|
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 July 11 2018 23:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 17:20 Leporello wrote:
Another year, another chance for Trump to show us how wrong we are, and that he is in fact a defender of democracy and not a Putin-plant.
Oh, well, I guess there's next year? If NATO still exists by then?
I bet Germany is really happy it sent all those soldiers to Afghanistan. When every other country was done, Germany was still there. My brother served other there with Germans. He never saw the French or English. Just the Germans.
The most casualties Germany has faced since WW2 was this, Afghanistan, entirely for our sake and against the political-will of the German people. And this is the thanks we give them... Republicans are traitors to my country and to democracy, and I will treat them as such until they completely apologize for this shit. No civil war. I just pretend you're all dead already.
edit:
I mean, that sums it up, but the guy makes the tiresome mistake of acting like this is all just dumbfuckery, and not malicious intent. At this point, it is clearly the latter.
Trump doesn't need to "read history" (his voters certainly fucking do) he needs to be bayoneted by a ghost of a WW2 soldier.
If the Europeans really cared about NATO, they'd meet their defense funding obligations. Instead, they're freeloading on America's defense spending. Now, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and presume that you're someone who doesn't like the US spending as much as it does on defense. Surely you're not on board with the idea that the US should be subsidizing the national defense of foreign, wealthy countries.
You realize that the 2% pledge which Trump is bitching about allows countries until 2024 to hit it, right? And that the US was a signatory on said deal? Why are y'all moving the goal posts?
You're also ignoring the presented argument that part of the reason we formed NATO was to keep some countries, not just Russia, in check (same reason the EU exists). That is why we were willing to spend more money. It's the same with TPP; we were going to make less than perfect trade deals to contain China. The US spending money for influence, power, and access is neither new nor controversial (in a foreign policy sense). Ofc that is too much for the Orange One to understand.
|
On July 12 2018 00:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 23:32 a_flayer wrote:
It's not JUST about the resources themselves, but how you get them and how you treat the people who get them for you. If you don't pay those people what the resources are worth*, then you end up exploiting those people for your own gain. In the West, living standards were better because we were still exploiting others so the proletariat was not defunct enough to gather together for a communist revolution.
The aristocrats treated Russian commoners like trash, so they rebelled due to their terrible living conditions/situation. And then -- what is sometimes falsely referred to as a tragedy of the commons -- the newly installed elites in Russia started becoming the exploiters. In order to get the Siberian resources they put in place the gulags, did they not? Eg. exploitation. Not to mention what they did in Eastern Europe. It's all the same fundamental thing, just different ways of getting there.
*intrinsic worth, not "global market" worth That could be in part due to geography, Russia never experienced the Reformation and only a small portion of the Renaissance, whereas Europe had access to Humanism and so on. Russia was still stuck in the clutch of the Byzantine church. Even if neighboring countries such as Poland saw immense growth due to the Renaissance, Russia never had a chance not only due to being many differing territories at the time but the vast distances and few if any connections to the outside world.
The influence of the Reformation and other periods in Europe were limited by distance. The nations of Europe are quite compact in terms of landmass compared to the rest of the world, but it isn’t that well depicted on most maps. Russia is massive.
Other history tidbit, most of human history is really LONG. Cleopatra was born in around 69 BC. The first pyramids were built in around 2600 BC. So the first pyramids were as ancient to Cleopatra as she is to us.
|
United States43622 Posts
On July 11 2018 18:01 Silvanel wrote:
@Amui
Well, the idea is the increased price will lead to greater competitiveness of local products and thus in long run lead to local producers replacing foreign ones. I dont think think 10% is enough though in regards to China-US work/material costs. Not to mention it still might be cheaper to import from third country.
But tariffs will definitely hurt China, its just the question of how much and who and when blinks.
Native industries take a long time to grow in response to tariffs though, and may never be competitive. And even if they are, trade is mutually profitable. If America is good at doing A and China good at B then it is more profitable and efficient for them to exchange A for B than to insist upon autarky.
