|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 14 2015 23:25 oneofthem wrote:
idk how you guys who insist sanders has the best substance actually see it working out well.
it'll be rekt in congress and even if passed sky high tax rates and more polarization isn't going to solve any problems.
If the Tea Party remains in charge of congress it doesn't matter who is the President. Nothing will get done anyway (unless the President is just as insane).
And do you think another Clinton has a better chance of working with a hostile congress then a (formally) 3e party candidate?
|
On October 14 2015 23:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2015 23:12 LuckyFool wrote:On October 14 2015 15:21 RenSC2 wrote:On October 14 2015 13:46 LuckyFool wrote:On October 14 2015 13:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 14 2015 13:15 LuckyFool wrote:
Can we just hand Hillary the nomination already? None of the other candidates seem to have much interest in actually challenging her and her closest competition DEFENDS her on stage, really?
Jim Webb is my man though. Loved almost everything he was saying tonight. Yes how dare he try to draw attention to issues and simultaneously inextricably link himself to a few news cycles of coverage relating to the emails instead of manufacturing scandals, what is that man thinking. admirable, but not exactly how you win in politics. He needs to get people who would otherwise vote for Hillary, voting for him. Issues are important but you're in a race against other people too, something he seems to ignore. Perhaps he thinks that he can get people to vote for him by being admirable?I personally would like to vote for a president that I think is admirable. I think all the sniping and cheap shots are disgusting for someone who wants to be the president of the United States. Someone who is trying to score political points at the loss of his/her own integrity is not someone I'd want to vote for. I missed the debate, but saw the little clip of Sanders defending Clinton in my facebook feed. I've been skeptical of Sanders in the past, but I like him a lot better after seeing that. I may not agree with all of his policies, but I like people with integrity. He showed it. Very few (or none of the) other candidates have shown it. I'd have no problem voting for him in a general election. Unfortunately for him, I won't vote in the primary, but I'd probably pick him over Clinton at this point. That's not going to be good enough. He needs to turn Hillary voters into Sanders voters if he wants to actually win. How exactly does he hope to do that by refusing to push her on anything and actually coming to her defense on a possible issue that might hurt her (no matter how trivial he might think it is) Hillary on the other hand used every opportunity to distance herself from Sanders, pressing him on guns etc. Your failing to understand Bernie. He is not the person to compromise his character to gain the presidency. He wants to win because of his message, not because he was the best at throwing dirt. He wants the election to be about substance, not feelings. Does that make it less likely he will win? Probably, but the fact that he isn't willing to resort to mud slinging carries its own message.
It's opinions like that result in congress not being able to wipe their own arse. Also, him pressing on the email issue would not do himself any favor. A lot of dem think the whole situation is silly and him pressing on it would make himself seem silly and just another cheapshot artist. Going against Hillary on things most his supporter agree with Hillary (which is not surprising, since he appear agrees with Hillary himself) would turn them into Hillary voters, not the other way.
|
On October 14 2015 23:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2015 23:12 LuckyFool wrote:On October 14 2015 15:21 RenSC2 wrote:On October 14 2015 13:46 LuckyFool wrote:On October 14 2015 13:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 14 2015 13:15 LuckyFool wrote:
Can we just hand Hillary the nomination already? None of the other candidates seem to have much interest in actually challenging her and her closest competition DEFENDS her on stage, really?
