|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 26 2021 03:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2021 03:36 Zambrah wrote:On September 26 2021 03:26 Mohdoo wrote:On September 26 2021 03:21 Zambrah wrote:
I dont think those Midwestern voters that are voting for Republicans are ever going to vote Democrat and continuing to pursue them as if they are only drags America further and further to the right imo Biden won WI, MN, MI. That's the ticket. As long as democrats can keep those states on lock, they have very good odds at holding the presidency. The senate will always be an anti-democracy nightmare though. I think we have to contextualize Bidens win as Vs. Trump, that was a super unique election that we aren't likely to see repeated in my opinion, I don't think it'll be super useful to draw conclusions from unless we literally see Trump try and run again. How a Trump-Republican that isn't Trump himself does is going to be very telling for the future, if they lose like Trump did I think the party is going to have some tough decisions to make when it comes to Trumpism, but if the Trump-Republican manages to make normal Republicans and Trump Republicans comfortable voting for them then I think there needs to be a new political strategy that doesn't revolve around trying to peel off Republicans/Moderates. I know Im a broken record, but getting the disenfranchised on board to vote would be so much stronger long term imo. Build a voting bloc that has the kind of Trump-voter loyalty, make sure you actually deliver things to bring back, and aggressively move to expand enfranchisement, increase that voter bloc and just seal out Republicans who have a comparatively very stagnant base of voters. Obama won those states in 2008 and 2012. Why do you think Biden's win there was unique to Trump?
It may or it may not be, but we've seen the erosion of the Blue Wall back in 2016, I think its worth reevaluating a lot about how we treat elections in a Post-Trump world. Applying old rules to a new political situation is how we get more Hillary Clinton-esque losses imo.
|
If anything Clinton was the anomaly in 2016. She won the nomination by gripping the party in her corrupt claws. Bernie's success was only a product of everyone hating Clinton, just like Trump. Clinton is a perfect example of the DNC being willing to bully their own while lacking the spine to fight for what they believe in. I think you are misreading 2016.
|
While I agree Clinton was herself anomalous in her sheer unlikeability, I think the political landscape has fundamentally shifted, Republicans are now far right populists, theyre not the same kinds of candidates that've been the norm for so long, we're likely not going to see garbage variety Republicans like George Bush any time soon, we're in the world of Ron DeSantis, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Matt Gaetz, we've seen Republicans incite armed insurrection and face no consequences, we've seen the most bumblefuck president of all time inspire huge turnout (both for and against) even after what is probably the most ridiculed presidency in the modern era. Trump may very well have been president if we didnt have COVID 19 frankly.
When I look at 2016, Clinton may be especially and uniquely hard to like, but shes also otherwise a very basic sort of moderate Democrat, shes the kind of candidate that Democrats are drawn to running. Shes within the margin of error for the "Normal" Democrats, whereas Trump is such a boisterous nationalistic dipshit that hes not even vaguely comparable to the likes of Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or George Bush.
Democrats have been running this "Move right, we have to move right to beat Republicans! (specifically, economically to the right, but hedging on social progress too)" play book since Bill Clinton and its been such a crap strategy for positive change in the US. Corporations have concentrated massive amounts of wealth, Republicans have been allowed to systematically adjust the already advantageous political system even more into their favor, and the Democrats just keep getting dragged rightwards as the Republicans continue to book it to the right.
Given the imminent destruction of Roe v. Wade, the rampant election denialism, all of the right wing circumventing of traditional poltiical etiquette and strategy, I firmly, firmly believe that Democrats continuing a "business as usual" style of electoral strategy is a death knell for US democracy. They will at best continue to win some elections, but not enough to accomplish anything as Republicans continue to slowly make winning as a Democrat harder and harder, and continue to erode faith in elections and the general civil/reproductive/human rights that they can get their grubby mitts on.
EDIT: I should also mention that Trump laid bare that Republicans are in generally perfectly fine to abandon supposed core things like "family values," as has been said before thats never been what they care about, but the veneer should be firmly seen as gone, and we shouldn't be treating their voting bloc as in any way principled or reachable by anyone with a D next to their name. To many, many Republicans that D is more disqualifying than sexual assault, or knocking up porn stars, cheating on your spouse, or any number of things that the Republican "family values" crowd supposedly values.
