're still happily bombing away in Syriah.... Some of the biggest arms manufacturers are European, you know (even if they sell mostly to the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia )
)
#53
bhamv3
bhamv3
Taiwanese guy here.
Please keep your military big and impressive. Pretty please.
Please keep your military big and impressive. Pretty please.
#54
Eriol
...
Sorry, you're screwed. It's only a matter of time. And no, not trying to be funny. I honestly think that. 10 or more years ago maybe "the west" would have gone to war with China over an invasion of your island, but nobody gives a shit today.
Eriol
I'm sure the USA will happily give you away for a few iPhones. But they'll speak very sternly about how wrong your conquest was. Just look at how the world acts about how bad everything China is doing in Tibet!Taiwanese guy here.
Please keep your military big and impressive. Pretty please.
...
Sorry, you're screwed. It's only a matter of time. And no, not trying to be funny. I honestly think that. 10 or more years ago maybe "the west" would have gone to war with China over an invasion of your island, but nobody gives a shit today.
#55
bhamv3
It's time like these when I really get that "I'm gonna become a suicide bomber" extremist mentality.
bhamv3
Yeah.I'm sure the USA will happily give you away for a few iPhones. But they'll speak very sternly about how wrong your conquest was. Just look at how the world acts about how bad everything China is doing in Tibet!
...
Sorry, you're screwed. It's only a matter of time. And no, not trying to be funny. I honestly think that. 10 or more years ago maybe "the west" would have gone to war with China over an invasion of your island, but nobody gives a shit today.
It's time like these when I really get that "I'm gonna become a suicide bomber" extremist mentality.
#56
GasBandit
GasBandit
We were too weak/chicken to protect Ukraine, and they were halfway to becoming a NATO member. How could we possibly nut up enough to defend Taiwan?
#57
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
We're to the point now where Drumpf could stand up before the GOP convention and shout, "I'd sell you all to Satan for one corn chip," brandish said corn chip, and still get riotous cheers.
Except Lindsey Graham. Where did he get a set of brass ones all of a sudden?
Except Lindsey Graham. Where did he get a set of brass ones all of a sudden?
#58
GasBandit
GasBandit
Lindsey Graham's primary hot-button issue is sympathy for illegal immigrants - that's why Rush calls him "Senator Lindsey Grahamnesty." He's on the diametrically opposite side of Trump's main sound-byte issue: building a wall and stopping the influx of illegal immigration. So it kind of makes sense.We're to the point now where Drumpf could stand up before the GOP convention and shout, "I'd sell you all to Satan for one corn chip," brandish said corn chip, and still get riotous cheers.
Except Lindsey Graham. Where did he get a set of brass ones all of a sudden?
#59
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
That does, but the rest sure doesn't. At what point does the Hillary-hate stop and the what-the-fuck-are-we-doing start?Lindsey Graham's primary hot-button issue is sympathy for illegal immigrants - that's why Rush calls him "Senator Lindsey Grahamnesty." He's on the diametrically opposite side of Trump's main sound-byte issue: building a wall and stopping the influx of illegal immigration. So it kind of makes sense.
#60
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
Once you never top 0.1% in the worst Republican field in history, I guess you have nothing to lose.Except Lindsey Graham. Where did he get a set of brass ones all of a sudden?
#61
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
He's not up for reelection in the Senate until 2020, so he's got that going for him, which is nice.Once you never top 0.1% in the worst Republican field in history, I guess you have nothing to lose.
#62
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
Yeah, that's another big part. I knew he wasn't up this year, but 2020 is practically an eon away in US politicsHe's not up for reelection in the Senate until 2020, so he's got that going for him, which is nice.
#63
strawman
Obama and the democrats have believed that Americas general unhappiness with the recent wars means we don't want any wars, but the reality is that we still want to protect our friends, and if Taiwan falls as a formal treaty signing ally, we will only be signaling to China, Russia, and others that our power and promises are largely toothless, and we will only work in self serving ways to protect ourselves.
The rest of our allies should (and probably are, given many of them are increasing their defense spending while we cut) take notice.