Jim Webb is my man though. Loved almost everything he was saying tonight. Yes how dare he try to draw attention to issues and simultaneously inextricably link himself to a few news cycles of coverage relating to the emails instead of manufacturing scandals, what is that man thinking. admirable, but not exactly how you win in politics. He needs to get people who would otherwise vote for Hillary, voting for him. Issues are important but you're in a race against other people too, something he seems to ignore. Perhaps he thinks that he can get people to vote for him by being admirable?I personally would like to vote for a president that I think is admirable. I think all the sniping and cheap shots are disgusting for someone who wants to be the president of the United States. Someone who is trying to score political points at the loss of his/her own integrity is not someone I'd want to vote for. I missed the debate, but saw the little clip of Sanders defending Clinton in my facebook feed. I've been skeptical of Sanders in the past, but I like him a lot better after seeing that. I may not agree with all of his policies, but I like people with integrity. He showed it. Very few (or none of the) other candidates have shown it. I'd have no problem voting for him in a general election. Unfortunately for him, I won't vote in the primary, but I'd probably pick him over Clinton at this point. That's not going to be good enough. He needs to turn Hillary voters into Sanders voters if he wants to actually win. How exactly does he hope to do that by refusing to push her on anything and actually coming to her defense on a possible issue that might hurt her (no matter how trivial he might think it is) Hillary on the other hand used every opportunity to distance herself from Sanders, pressing him on guns etc. Your failing to understand Bernie. He is not the person to compromise his character to gain the presidency. He wants to win because of his message, not because he was the best at throwing dirt. He wants the election to be about substance, not feelings. Does that make it less likely he will win? Probably, but the fact that he isn't willing to resort to mud slinging carries its own message.
And frankly, with all the bullshit that the Republicans have been throwing at Hilary, I don’t think it would play well for a Democrat to join in, especially Bernie. The email and Benghazi non-sense has been going on forever. The shit has lasted longer than Water Gate and with literally zero results beyond throwing a bunch of shade on one of the Republican’s political opponents. Bernie doesn’t want to be part of that and it could pan out for him.
Plus there are plenty of substantive things to go after Clinton for, like private prisons and her finical backing huge multinational banks.
On October 14 2015 23:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2015 23:25 oneofthem wrote:
idk how you guys who insist sanders has the best substance actually see it working out well.
it'll be rekt in congress and even if passed sky high tax rates and more polarization isn't going to solve any problems. If the Tea Party remains in charge of congress it doesn't matter who is the President. Nothing will get done anyway (unless the President is just as insane). And do you think another Clinton has a better chance of working with a hostile congress then a (formally) 3e party candidate?
This is the most accurate assessment of the political landscape now. As long as the clowns have congress on lock down, it doesn't matter who holds the oval office.
|
United States42693 Posts
On October 14 2015 11:45 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2015 11:40 Chewbacca. wrote:On October 14 2015 11:38 jalstar wrote:On October 14 2015 11:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 14 2015 11:34 synapse wrote:On October 14 2015 11:33 Epishade wrote:
Well, at least Bernie's doing better now. He had a rough start. I mean, they started with guns. Not a great topic for him amongst democrats I think he came out okay on the guns in substance, but not style. I mean nobody else on the stage had an actual idea besides his; they didn't list a single thing. Unfortunately style is all that matters. Hillary is trying to poison everyone playing the "woman" drinking game. Uhhh Bernie, I don't think Jim Webb or O'Malley is a billionaire. I heard "millionaire" To be fair, having over 1 million in net worth isn't too much of an accomplishment for someone over 30-40.. that's a pretty good impression of an out-of-touch politician. 9/10
Not really. 20 years of compound interest on a decent savings rate on an average income will get you that. I make a sub average income and am still on track for a million.
|
Yes, but doesn't that also involve 20 years of not spending a lot of money?
|
On October 14 2015 23:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2015 23:12 LuckyFool wrote:On October 14 2015 15:21 RenSC2 wrote:On October 14 2015 13:46 LuckyFool wrote:On October 14 2015 13:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 14 2015 13:15 LuckyFool wrote:
Can we just hand Hillary the nomination already? None of the other candidates seem to have much interest in actually challenging her and her closest competition DEFENDS her on stage, really?