|
United States43622 Posts
On July 11 2018 23:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 17:20 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/AP/status/1016952343450046464Another year, another chance for Trump to show us how wrong we are, and that he is in fact a defender of democracy and not a Putin-plant. Oh, well, I guess there's next year? If NATO still exists by then? I bet Germany is really happy it sent all those soldiers to Afghanistan. When every other country was done, Germany was still there. My brother served other there with Germans. He never saw the French or English. Just the Germans. The most casualties Germany has faced since WW2 was this, Afghanistan, entirely for our sake and against the political-will of the German people. And this is the thanks we give them... Republicans are traitors to my country and to democracy, and I will treat them as such until they completely apologize for this shit. No civil war. I just pretend you're all dead already. edit: https://twitter.com/GarthDerby/status/1016955906523783168I mean, that sums it up, but the guy makes the tiresome mistake of acting like this is all just dumbfuckery, and not malicious intent. At this point, it is clearly the latter. Trump doesn't need to "read history" (his voters certainly fucking do) he needs to be bayoneted by a ghost of a WW2 soldier. If the Europeans really cared about NATO, they'd meet their defense funding obligations. Instead, they're freeloading on America's defense spending. Now, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and presume that you're someone who doesn't like the US spending as much as it does on defense. Surely you're not on board with the idea that the US should be subsidizing the national defense of foreign, wealthy countries.
American global spending is an irrelevant and distractory argument when looking at NATO specific defence obligations. If the UK spent 2% due to commitments in the Falklands you’d not view that as a NATO contribution.
|
the trump admin needs to go back to econ 101 and learn what a capital surplus is.
|
United States43622 Posts
On July 11 2018 23:58 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 17:20 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/AP/status/1016952343450046464Another year, another chance for Trump to show us how wrong we are, and that he is in fact a defender of democracy and not a Putin-plant. Oh, well, I guess there's next year? If NATO still exists by then? I bet Germany is really happy it sent all those soldiers to Afghanistan. When every other country was done, Germany was still there. My brother served other there with Germans. He never saw the French or English. Just the Germans. The most casualties Germany has faced since WW2 was this, Afghanistan, entirely for our sake and against the political-will of the German people. And this is the thanks we give them... Republicans are traitors to my country and to democracy, and I will treat them as such until they completely apologize for this shit. No civil war. I just pretend you're all dead already. edit: https://twitter.com/GarthDerby/status/1016955906523783168I mean, that sums it up, but the guy makes the tiresome mistake of acting like this is all just dumbfuckery, and not malicious intent. At this point, it is clearly the latter. Trump doesn't need to "read history" (his voters certainly fucking do) he needs to be bayoneted by a ghost of a WW2 soldier. If the Europeans really cared about NATO, they'd meet their defense funding obligations. Instead, they're freeloading on America's defense spending. Now, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and presume that you're someone who doesn't like the US spending as much as it does on defense. Surely you're not on board with the idea that the US should be subsidizing the national defense of foreign, wealthy countries. Wouldn't a great way to get them to pay their fair share to be just cut our defense spending? Pull out and force them? Seems like we enable the world to piggyback off our crazy defense budget
Thus stopping the freeloading Dutch from benefiting from the colossal amount of American lives and treasure thrown into Iraq, or something.
|
Only one nation has invoked article V and NATO nations showed up when it did. It’s a joke that Trump claims NATO owes the US anything.
|
On July 12 2018 00:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 18:01 Silvanel wrote:
@Amui
Well, the idea is the increased price will lead to greater competitiveness of local products and thus in long run lead to local producers replacing foreign ones. I dont think think 10% is enough though in regards to China-US work/material costs. Not to mention it still might be cheaper to import from third country.
But tariffs will definitely hurt China, its just the question of how much and who and when blinks. Native industries take a long time to grow in response to tariffs though, and may never be competitive. And even if they are, trade is mutually profitable. If America is good at doing A and China good at B then it is more profitable and efficient for them to exchange A for B than to insist upon autarky.
Your last point is what infuriates me most about these tariffs on principal alone
|
On July 12 2018 00:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 18:01 Silvanel wrote:
@Amui
Well, the idea is the increased price will lead to greater competitiveness of local products and thus in long run lead to local producers replacing foreign ones. I dont think think 10% is enough though in regards to China-US work/material costs. Not to mention it still might be cheaper to import from third country.
But tariffs will definitely hurt China, its just the question of how much and who and when blinks. Native industries take a long time to grow in response to tariffs though, and may never be competitive. And even if they are, trade is mutually profitable. If America is good at doing A and China good at B then it is more profitable and efficient for them to exchange A for B than to insist upon autarky.
it is more profitable and efficient overall. But America has not found a good way to distribute those gains to those people whose livelihoods have been impacted by globalization.
|
On July 12 2018 01:15 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2018 00:31 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2018 18:01 Silvanel wrote:
@Amui
Well, the idea is the increased price will lead to greater competitiveness of local products and thus in long run lead to local producers replacing foreign ones. I dont think think 10% is enough though in regards to China-US work/material costs. Not to mention it still might be cheaper to import from third country.