And he incited an armed insurrection because he lost an election, that is so far out of the political norm that its insane that Republicans are large don't seem to give a shit
|
All of which is why the voting rights bill was so important. If the US is a full neofascist state in 12 years time with a 43% R popular vote, I think this year will go down as the last chance you had to hit the brakes.
Gerrymandering is just so unbelievably poisonous to democracy. To stop it, you have to overtake it. Biden came alongside, but then he chickened out and let two random senators decide the trajectory of the next 20 years.
The R's now seem free to accelerate into the distance, limited only by the sheer incompetence of the candidates they're cheating into office.
|
Northern Ireland23900 Posts
On September 26 2021 02:22 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2021 01:49 WombaT wrote:On September 25 2021 23:33 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 25 2021 20:47 WombaT wrote:On September 25 2021 11:41 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 25 2021 10:10 WombaT wrote:
There’s a form of pure grievance, identity politics all over Trump’s base that isn’t particularly tethered to well, much. Seems less about power or doing much with that power but to be seen to be part of fighting the good fight.
The idea that this isn't exerting power is misguided. Grievance politics exists because people see themselves losing, but cannot see a path to further their power. Your blue collar worker who is losing out to globalization doesn't have anyone in power looking out for his or her interests. Voting democrat isn't going to revitalize the ghost towns. You'll say that they'll be better off with social programs, but they don't want to be the bottom caste. They'll take government handouts while complaining about the lazy, but they want their place in the hierarchy restored. The good fight you're talking about is the thin blue line where the police force brutalizes minorities and maintain the hierarchy of whites being superior. Well you’re correct, I should probably phrase things more clearly in the future. It’s is certainly a form of exerting power, but it’s a rather performative dance from those channelling theses forces into power. It’s less about actually fixing these grievances, more about giving a voice to that disenchantment. I suppose that’s the luxury of modern right populism, fight the ‘culture war’, shit a bit on the most vulnerable in society and do fuck all tangible on your big rhetorical keystone issues. The problem is you think the keystone issues are abortion and gun rights instead of maintaining the hierarchy. The former are the performative dance you're talking about to maintain the latter, not the other way around. On September 25 2021 14:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 25 2021 09:49 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 25 2021 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 25 2021 05:37 Zambrah wrote:
Democrats regularly infight amongst themselves though, Republicans don't, to a comparable degree, fight against Trump. I don't think Democrats (at least the Clinton/Biden portions) ever would have rallied around Sanders like Republicans did around Trump. But do you think that misalignment is a matter of principle as in they would give up power to not have Sanders succeed or merely the reality that Sanders represents a minority position and they don't need to? The Republicans falling in line behind Trump is a case of falling in line to chase power. When democrats need to they will as well no doubt. I think there are some of both but when pressed many would rather collaborate on "center"-right policy with Republicans that don't like Trump than lose policy fights or political power to the "Bernie wing". Biden pretty much ran on that and they picked him. Doesn't it make sense for the right flank of the democrats to join with more moderate Republicans in a unification of Neoliberalism though? The idea that every single person in the democrat party must push left for power doesn't seem reasonable. Actually not in this case, I was referring more to the grander ambitions of Trumpism in particular. Draining the swamp, America first, taking down the elites, revitalising the ‘real’ America in the rust belts etc etc. On abortion, gun rights and those issues, while the net effect is a maintainence of hierarchy, and very possibly the intent, Republicans do actually do tangible, real-world things in these domains. Things are increasingly couched in people’s sense of identity so much that merely talking the talk without really doing anything subsequently seems enough to engender an almost slavish loyalty. I mean say what you want about historical dictators from across the spectrum, they did, often horrifically at least follow through with their rhetoric. But hey, it’s a complex thing to unpack, been years trying to get my head around it and I’m certainly not going to manage it in this badly-worded post. You're ignoring the rise of Trump as a birther. It is reactionary to the ascension of a Obama beyond the caste designated by his race. What does draining the swamp or taking down the elites mean in terms of policy? It is intentionally vague as a feature. To me draining the swamp would mean something against corruption, but making money for himself is Trump's primary guiding pillar. Taking down the elite is more interesting. Trump isn't the first entertainer to ascend to the presidency as a Republican. He isn't the desired vessel of the neoliberal world order, but he isn't going to destroy it as long as he can take his cut. You see that now with Trump targeting McConnnel after he has descended from power. The far right have no principles about America first. It's Trump first and anything else second.