Jim Webb is my man though. Loved almost everything he was saying tonight. Yes how dare he try to draw attention to issues and simultaneously inextricably link himself to a few news cycles of coverage relating to the emails instead of manufacturing scandals, what is that man thinking. admirable, but not exactly how you win in politics. He needs to get people who would otherwise vote for Hillary, voting for him. Issues are important but you're in a race against other people too, something he seems to ignore. Perhaps he thinks that he can get people to vote for him by being admirable?I personally would like to vote for a president that I think is admirable. I think all the sniping and cheap shots are disgusting for someone who wants to be the president of the United States. Someone who is trying to score political points at the loss of his/her own integrity is not someone I'd want to vote for. I missed the debate, but saw the little clip of Sanders defending Clinton in my facebook feed. I've been skeptical of Sanders in the past, but I like him a lot better after seeing that. I may not agree with all of his policies, but I like people with integrity. He showed it. Very few (or none of the) other candidates have shown it. I'd have no problem voting for him in a general election. Unfortunately for him, I won't vote in the primary, but I'd probably pick him over Clinton at this point. That's not going to be good enough. He needs to turn Hillary voters into Sanders voters if he wants to actually win. How exactly does he hope to do that by refusing to push her on anything and actually coming to her defense on a possible issue that might hurt her (no matter how trivial he might think it is) Hillary on the other hand used every opportunity to distance herself from Sanders, pressing him on guns etc. Your failing to understand Bernie. He is not the person to compromise his character to gain the presidency. He wants to win because of his message, not because he was the best at throwing dirt. He wants the election to be about substance, not feelings. Does that make it less likely he will win? Probably, but the fact that he isn't willing to resort to mud slinging carries its own message.
Then he has 0 chance of actually winning the Democratic nomination in my opinion. His message is important and the issues are important, but you can't simply ignore the fact that there are other people running against you. Some time must be spent distancing from the other canidates. I went into that debate last night mildly hopeful that Hillary would be challenged and she essentially just mopped the floor.
|
Dunno, i think american politics already have way too much "making the other guy look bad" as opposed to "making yourself look good".
|
On October 14 2015 23:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2015 11:45 jalstar wrote:On October 14 2015 11:40 Chewbacca. wrote:On October 14 2015 11:38 jalstar wrote:On October 14 2015 11:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 14 2015 11:34 synapse wrote:On October 14 2015 11:33 Epishade wrote:
Well, at least Bernie's doing better now. He had a rough start. I mean, they started with guns. Not a great topic for him amongst democrats I think he came out okay on the guns in substance, but not style. I mean nobody else on the stage had an actual idea besides his; they didn't list a single thing. Unfortunately style is all that matters. Hillary is trying to poison everyone playing the "woman" drinking game. Uhhh Bernie, I don't think Jim Webb or O'Malley is a billionaire. I heard "millionaire" To be fair, having over 1 million in net worth isn't too much of an accomplishment for someone over 30-40.. that's a pretty good impression of an out-of-touch politician. 9/10 Not really. 20 years of compound interest on a decent savings rate on an average income will get you that. I make a sub average income and am still on track for a million.
Sure thing! Just for random numbers: That requires putting 30k of your income aside each year, when assuming an interest rate of 5%. Of course you never touch your savings in those 20 years.
Average household(!!!) income is 54k in the US. And good luck getting reliable 5% interest rate.
|
On October 14 2015 23:47 LuckyFool wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2015 23:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 14 2015 23:12 LuckyFool wrote:On October 14 2015 15:21 RenSC2 wrote:On October 14 2015 13:46 LuckyFool wrote:On October 14 2015 13:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 14 2015 13:15 LuckyFool wrote:
Can we just hand Hillary the nomination already? None of the other candidates seem to have much interest in actually challenging her and her closest competition DEFENDS her on stage, really?