It won't be too long before we are facing Crimea type wars on our own land. If we are attempting diplomacy rather than defense we will have already lost.
strawman
While China has been threading the needle in terms of slowly and surely moving toward taking over Taiwan, it's really the current administrations policies of disengagement and disinterest ( which they like to call "multi-lateralism" but is really a form of isolationism) which will prevent us from intervening.10 or more years ago maybe "the west" would have gone to war with China over an invasion of your island, but nobody gives a shit today.
Obama and the democrats have believed that Americas general unhappiness with the recent wars means we don't want any wars, but the reality is that we still want to protect our friends, and if Taiwan falls as a formal treaty signing ally, we will only be signaling to China, Russia, and others that our power and promises are largely toothless, and we will only work in self serving ways to protect ourselves.
The rest of our allies should (and probably are, given many of them are increasing their defense spending while we cut) take notice.
It won't be too long before we are facing Crimea type wars on our own land. If we are attempting diplomacy rather than defense we will have already lost.
#64
TommiR
Of course, things didn't work out quite so nicely as was thought when the Soviet Union collapsed. The United States has for a long time tried to convince their European partners to increase their defence expenditure, and that the current inequitable burden sharing is unsustainable. In 2014 NATO held a conference in Wales, and as a result of that conference a number of initiatives were launched. One of those intiatives was a pledge by European NATO members to aim at increasing military spending to 2% of their respective GDPs within ten years. At present, only five NATO countries meet that goal (United States, Estonia, Greece, United Kingdom, Poland), and with sluggish economic growth and budget cuts across the board, increased defence spending might be a hard sell. And even though some European members have shown a willingness to spend more, the relevant military powers are not among them. So it is unlikely that there will be a significant increase in the military capabilities of European NATO members anytime soon, while the US has significantly reduced their forces in Europe since 1990. Which of course leaves an emptied strategic space an outside power could exploit.
So the dilemma remains: Europeans are still dependent on the United States for a large part of their defence needs, and don't seem to be overly bothered by the fact, as their threat perceptions differ (Estonia is more concerned with the Russian threat than France). The US wants the Europeans to spend more, but are unable to provide sufficient stick to fully convince them – Europe is too strategically important for them to abandon.
Them bhamv3's people are robbing Europeans of the United States military budget...
TommiR
Perhaps, though there might be a bit more to it than that. European defence budgets have plummeted since the 1990's, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the lack of a military threat to prepare against. During the Cold War, the military posture of European NATO members was one of all-out defence against an oncoming Soviet juggernaut, to buy time for US reinforcements to be sent to Europe and the (mostly) US strategic bombing campaing to work its magic. When the Soviet Union went away, the Europeans were stuck with vast stores of defence-oriented military hardware, and no threat to use it against. No more Soviet (Warsaw Pact to be more precise) tank columns roaring through the Fulda Gap or across the Central European Plain, no more bombers to flatten European cities. And, after having thrown off the Soviet yoke, the people and state of Russia surely would, with Western advice, develop into a modern liberal democracy and human rights respecting nation, so that we could all hold hands and sing kumbayah. As both the European politicians and soldiers were unable to come up with sufficient reasons to convince the public why military budgets needed to be maintained at anything near previous levels, they were scaled back (since 1990, European NATO membership has nearly doubled, while combined defence spending has decreased from USD314 billion in 1990 to USD227 billion in 2015), and the states wondered what to do with all the money they were saving.AND that the US military essentially subsidizes the existence of all these wonderful European social programs so they don't have to dump money into their own militaries.
Of course, things didn't work out quite so nicely as was thought when the Soviet Union collapsed. The United States has for a long time tried to convince their European partners to increase their defence expenditure, and that the current inequitable burden sharing is unsustainable. In 2014 NATO held a conference in Wales, and as a result of that conference a number of initiatives were launched. One of those intiatives was a pledge by European NATO members to aim at increasing military spending to 2% of their respective GDPs within ten years. At present, only five NATO countries meet that goal (United States, Estonia, Greece, United Kingdom, Poland), and with sluggish economic growth and budget cuts across the board, increased defence spending might be a hard sell. And even though some European members have shown a willingness to spend more, the relevant military powers are not among them. So it is unlikely that there will be a significant increase in the military capabilities of European NATO members anytime soon, while the US has significantly reduced their forces in Europe since 1990. Which of course leaves an emptied strategic space an outside power could exploit.