I’m not, I’m just not exhaustively listing everything I find objectionable about the phenomenon, if you’re familiar with my many prior posts on the subject we’re pretty much entirely in agreement.
The aspect I find strange, I find it easier to inhabit the headspace of someone attracted to various right wing populist tenets, basically impossible to put myself into the headspace of anyone who thinks a Trump isn’t absolutely brazenly full of shit.
On the flip/plus side of that, the rather understandable fear of ‘what if there’s a person who taps into the Trump vein, but is actually competent?’ seems, at least thus far remote.
Someone in such a mould could yet emerge but it seems competency and not being a blatant narcissist lunatic is somehow an inoculation against the kind of fervent support Trump can manage.
|
Midwest hates NAFTA. Thats a big reason Trump won and Clinton lost. Right or wrong Bill and by assosciation Hillary were seen as NAFTA and Trump wasnt. This was the case in 2016 at least.
|
On September 26 2021 06:39 Belisarius wrote:
All of which is why the voting rights bill was so important. If the US is a full neofascist state in 12 years time with a 43% R popular vote, I think this year will go down as the last chance you had to hit the brakes.
Gerrymandering is just so unbelievably poisonous to democracy. To stop it, you have to overtake it. Biden came alongside, but then he chickened out and let two random senators decide the trajectory of the next 20 years.
The R's now seem free to accelerate into the distance, limited only by the sheer incompetence of the candidates they're cheating into office.
Does a voting rights bill fix it? The nature of US politics is that Republicans will inevitably be back in power sooner or later, and so far they don’t seem to face any penalty in public opinion to openly despising rule of law and aspiring to violent takeovers. Gerrymandering is fucked but it’s a pretty slow way to seize power compared to, you know, just doing it.
I mean, GH pointed out that “we need the Republican Party actually” is ridiculous for a Democrat to think. Which seems right to me. Nothing about the modern Republican Party seems capable of becoming compatible with democracy, let alone interested in doing so, and the public seems apathetic at best.
Gorsameth pointed out we need two parties in our system, which seems right to me too. What disturbs me is that “the Republican Party is irredeemable and cannot realistically be reformed or replaced” and “our system cannot function without 2 parties” aren’t incompatible statements, but the implication of both being true is catastrophic.
It feels like we’re all doing the math on our current velocity toward the cliff and distance from it and maximum braking force, but the math isn’t actually very hard. We just keep recalculating because the result we keep getting is unfathomable.
|
Shower thought: Republican party imploding into irrelevance and the US becoming a one-party state could actually be a massively positive change for the country. It wouldn't be ideal still, but between the way primaries are organized and locally elected representatives, people would have plenty of ways to influence the overall direction of the country, while hopefully reducing the infighting and petty cockblocking that the current R & D routinely engage in. You could actually have people vote for progressive / libertarian / pastafarian / whatever reps into the house / senate without having to worry about how it might effect the general election; you could have a variety of candidates form coalitions and work together in primaries to get attention if not an actual election the way moderates consolidated around Biden; senators could actually vote according to their constituents preferences rather than party lines thus furthering the need for an agreeable way to steer the country rather than the constant us vs them voting of the two-party system.
It was just a random thought, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense.
|
Northern Ireland23900 Posts
On September 26 2021 13:36 Salazarz wrote:
Shower thought: Republican party imploding into irrelevance and the US becoming a one-party state could actually be a massively positive change for the country. It wouldn't be ideal still, but between the way primaries are organized and locally elected representatives, people would have plenty of ways to influence the overall direction of the country, while hopefully reducing the infighting and petty cockblocking that the current R & D routinely engage in. You could actually have people vote for progressive / libertarian / pastafarian / whatever reps into the house / senate without having to worry about how it might effect the general election; you could have a variety of candidates form coalitions and work together in primaries to get attention if not an actual election the way moderates consolidated around Biden; senators could actually vote according to their constituents preferences rather than party lines thus furthering the need for an agreeable way to steer the country rather than the constant us vs them voting of the two-party system.