Jim Webb is my man though. Loved almost everything he was saying tonight. Yes how dare he try to draw attention to issues and simultaneously inextricably link himself to a few news cycles of coverage relating to the emails instead of manufacturing scandals, what is that man thinking. admirable, but not exactly how you win in politics. He needs to get people who would otherwise vote for Hillary, voting for him. Issues are important but you're in a race against other people too, something he seems to ignore. Perhaps he thinks that he can get people to vote for him by being admirable?I personally would like to vote for a president that I think is admirable. I think all the sniping and cheap shots are disgusting for someone who wants to be the president of the United States. Someone who is trying to score political points at the loss of his/her own integrity is not someone I'd want to vote for. I missed the debate, but saw the little clip of Sanders defending Clinton in my facebook feed. I've been skeptical of Sanders in the past, but I like him a lot better after seeing that. I may not agree with all of his policies, but I like people with integrity. He showed it. Very few (or none of the) other candidates have shown it. I'd have no problem voting for him in a general election. Unfortunately for him, I won't vote in the primary, but I'd probably pick him over Clinton at this point. That's not going to be good enough. He needs to turn Hillary voters into Sanders voters if he wants to actually win. How exactly does he hope to do that by refusing to push her on anything and actually coming to her defense on a possible issue that might hurt her (no matter how trivial he might think it is) Hillary on the other hand used every opportunity to distance herself from Sanders, pressing him on guns etc. Your failing to understand Bernie. He is not the person to compromise his character to gain the presidency. He wants to win because of his message, not because he was the best at throwing dirt. He wants the election to be about substance, not feelings. Does that make it less likely he will win? Probably, but the fact that he isn't willing to resort to mud slinging carries its own message. Then he has 0 chance of actually winning the Democratic nomination in my opinion. His message is important and the issues are important, but you can't simply ignore the fact that there are other people running against you. Some time must be spent distancing from the other canidates. I went into that debate last night mildly hopeful that Hillary would be challenged and she essentially just mopped the floor.
This was the same assessment Obama got when he ran against Hilary the first time and he did fine. But a lot of people thought he stood no chance if he didn’t start attacking her. There is this theory that if they are not assaulting the propertied leader that the second place runner is not gaining any ground.
|
United States42693 Posts
On October 14 2015 23:40 Simberto wrote:
Yes, but doesn't that also involve 20 years of not spending a lot of money?
Which is the problem. A lot of Americans seem to be programmed with the following
1. It is true that the super rich spend more money than I do.
2. It is true that the super rich have more money than I do.
3. I should spend more money and therefore be more like the super rich.
Take this wonderful article that went viral.
http://elitedaily.com/life/savings-20s-something-wrong/1214445/
I've been in America for about 18 months now and this place is incredibly easy to get rich in (as a white, educated, intelligent man). You just have to laugh at all the bullshit consumerism while spending your income on buying shares in the companies that peddle it. Oh, it's tax season and every American family is being told to spend their entire tax return on rolling their underwater car loan onto a newer car they'll never pay off? I'll take my return and buy some shares in Ford.
The cost of living where I am is crazy low, it's the cost of living like a true American that gets people.
|
United States42693 Posts
On October 14 2015 23:50 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2015 23:38 KwarK wrote:On October 14 2015 11:45 jalstar wrote:On October 14 2015 11:40 Chewbacca. wrote:On October 14 2015 11:38 jalstar wrote:On October 14 2015 11:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 14 2015 11:34 synapse wrote:On October 14 2015 11:33 Epishade wrote:
Well, at least Bernie's doing better now. He had a rough start. I mean, they started with guns. Not a great topic for him amongst democrats I think he came out okay on the guns in substance, but not style. I mean nobody else on the stage had an actual idea besides his; they didn't list a single thing. Unfortunately style is all that matters. Hillary is trying to poison everyone playing the "woman" drinking game. Uhhh Bernie, I don't think Jim Webb or O'Malley is a billionaire. I heard "millionaire" To be fair, having over 1 million in net worth isn't too much of an accomplishment for someone over 30-40.. that's a pretty good impression of an out-of-touch politician. 9/10 Not really. 20 years of compound interest on a decent savings rate on an average income will get you that. I make a sub average income and am still on track for a million. Sure thing! Just for random numbers: That requires putting 30k of your income aside each year, when assuming an interest rate of 5%. Of course you never touch your savings in those 20 years. Average household(!!!) income is 54k in the US. And good luck getting reliable 5% interest rate.