But tariffs will definitely hurt China, its just the question of how much and who and when blinks. Native industries take a long time to grow in response to tariffs though, and may never be competitive. And even if they are, trade is mutually profitable. If America is good at doing A and China good at B then it is more profitable and efficient for them to exchange A for B than to insist upon autarky. it is more profitable and efficient overall. But America has not found a good way to distribute those gains to those people whose livelihoods have been impacted by globalization.
yeah I think while Kwark's point is obviously true there is some thruth to the opposite as well. No matter how much we want it, not everyone is made to be a *insert random job A* here. You can throw reschooling programs at people who lost their coal-jobs all you want and while a job in IT might work out for some, it's just not a thing for everyone.
So while USA focusing on A and China focusing on B is obviously a good thing you still have to think of some kind of balance for different people. That's just the reality of things.
|
On July 12 2018 01:15 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2018 00:31 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2018 18:01 Silvanel wrote:
@Amui
Well, the idea is the increased price will lead to greater competitiveness of local products and thus in long run lead to local producers replacing foreign ones. I dont think think 10% is enough though in regards to China-US work/material costs. Not to mention it still might be cheaper to import from third country.
But tariffs will definitely hurt China, its just the question of how much and who and when blinks. Native industries take a long time to grow in response to tariffs though, and may never be competitive. And even if they are, trade is mutually profitable. If America is good at doing A and China good at B then it is more profitable and efficient for them to exchange A for B than to insist upon autarky. it is more profitable and efficient overall. But America has not found a good way to distribute those gains to those people whose livelihoods have been impacted by globalization.
That involves buildings things to reshape the economies of those rural areas most impacted by globalization. And that costs money, which requires taxes. We keep cutting them, only to see the wealthy just pocket the savings.
|
On July 12 2018 01:15 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2018 00:31 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2018 18:01 Silvanel wrote:
@Amui
Well, the idea is the increased price will lead to greater competitiveness of local products and thus in long run lead to local producers replacing foreign ones. I dont think think 10% is enough though in regards to China-US work/material costs. Not to mention it still might be cheaper to import from third country.
But tariffs will definitely hurt China, its just the question of how much and who and when blinks. Native industries take a long time to grow in response to tariffs though, and may never be competitive. And even if they are, trade is mutually profitable. If America is good at doing A and China good at B then it is more profitable and efficient for them to exchange A for B than to insist upon autarky. it is more profitable and efficient overall. But America has not found a good way to distribute those gains to those people whose livelihoods have been impacted by globalization.
Even suggesting that would have opponents screaming socialism, it's not that this country hasn't found a way to distribute fair gains to employees. It's just that we don't want to, the US could easily copy the German model of Universal healthcare, Education, and family and personal leave.
Greed is good is still the motto to live by in the Corporate and Political world.
|
On July 12 2018 00:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 17:20 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/AP/status/1016952343450046464Another year, another chance for Trump to show us how wrong we are, and that he is in fact a defender of democracy and not a Putin-plant. Oh, well, I guess there's next year? If NATO still exists by then? I bet Germany is really happy it sent all those soldiers to Afghanistan. When every other country was done, Germany was still there. My brother served other there with Germans. He never saw the French or English. Just the Germans. The most casualties Germany has faced since WW2 was this, Afghanistan, entirely for our sake and against the political-will of the German people. And this is the thanks we give them... Republicans are traitors to my country and to democracy, and I will treat them as such until they completely apologize for this shit. No civil war. I just pretend you're all dead already. edit: https://twitter.com/GarthDerby/status/1016955906523783168I mean, that sums it up, but the guy makes the tiresome mistake of acting like this is all just dumbfuckery, and not malicious intent. At this point, it is clearly the latter. Trump doesn't need to "read history" (his voters certainly fucking do) he needs to be bayoneted by a ghost of a WW2 soldier. If the Europeans really cared about NATO, they'd meet their defense funding obligations. Instead, they're freeloading on America's defense spending. Now, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and presume that you're someone who doesn't like the US spending as much as it does on defense. Surely you're not on board with the idea that the US should be subsidizing the national defense of foreign, wealthy countries. American global spending is an irrelevant and distractory argument when looking at NATO specific defence obligations. If the UK spent 2% due to commitments in the Falklands you’d not view that as a NATO contribution.
