General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 106

Warmongering is chill. Helps the economy. Bill Clinton is chill, he'll help the economy. Rape? Mass incarceration? Gutting welfare? Economy.

 

Ignoring all logic and context in an attempt to paint someone else as supporting a dumbass policy that obviously doesn't line up with the person ideologically and deliberately misrepresent their stance through exaggeration and embellishment? Yeah, that's pretty dishonest.

I don't give a shit about disagreeing with people....hell I post here, I obviously love the discussion. But don't use bullshit slippery slope "oh you're saying A isn't totally and completely 100% evil and bad so you MUST support B and C!" arguments. Because it's bullshit.

Talk about not adding anything to the discussion.

Edit: ^^^^^lol at the post above me continuing with the bullshit.

Double edit: FUCK! Top of the page! Goddamn you, personal forum page settings!

 

I guess I don't see where your argument isn't "the militarily industrial complex is good for the economy!". By such standards, I do see where Dom's point comes in that, if you allow for one system based racism/destruction/death to exist because it is good for our economy, why not another system that operates on racism/destruction/death if it also benefits the economy? Like, what keeps you from meeting that definition of 'support'? Is it that you feel alright with our military's contribution to our economy, but not that of mass incarceration? Why or why not? Is it based on the level of racism/destruction/death as to whether or not these systems are justifiable?

I am asking this all sincerely, because I read these posts and thought Dom's was a fine point to make.

 

Scenario A: many people whose lives are not historically valued by the United States government die as a result of its foreign policy, but the US economy is helped because of it

Scenario B: many people whose lives are not historically valued by the United States government die as a result of its domestic policy, but the US economy is helped because of it

one is ok, one is not

 

What I gathered from what he was saying is that it's false to say, 'military spending is bad for the economy' and that, sure, the money would improve the economy more elsewhere, but that military spending doesn't do harm to the economy, it just "doesn't do more good"

 

dissolve the two party system? the two party system is a direct result of how our elections are structured. regardless of who wins in November it won't change that. Sure, the platforms of parties might change but we'll still get a two main parties its how the system works.

I believe change needs to happen from the ground up. Regardless of whether Trump or Clinton is in office, that will still be the case. So why not put the person in office who is least likely to try and fight that change?

 

So I'm not sure what I'm doing November, for those anti-Clinton what course of action is best for someone who cannot lobby, protest, etc, like me, to damage the 2 party system? And do you believe there's any scenario where neither candidate is elected this year within our ability to affect and realize?

 

Pro-clinton (either by nature or by necessity of anti Trump in your mind) yall are welcome to explain as well but I imagine you feel ultimately clinton will be your path

 

I was responding specifically to the charge "Spending on the military is bad for the economy", which it literally is not in a raw sense*. 400 billion (little more than half of what we spend on "defense", so going with that figure since I think even the most right leaning left wingers in this thread generally support the idea of cutting out defense spending in half) being taken out of the economy is not good for the economy. Beyond that, you can literally spend billions on "military spending" and not have it actually be towards fighting wars, the same way spending billions on NASA didn't always lead to space exploration. On top of that, pointing out the fact that money being spent is still money being spent and does net more positive for the economy than the money not being spent at all does not even come close to saying that you actually support what that money is being spent on. It's why, in the following post, I literally named things I'd rather our government spent money on. Because I'm a relatively intelligent person who likes to read about these things and knew that those two things in particular have shown to be a much better investment of government dollars as it pertains to the economy. I can't believe I have to say this, but you can understand why spending 400 billion on "military spending" is a net positive for the economy and simultaneously not agree with or endorse American foreign policy.

Dom's point has merit if you know you are talking to a neocon right winger who believes puttin criminals in prison is good for the country. Obviously, I am not one of those people. It also has merit if you believe there are no grey areas in policy located in the middle where you can see why spending 400 billion on technology R&D, equipment, and upkeep is better for the economy than no spending at all, but don't see how locking more people up does more for the economy than not locking those people up at all. It's based on pure logic. People in prison=can't contribute to the economy, can't get educated, can't live in society, etc

In other words, no it was not a "fine point to make". It's a bullshit slippery slope point that ignores all context within the discussion and deliberately misrepresents someone's views (and pretty much builds a strawman) so you can advance your own. Fuck that shit, I get enough of that from low IQ right wingers on facebook and elsewhere.


*To a libertarian, they of course do not necessarily adhere to this economic train of thought of government spending being a good thing for the economy. But that's a different discussion.

 

Nope, it'll be either Trump or Clinton, unfortunately.

Simply not voting won't do anything. Voter turnout is always low, so it doesn't really send a message. Voting third party is, in my opinion, the best way to send a "message" to either party. You're basically telling them that you have the time and energy to go stand in line and vote, but specifically to vote for someone else who doesn't have a chance of winning just to send a message.

 

There is no short term end to the two party system, if that's your goal it won't be realized for quite a long time even in the best case, outside of like a massive French Revolution like overthrowing going down, but then everything crumbles and there's no guarantees. If the two candidates both live to November and the country is still standing one of them is being elected.

 

And that's how we end up with Trump, unfortunately.

 

I would love to see any type of revolt or mass protest from people in our country. When you see millions of people do it in Brazil, it's hard to ever envision that happening here.

 

I'm reading some things that seem to imply that there might be credible proof of election fraud perpetrated by the Clinton camp. Very interesting thing to follow.

 

Interesting.

 

Links?

 

Not that Bernie isn't popular enough if you go by the polls, but if that came out and forced her to drop out and he got the nomination, the amount of sympathy alone he'd get from people would probably bump him a few points in the polls. He took on the system, got cheated out of it, and still came out with the nomination? Lock that shit up, dude's the next president.

 

Changing or damaging the two party system is impossible without an entire overhaul of the system from the ground up. (Which is necessary)

 

Id be into like a seven person council. Doubt anyone would miss Congress.

 

I know I wouldn't want 1/7th of the power to dictate the laws governing my life to be in the hands of someone from Texas...(sorry Texans that are here)

 

There are reps from Texas now tho, I don't know their names or positions or anything. There's just too many people to keep track of effectively either publicly or privately. Let's downsize

 

I understand your political leanings, which is why I made my critique. It isn't because it is a slippery slope or ignoring a logic that somehow allows one to separate out how institutions actually work; rather, it is because I see these aspects of a particular complex as ultimately integral to the functioning of the whole. They mutually reinforce one another, with the broader project being that of imperialism. So, I do not distinguish between the elements you mentioned. This is why I used the example I did. There are people whose economies, particularly in rural America, thrive on prisons. On top of that, while in prison, other institutions, like furniture companies, are able to get cheap labor that allows them to be economically viable. If we use your logic, then this is something to take into consideration when deciding on mass incarceration. But, we shouldn't because we acknowledge the carceral economy and the things to which it is connected is fundamentally a heinous project. The same is true of military spending and the complex it funds.

 

Speaking of Elizabeth Warren:

Elizabeth Warren Finally Speaks on Israel/Gaza, Sounds Like Netanyahu

"Echoing Benjamin Nentayahu (and Hillary Clinton), Elizabeth Warren’s clear position is that Israel bears none of the blame for any of this. Or, to use her words, “when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they’re using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself.” Such carnage is the “last thing Israel wants.” The last thing. That, ladies and gentlemen, is your inspiring left-wing icon of the Democratic Party."

 

OK so how do you propose that happens?