US domestic market has reliably returned 7% after inflation forever, more than 7% in recent history. While past results are not guarantees of future performance you'd have to be incredibly pessimistic to expect less than 7% on average per year over a 20 year period (about 9% before inflation, the US market is a fucking powerhouse and has been for over a century).
I am doing this and I certainly don't make 54k. But hey, you keep saying it's impossible while I keep f5ing my growing portfolio. Better go buy another iphone while wondering why you never seem to have enough money.
After all, it's literally impossible. Nobody can do it, the market never exceeds 5% and you can't have savings and not spend them.
|
If Hillary would be liked, attacking her would probably be very necessary. But from what i gather, people just don’t like her, so showing up with a message that reasonates while seeming genuine, inspirational and likeable (as Obama did) can be enough.
Why would you attack Hillary? She is allready disliked and if you don’t have something really big, you won’t achieve much.
|
I remember that article and it being universally mocked as terrible advice by terrible person who didn’t know what the hell they were talking about. We have plenty of investments, but we are not wealthy by any standard.
The problem in the US isn’t that there are not options to make money via savings, it’s that they are not marketed enough or made accessible for all education levels. And its also very hard to tell if you are making a good investment, risk or if the company assisting you isn’t charging excessive fees. So, like dealing with car dealers, people just avoid it because they don't want to be taken for a ride.
|
I have the feeling that Bernies problem to distance himself from Hillary stems from the fact, that his growing support-base forces her to shift left pretty hard. Everything I have read in the last months from her reeks of opportunism and weakness of opinion. And (in my perception) every second week she is publishing another big plan that just mimics Bernies positions (not on gun-control, obv) and alters them slightly.
On the other hand it is really hard to believe that she might be going through with her promises. While Bernie looks steadfast in his point of view. So the main difference between them comes just from the fact that he doesn't need to point out the differences, because the program she is going on was his right from the beginning.
Even if he doesn't become the candidate it's still great that he forced Hillary to shift left. And if that makes her just a little less wall-street-loving in her eventual presidency, that's great in my books.
|
United States42693 Posts
Financial education in the US sucks but fortunately we live in the future and you can actually educate yourself, from a handheld device, while taking a shit. The summation of all human knowledge is now available for your immediate viewing, whenever you want, pretty much wherever you are. And if you're the kind of person who thinks that learning how money works is too much effort to do while the only other thing you have going on is shit coming out of your ass then you might not get to be rich.
Vanguard has been around for decades now, it doesn't take too much effort to find out about it. Tools that ask you a bunch of questions and then recommend asset allocations are pretty much a part of every online investment company. And every company has target date funds which rebalance themselves to meet a need for a stable return by X year. This isn't difficult. People would just much rather get a new iphone and make payments on a new truck. America's greatest weakness, as far as I can tell from my time living here, is that the place is overrun by fucking Americans.