It was just a random thought, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense.
There’s some obvious structural benefits to parties and the power of the whip, order and collective funding.
Ultimately, especially in the States they are pretty broad coalitions of different political strands. Which isn’t a million miles away from more fluid ad hoc coalitions of individual representatives.
So there are some obvious pitfalls, but a one-party state with caucauses forming and dissolving over particular issues, or indeed a no formal party state would be quite interesting in the kind of politics they’d foster.
|
On September 26 2021 07:08 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2021 02:22 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 26 2021 01:49 WombaT wrote:On September 25 2021 23:33 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 25 2021 20:47 WombaT wrote:On September 25 2021 11:41 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 25 2021 10:10 WombaT wrote:
There’s a form of pure grievance, identity politics all over Trump’s base that isn’t particularly tethered to well, much. Seems less about power or doing much with that power but to be seen to be part of fighting the good fight.
The idea that this isn't exerting power is misguided. Grievance politics exists because people see themselves losing, but cannot see a path to further their power. Your blue collar worker who is losing out to globalization doesn't have anyone in power looking out for his or her interests. Voting democrat isn't going to revitalize the ghost towns. You'll say that they'll be better off with social programs, but they don't want to be the bottom caste. They'll take government handouts while complaining about the lazy, but they want their place in the hierarchy restored. The good fight you're talking about is the thin blue line where the police force brutalizes minorities and maintain the hierarchy of whites being superior. Well you’re correct, I should probably phrase things more clearly in the future. It’s is certainly a form of exerting power, but it’s a rather performative dance from those channelling theses forces into power. It’s less about actually fixing these grievances, more about giving a voice to that disenchantment. I suppose that’s the luxury of modern right populism, fight the ‘culture war’, shit a bit on the most vulnerable in society and do fuck all tangible on your big rhetorical keystone issues. The problem is you think the keystone issues are abortion and gun rights instead of maintaining the hierarchy. The former are the performative dance you're talking about to maintain the latter, not the other way around. On September 25 2021 14:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 25 2021 09:49 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 25 2021 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 25 2021 05:37 Zambrah wrote:
Democrats regularly infight amongst themselves though, Republicans don't, to a comparable degree, fight against Trump. I don't think Democrats (at least the Clinton/Biden portions) ever would have rallied around Sanders like Republicans did around Trump. But do you think that misalignment is a matter of principle as in they would give up power to not have Sanders succeed or merely the reality that Sanders represents a minority position and they don't need to? The Republicans falling in line behind Trump is a case of falling in line to chase power. When democrats need to they will as well no doubt. I think there are some of both but when pressed many would rather collaborate on "center"-right policy with Republicans that don't like Trump than lose policy fights or political power to the "Bernie wing". Biden pretty much ran on that and they picked him. Doesn't it make sense for the right flank of the democrats to join with more moderate Republicans in a unification of Neoliberalism though? The idea that every single person in the democrat party must push left for power doesn't seem reasonable. Actually not in this case, I was referring more to the grander ambitions of Trumpism in particular. Draining the swamp, America first, taking down the elites, revitalising the ‘real’ America in the rust belts etc etc. On abortion, gun rights and those issues, while the net effect is a maintainence of hierarchy, and very possibly the intent, Republicans do actually do tangible, real-world things in these domains. Things are increasingly couched in people’s sense of identity so much that merely talking the talk without really doing anything subsequently seems enough to engender an almost slavish loyalty. I mean say what you want about historical dictators from across the spectrum, they did, often horrifically at least follow through with their rhetoric. But hey, it’s a complex thing to unpack, been years trying to get my head around it and I’m certainly not going to manage it in this badly-worded post. You're ignoring the rise of Trump as a birther. It is reactionary to the ascension of a Obama beyond the caste designated by his race. What does draining the swamp or taking down the elites mean in terms of policy? It is intentionally vague as a feature. To me draining the swamp would mean something against corruption, but making money for himself is Trump's primary guiding pillar. Taking down the elite is more interesting. Trump isn't the first entertainer to ascend to the presidency as a Republican. He isn't the desired vessel of the neoliberal world order, but he isn't going to destroy it as long as he can take his cut. You see that now with Trump targeting McConnnel after he has descended from power. The far right have no principles about America first. It's Trump first and anything else second. I’m not, I’m just not exhaustively listing everything I find objectionable about the phenomenon, if you’re familiar with my many prior posts on the subject we’re pretty much entirely in agreement. The aspect I find strange, I find it easier to inhabit the headspace of someone attracted to various right wing populist tenets, basically impossible to put myself into the headspace of anyone who thinks a Trump isn’t absolutely brazenly full of shit. On the flip/plus side of that, the rather understandable fear of ‘what if there’s a person who taps into the Trump vein, but is actually competent?’ seems, at least thus far remote. Someone in such a mould could yet emerge but it seems competency and not being a blatant narcissist lunatic is somehow an inoculation against the kind of fervent support Trump can manage.