So the dilemma remains: Europeans are still dependent on the United States for a large part of their defence needs, and don't seem to be overly bothered by the fact, as their threat perceptions differ (Estonia is more concerned with the Russian threat than France). The US wants the Europeans to spend more, but are unable to provide sufficient stick to fully convince them – Europe is too strategically important for them to abandon.
Yes. During the Cold War, the consensus was that, in a conventional (non-WMD) war, the Red Team would win.For the better part of post- WWII, Russia could and would (and did to some countries) buttfuck the shit out of Europe.
This argument has actually been advanced by the germans themselves. If Germany would spend 2% of it's enormous GDP on defence, it would not only mean doubling their current defence budget (potentially creating inefficiency and waste, rather than a corresponding increase in actual capability), but also would create a military which overshadows those of countries like France or Britain. According to the argument, this might create more concern than assurance in their neighbours.Well, we can't trust France and Germany to defend Europe. For completely different reasons.
I'm not sure this will happen in the short-to-medium term, though. The United States has shifted focus and political and military assets from Europe to Asia, which incidentally has reduced the relevance of European strategic concerns to policymakers in Washington. This shift in focus is understandable, given the surge of Chinese power and the regional imbalances, historic grievances, and lack of trust that run rampant in the area. Asia will almost certainly be the most important area for global stability in the near future, and if the United States wants to play there, then cutting an ally loose might be a very poor move. Evidence of outright american perfidy would almost certainly cause doubts in their other regional allies, and make them wonder if the best course for their own nations would not in fact be to come to some arrangement with China, rather than relying on US guarantees that don't seem to be worth all that much anymore.I'm sure the USA will happily give you away for a few iPhones. But they'll speak very sternly about how wrong your conquest was. Just look at how the world acts about how bad everything China is doing in Tibet!
Sorry, you're screwed. It's only a matter of time. And no, not trying to be funny. I honestly think that. 10 or more years ago maybe "the west" would have gone to war with China over an invasion of your island, but nobody gives a shit today.
Them bhamv3's people are robbing Europeans of the United States military budget...
Thankfully, you were smart enough to not even try. Ukraine was not a NATO member (and only after their revolution, which started the whole mess, did their new west-leaning government even try to get in after their previous bid was put on hold), and especially their eastern parts are more important to Russia than they are to you. Russia would likely have been willing to push harder and get pushed harder than you were. Wrong place, wrong time, no need.We were too weak/chicken to protect Ukraine, and they were halfway to becoming a NATO member.
#65
Bubble181
Bubble181
Yup. I'll throw in that the current Belgian government (cue laughtrack) is trying to fund €15B new fighter jets, and pretty much everyone's against it. As per usual, "spending a lot on defense" is one thing, "spending it efficiently" is another. We don't, honestly, need to replace our F16s with JSFs - either is useful for bombing IS or Libya, neither's useful against Russia or China. And in case you're wondering, yes, our current government pretty much copied the Republican roadmap, badly, as this sort of thing might be useful if it also creates jobs in your own economy, which JSFs obviously wouldn't, for us.
Anyway, a European army would be a far better idea than 25 little (or not so little) armies running around together, but with the Brexit looming and anti-EU sentiment on the rise all over, not likely to happen. If only we could get Frontex properly organized it'd be a step in the right direction, but even that seems impossible, instead contracting out our border guarding to Turkey of all places *sigh*
Anyway, a European army would be a far better idea than 25 little (or not so little) armies running around together, but with the Brexit looming and anti-EU sentiment on the rise all over, not likely to happen. If only we could get Frontex properly organized it'd be a step in the right direction, but even that seems impossible, instead contracting out our border guarding to Turkey of all places *sigh*
#66
strawman
strawman
Not to mention plenty of anti-US sentiment among many of EU's citizens. We stopped trying to convince many countries to accept missile defense shields in eastern Europe because the government wouldn't do what the people were clearly against.
That said, I have a hard time imaging the bigger players getting into physical wars. The wars are, in fact, being fought right now, but they are wars of economics and information. We may not think of them that way as there are few casualties, but we are involved and fighting them too. Very convenient that oil prices dropped so precipitously right as Russia started flexing its muscle, and Europe is aggressively weaning itself for oil, which will only weaken Russia further.