|
On October 14 2015 16:23 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:On October 13 2015 02:31 always_winter wrote:www.cbsnews.comawkward.gif #staterunmedia #americanpropaganda The degree to which Obama has been out-maneuvered in the Middle East is hilariously bad. I certainly get that the American people have no desire for continued active participation in the wars over there, but Obama's nearly complete abdication of American authority in the Middle East was reckless and has been disastrous. It's the sort of error that America will be paying for long after Obama leaves office. + Show Spoiler +I really wonder about that. Your reaction to Obama's policies remind me of Eisenhower and the space race. When the Soviets launched Sputnik and it traveled around the world, the American public freaked out. There was a feeling that we were being out-maneuvered by the Soviets and we needed to force them not to launch any more satellites or at least not allow those satellites to fly above our country. Instead, Eisenhower accepted Sputnik and helped create a precedent that satellites could fly over any country. Meanwhile he built up the US's science and technology and launched our own spy satellites that would eventually help keep tabs on the USSR. (you can read a bit about in in the "Impact" section of Sputnik_1 on wikipedia). The American public thought that Eisenhower was twiddling his thumbs, but really, he was two steps ahead of the American public and was helping create a safer world. Likewise, I think Obama's maneuvers in the Middle East are leading towards a safer United States (although Europe may suffer). We are pulling out and passing off more of the responsibility to Europe (refugees) and Russia (military action). We're letting factions that hate us (Assad and ISIS) kill each other in Syria. We're letting Russia bomb the ISIS side which was gaining ground and helping reset that war back to even so that the two parties can continue to kill each other. And for the most part, we're keeping our own hands clean. I'd much prefer if we kept our hands completely clean on Syria. The 1/2 billion dollar program on training rebels was stupid, but appears to be coming to an end. On Iran, we went from a failing policy to a policy with potential. Iran was headed towards a nuke despite all our sanctions. Now, we have an international deal with Iran that doesn't require US military might to hold in place. It's a plan that brings Iran back into the international community, but threatens to kick them out again if they pursue a nuke. Oh, and we have a rabid dog on a leash (Israel) standing right in front of Iran to keep them on their best behavior. By pulling out, we've got all the factions in the middle east finding new targets to point at. ISIS still threatens to destroy America, but now adds Russia to the list. How long before America's name drops off their threats? Israel is annoyed with us right now, but still knows that when push comes to shove, the US will be there to help them if they need it. However, in truth, all we need to do is stop holding them back and they can get the job done. Essentially, pulling out also removes the leash. Meanwhile, at home, we're becoming less and less dependent on foreign oil. The clean energy revolution is great for the environment, but even better for getting us out of the middle east. We're at a point where our own oil producers want to export oil (which is terrible for the US strategically). If we could keep them from exporting, we might be able to completely wean ourselves off of any middle east reliance. So yeah, the United States pulling out of the middle east may result in a massive amount of fighting in the middle east. However, for once, it won't be us paying for it. And then, perhaps after the wars reach horrific proportions, then we can step in and calm things down and people in the middle east will learn that we were never the enemy. Overall, it seems like very good policy for the US, but not so good for the middle eastern countries.
I don't see how complete degeneration of the Middle East enhances American security. America's withdrawal has created a huge vacuum of power over there. Instead of the US calling the shots, the Russians, Iranians, Saudis, and Turks have moved in, creating a new, inherently volatile, multi-polar power structure, in which none of these entities have benign interests in mind, must less America's interests. In short, classically Western, liberal influence as all but disappeared in the Middle East -- and perhaps for good. I'm not going to pretend that Western influence was always a good thing, but there is simply no debating that it was better than what's coming.
|
Kwark, your perspective on the issue seems to be based on the fact that you have a natural affinity for finance and numbers, IMO. I brute forced my way through it with my limited abilities at finance. My brother, who repairs trucks for the military and hates balancing his check book, has no chance of feeling confident with any investment without assistance. Luckily he has family members who can help, but not everyone has that.
Consumerism is a problem, but the way the finical system operates and that they don’t market to the lower middle class and under educated is a big issue in the US. And that the government doesn’t push for savings and investment is also a problem.