Right wing ideology is based around judging a person for their status rather than their actions. Trump belongs to a higher caste so whatever he does or says is correct. It doesn't matter that he is brazenly full of shit. You see this same status over actions with family or the church as well. It may be more important to protect the family reputation than hold some one accountable. A man of god would never molest children and we can't have the church losing face.
|
On September 26 2021 04:11 Zambrah wrote:
While I agree Clinton was herself anomalous in her sheer unlikeability, I think the political landscape has fundamentally shifted, Republicans are now far right populists, theyre not the same kinds of candidates that've been the norm for so long, we're likely not going to see garbage variety Republicans like George Bush any time soon, we're in the world of Ron DeSantis, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Matt Gaetz, we've seen Republicans incite armed insurrection and face no consequences, we've seen the most bumblefuck president of all time inspire huge turnout (both for and against) even after what is probably the most ridiculed presidency in the modern era. Trump may very well have been president if we didnt have COVID 19 frankly.
When I look at 2016, Clinton may be especially and uniquely hard to like, but shes also otherwise a very basic sort of moderate Democrat, shes the kind of candidate that Democrats are drawn to running. Shes within the margin of error for the "Normal" Democrats, whereas Trump is such a boisterous nationalistic dipshit that hes not even vaguely comparable to the likes of Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or George Bush.
Democrats have been running this "Move right, we have to move right to beat Republicans! (specifically, economically to the right, but hedging on social progress too)" play book since Bill Clinton and its been such a crap strategy for positive change in the US. Corporations have concentrated massive amounts of wealth, Republicans have been allowed to systematically adjust the already advantageous political system even more into their favor, and the Democrats just keep getting dragged rightwards as the Republicans continue to book it to the right.
Given the imminent destruction of Roe v. Wade, the rampant election denialism, all of the right wing circumventing of traditional poltiical etiquette and strategy, I firmly, firmly believe that Democrats continuing a "business as usual" style of electoral strategy is a death knell for US democracy. They will at best continue to win some elections, but not enough to accomplish anything as Republicans continue to slowly make winning as a Democrat harder and harder, and continue to erode faith in elections and the general civil/reproductive/human rights that they can get their grubby mitts on.
EDIT: I should also mention that Trump laid bare that Republicans are in generally perfectly fine to abandon supposed core things like "family values," as has been said before thats never been what they care about, but the veneer should be firmly seen as gone, and we shouldn't be treating their voting bloc as in any way principled or reachable by anyone with a D next to their name. To many, many Republicans that D is more disqualifying than sexual assault, or knocking up porn stars, cheating on your spouse, or any number of things that the Republican "family values" crowd supposedly values.
And he incited an armed insurrection because he lost an election, that is so far out of the political norm that its insane that Republicans are large don't seem to give a shit
Compare Biden’s platform in 2020 to Clinton in 2016. Biden moved way left compared to Clinton
|
Biden's more leftward platform (not even a left platform, just leftward) is not even close to as atypical when it comes to Democrat behavior when compared to how atypical Donald Trump's actions and behaviors were and are.
|
On September 26 2021 13:36 Salazarz wrote:
Shower thought: Republican party imploding into irrelevance and the US becoming a one-party state could actually be a massively positive change for the country. It wouldn't be ideal still, but between the way primaries are organized and locally elected representatives, people would have plenty of ways to influence the overall direction of the country, while hopefully reducing the infighting and petty cockblocking that the current R & D routinely engage in. You could actually have people vote for progressive / libertarian / pastafarian / whatever reps into the house / senate without having to worry about how it might effect the general election; you could have a variety of candidates form coalitions and work together in primaries to get attention if not an actual election the way moderates consolidated around Biden; senators could actually vote according to their constituents preferences rather than party lines thus furthering the need for an agreeable way to steer the country rather than the constant us vs them voting of the two-party system.