The US economy sometimes appears to be the dog that wags the tail of the world economy, but China is exerting a surprising amount of power, and our recession wasn't completely caused from things within, nor from things outside government control.
It's a lot harder to see than even the cold war, but it's perhaps more effective due to the global economy and nature of instant communications.
That said, I have a hard time imaging the bigger players getting into physical wars. The wars are, in fact, being fought right now, but they are wars of economics and information. We may not think of them that way as there are few casualties, but we are involved and fighting them too. Very convenient that oil prices dropped so precipitously right as Russia started flexing its muscle, and Europe is aggressively weaning itself for oil, which will only weaken Russia further.
The US economy sometimes appears to be the dog that wags the tail of the world economy, but China is exerting a surprising amount of power, and our recession wasn't completely caused from things within, nor from things outside government control.
It's a lot harder to see than even the cold war, but it's perhaps more effective due to the global economy and nature of instant communications.
#67
AshburnerX
At the end of the day, Russia sees itself on the brink of disaster. It has no resources beyond oil and no one wants to give them a good trade deal. The criminal oligarchy is too entrenched to remove and is already planning to run if things get bad. As such, their only path to remaining relevant as a world power is to subjugate other nation states and gain their resources... but everyone is afraid of being next, instead of getting ready to fight back.
AshburnerX
It's not surprising that many European countries refused the missile defense shields after what has happened with Ukraine and Georgia. It is clear that Russia is willing to launch ground invasions of countries in the face of possible nuclear annihilation and Vladimir Putin has made it clear that he believes he can win a small scale nuclear engagement. No one wants to/can deal with Russia, so they are just hoping to outlast Russia's will to fight.Not to mention plenty of anti-US sentiment among many of EU's citizens. We stopped trying to convince many countries to accept missile defense shields in eastern Europe because the government wouldn't do what the people were clearly against.
That said, I have a hard time imaging the bigger players getting into physical wars. The wars are, in fact, being fought right now, but they are wars of economics and information. We may not think of them that way as there are few casualties, but we are involved and fighting them too. Very convenient that oil prices dropped so precipitously right as Russia started flexing its muscle, and Europe is aggressively weaning itself for oil, which will only weaken Russia further.
At the end of the day, Russia sees itself on the brink of disaster. It has no resources beyond oil and no one wants to give them a good trade deal. The criminal oligarchy is too entrenched to remove and is already planning to run if things get bad. As such, their only path to remaining relevant as a world power is to subjugate other nation states and gain their resources... but everyone is afraid of being next, instead of getting ready to fight back.
#68
CynicismKills
So no, there's not really a lot of cash going into planes, at least not the ones we already have out there flying.
CynicismKills
My dad's contractors and technicians are, in some cases, literally pulling parts from old, retired and in some cases museum planes to continue to allow some planes to fly. Parts initially cleared for, say, 50k flight miles are now being pushed to 80 or 100k miles instead.The problem with our military budget is that we overspend on equipment while cutting everything we can for the people. So we'll pay billions for planes that we just don't need (or want) while the individual soldiers are eligible for food stamps. So ending entitlements (and by this I mean corporate welfare, which is different than what Gas means, probably) and putting some fucking logic into the military budget and tax codes would go a long way to making our country economically solvent.
Of course, just like the last time we had a surplus, congress rushed to spend it all as fast as they could.
So no, there's not really a lot of cash going into planes, at least not the ones we already have out there flying.
#69
Zappit
Zappit
I'm honestly enjoying watching these GOPers "endorsing" Trump. They look like they're passing kidney stones, they're so excited.
#70
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
...and sweating, oh so much.They look like they're passing kidney stones, they're so excited.
--Patrick
#71
Bubble181
Bubble181
It's a shame American politics is structured the way it is. I'd really enjoy a bunch of moderate Republicans saying "....y'know, I'd really rather have Clinton"
#72
GasBandit
GasBandit
Well, it doesn't help that the populace is more bitterly polarized than any time since the Civil War.It's a shame American politics is structured the way it is. I'd really enjoy a bunch of moderate Republicans saying "....y'know, I'd really rather have Clinton"
#73
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
'Cause there's gold in them thar hate. You've got the numbers sitting right in front of you to prove it, dontcha, GB?Well, it doesn't help that the populace is more bitterly polarized than any time since the Civil War.