|
But wasn't that consumerism the thing that made the world of trade and finance work for the last 40 years? So if one tones it down, who uses all the stuff this world is producing? :D
|
On October 15 2015 00:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2015 16:23 RenSC2 wrote:On October 13 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:On October 13 2015 02:31 always_winter wrote:www.cbsnews.comawkward.gif #staterunmedia #americanpropaganda The degree to which Obama has been out-maneuvered in the Middle East is hilariously bad. I certainly get that the American people have no desire for continued active participation in the wars over there, but Obama's nearly complete abdication of American authority in the Middle East was reckless and has been disastrous. It's the sort of error that America will be paying for long after Obama leaves office. + Show Spoiler +I really wonder about that. Your reaction to Obama's policies remind me of Eisenhower and the space race. When the Soviets launched Sputnik and it traveled around the world, the American public freaked out. There was a feeling that we were being out-maneuvered by the Soviets and we needed to force them not to launch any more satellites or at least not allow those satellites to fly above our country. Instead, Eisenhower accepted Sputnik and helped create a precedent that satellites could fly over any country. Meanwhile he built up the US's science and technology and launched our own spy satellites that would eventually help keep tabs on the USSR. (you can read a bit about in in the "Impact" section of Sputnik_1 on wikipedia). The American public thought that Eisenhower was twiddling his thumbs, but really, he was two steps ahead of the American public and was helping create a safer world. Likewise, I think Obama's maneuvers in the Middle East are leading towards a safer United States (although Europe may suffer). We are pulling out and passing off more of the responsibility to Europe (refugees) and Russia (military action). We're letting factions that hate us (Assad and ISIS) kill each other in Syria. We're letting Russia bomb the ISIS side which was gaining ground and helping reset that war back to even so that the two parties can continue to kill each other. And for the most part, we're keeping our own hands clean. I'd much prefer if we kept our hands completely clean on Syria. The 1/2 billion dollar program on training rebels was stupid, but appears to be coming to an end. On Iran, we went from a failing policy to a policy with potential. Iran was headed towards a nuke despite all our sanctions. Now, we have an international deal with Iran that doesn't require US military might to hold in place. It's a plan that brings Iran back into the international community, but threatens to kick them out again if they pursue a nuke. Oh, and we have a rabid dog on a leash (Israel) standing right in front of Iran to keep them on their best behavior. By pulling out, we've got all the factions in the middle east finding new targets to point at. ISIS still threatens to destroy America, but now adds Russia to the list. How long before America's name drops off their threats? Israel is annoyed with us right now, but still knows that when push comes to shove, the US will be there to help them if they need it. However, in truth, all we need to do is stop holding them back and they can get the job done. Essentially, pulling out also removes the leash. Meanwhile, at home, we're becoming less and less dependent on foreign oil. The clean energy revolution is great for the environment, but even better for getting us out of the middle east. We're at a point where our own oil producers want to export oil (which is terrible for the US strategically). If we could keep them from exporting, we might be able to completely wean ourselves off of any middle east reliance. So yeah, the United States pulling out of the middle east may result in a massive amount of fighting in the middle east. However, for once, it won't be us paying for it. And then, perhaps after the wars reach horrific proportions, then we can step in and calm things down and people in the middle east will learn that we were never the enemy. Overall, it seems like very good policy for the US, but not so good for the middle eastern countries. I don't see how complete degeneration of the Middle East enhances American security. America's withdrawal has created a huge vacuum of power over there. Instead of the US calling the shots, the Russians, Iranians, Saudis, and Turks have moved in, creating a new, inherently volatile, multi-polar power structure, in which none of these entities have benign interests in mind, must less America's interests. In short, classically Western, liberal influence as all but disappeared in the Middle East -- and perhaps for good. I'm not going to pretend that Western influence was always a good thing, but there is simply no debating that it was better than what's coming.
Well that fact that we couldn't afford to keep the necessary presence in the region without raising taxes is a major reason we left. The problem with that war was that it was sold by Bush as a like quick adventure into Iraq to bring democracy, when every expert in was saying we would be there for like 15-25 years. And the fact that we were getting NOTHING out of it meant that it was just the US flushing money for all that time.
But people like to act like we could have stayed because that is the easy solution because we are not doing it right now. But how we pay for it and how we keep our troops from breaking down without instituting a draft is the part they don't talk about. Fuck, we still are not adequately caring for veterans right now, but people want to make more of them. And staying does not mean that Syria does not go through the exact same thing that happened.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 14 2015 23:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2015 23:25 oneofthem wrote:
idk how you guys who insist sanders has the best substance actually see it working out well.
it'll be rekt in congress and even if passed sky high tax rates and more polarization isn't going to solve any problems. If the Tea Party remains in charge of congress it doesn't matter who is the President. Nothing will get done anyway (unless the President is just as insane). And do you think another Clinton has a better chance of working with a hostile congress then a (formally) 3e party candidate?
im voting for jim webb. he can get stuff done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