It was just a random thought, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense.
If the republican party would spinter into irrelevance, the Democrats would immediately follow. The problem with the american political system is not that it has 2 parties that fight each other, it is that there is a huge monetary benefit to having 2 parties. The coalitions would simply change. Your political system is build around conflict and you need to change that before anything else.
|
On September 27 2021 02:55 Zambrah wrote:
Biden's more leftward platform (not even a left platform, just leftward) is not even close to as atypical when it comes to Democrat behavior when compared to how atypical Donald Trump's actions and behaviors were and are.
I view trump as Republicans saying they want less McCain and more Palin. Can you elaborate on what you mean?
|
I'm saying that I think when looking at the 2016 election Trump indicates a more radical shift in the Republican party thats going to and has shaped politics far more drastically than Clinton or Biden's shift or lack of shift in politics.
Clinton and Biden are basically "normal" candidates in a world where "normal" doesn't exist anymore because of Donald Trump.
|
On September 27 2021 03:42 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2021 13:36 Salazarz wrote:
Shower thought: Republican party imploding into irrelevance and the US becoming a one-party state could actually be a massively positive change for the country. It wouldn't be ideal still, but between the way primaries are organized and locally elected representatives, people would have plenty of ways to influence the overall direction of the country, while hopefully reducing the infighting and petty cockblocking that the current R & D routinely engage in. You could actually have people vote for progressive / libertarian / pastafarian / whatever reps into the house / senate without having to worry about how it might effect the general election; you could have a variety of candidates form coalitions and work together in primaries to get attention if not an actual election the way moderates consolidated around Biden; senators could actually vote according to their constituents preferences rather than party lines thus furthering the need for an agreeable way to steer the country rather than the constant us vs them voting of the two-party system.
It was just a random thought, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. If the republican party would spinter into irrelevance, the Democrats would immediately follow. The problem with the american political system is not that it has 2 parties that fight each other, it is that there is a huge monetary benefit to having 2 parties. The coalitions would simply change. Your political system is build around conflict and you need to change that before anything else.
I believe it has previously been established that the US political system isn't going to change with the existing parties in power that are dependent on maintaining the system.
Think ChristianS absolutely nailed where most posters here are at:
It feels like we’re all doing the math on our current velocity toward the cliff and distance from it and maximum braking force, but the math isn’t actually very hard. We just keep recalculating because the result we keep getting is unfathomable.
Though I think some people get it, take a more hedonistic approach, and refuse to reconcile that with their self-image.
|
I think it’s totally fucked that “recruiting” is a thing at all for the military. The entire idea of trying to convince kids to join the military is wild to me. Especially at high schools. Looking at 18 year olds as I am today, it feels deeply immoral that we let 18 year olds join the military. They really just aren’t grown up yet and they aren’t able to reason everything out. Sending them to kill people and be killed by others is overwhelmingly bad.
|
Theres a meme about fresh enlisted where the first thing they go out and do is buy like, a 2010 Mustang at 25% APR, lol.
Our society is really not well set up for 18 year olds that haven't had a chance to develop any financial sense or understanding, especially with regards to things like credit and debt.
|
Northern Ireland23900 Posts
On September 27 2021 16:04 Zambrah wrote:
Theres a meme about fresh enlisted where the first thing they go out and do is buy like, a 2010 Mustang at 25% APR, lol.
Our society is really not well set up for 18 year olds.
Fixed your post.
|
On September 27 2021 17:36 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2021 16:04 Zambrah wrote:
Theres a meme about fresh enlisted where the first thing they go out and do is buy like, a 2010 Mustang at 25% APR, lol.
Our society is really not well set up for 18 year olds. Fixed your post.
Having been through American public school, allow me to further amend my statement,
Our society is really not well set up
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