Significantly more importantly, no sane person should want any particular European power from spending too much on defense.
For fuck's sake, I know America came in at the end, but both World Wars started in Europe. The EU, NATO, the reduced defense spending, it's all about preventing the slow but inevitable rise of tensions in Europe that eventually boiled over into those two events from happening again.
But hey, fuck it. Let's have Germany 'pull its weight' and start super spending on defense and military again. I'M SURE NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG.
It amazes me how much people have forgotten about events that are only just outside living memory.
|
On July 12 2018 01:15 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2018 00:31 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2018 18:01 Silvanel wrote:
@Amui
Well, the idea is the increased price will lead to greater competitiveness of local products and thus in long run lead to local producers replacing foreign ones. I dont think think 10% is enough though in regards to China-US work/material costs. Not to mention it still might be cheaper to import from third country.
But tariffs will definitely hurt China, its just the question of how much and who and when blinks. Native industries take a long time to grow in response to tariffs though, and may never be competitive. And even if they are, trade is mutually profitable. If America is good at doing A and China good at B then it is more profitable and efficient for them to exchange A for B than to insist upon autarky. it is more profitable and efficient overall. But America has not found a good way to distribute those gains to those people whose livelihoods have been impacted by globalization.
it is indeed hard to distribute those gains; but still qutie possible. but measures to do so often get blocked by other interests.
and many people do in fact benefit from it but fail to realize it.
there's a vast difference between people's perception of how they were affected and how they're actually affected; and there are people who intentionally push the distorted perception to advance their own agenda.
|
On July 12 2018 01:29 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2018 00:35 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2018 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 17:20 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/AP/status/1016952343450046464Another year, another chance for Trump to show us how wrong we are, and that he is in fact a defender of democracy and not a Putin-plant. Oh, well, I guess there's next year? If NATO still exists by then? I bet Germany is really happy it sent all those soldiers to Afghanistan. When every other country was done, Germany was still there. My brother served other there with Germans. He never saw the French or English. Just the Germans. The most casualties Germany has faced since WW2 was this, Afghanistan, entirely for our sake and against the political-will of the German people. And this is the thanks we give them... Republicans are traitors to my country and to democracy, and I will treat them as such until they completely apologize for this shit. No civil war. I just pretend you're all dead already. edit: https://twitter.com/GarthDerby/status/1016955906523783168I mean, that sums it up, but the guy makes the tiresome mistake of acting like this is all just dumbfuckery, and not malicious intent. At this point, it is clearly the latter. Trump doesn't need to "read history" (his voters certainly fucking do) he needs to be bayoneted by a ghost of a WW2 soldier. If the Europeans really cared about NATO, they'd meet their defense funding obligations. Instead, they're freeloading on America's defense spending. Now, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and presume that you're someone who doesn't like the US spending as much as it does on defense. Surely you're not on board with the idea that the US should be subsidizing the national defense of foreign, wealthy countries. American global spending is an irrelevant and distractory argument when looking at NATO specific defence obligations. If the UK spent 2% due to commitments in the Falklands you’d not view that as a NATO contribution. Significantly more importantly, no sane person should want any particular European power from spending too much on defense. For fuck's sake, I know America came in at the end, but both World Wars started in Europe. The EU, NATO, the reduced defense spending, it's all about preventing the slow but inevitable rise of tensions in Europe that eventually boiled over into those two events from happening again. But hey, fuck it. Let's have Germany 'pull its weight' and start super spending on defense and military again. I'M SURE NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG. It amazes me how much people have forgotten about events that are only just outside living memory.
Yeah... I'm not so worried about Germany this time around. The video in the spoiler was 15 years ago. They've gone from invading countries in 2001/2003 to locking up little kids in 2017/2018 in the same post-9/11 rise of xenophobia. I don't see Germany locking up little refugee kids.
+ Show Spoiler +
And, just as expected, that train is right on time:
https://forward.com/fast-forward/405235/jews-must-be-stopped-california-gop-congressional-candidate-robocall/
Robocalls in support of California congressional candidate John Fitzgerald assert that Jews are taking over the world and ‘must be stopped.’
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/patrick-little-neo-nazi-california/
We received several enquiries from readers about the authenticity of these statements. They are authentic quotations. On his account with the social network Gab, Little made the following statement:
"I propose a government that makes counter-semitism central to all aims of the state. A government:
1) Of a People, for that people, free from jews
2) That cannot revoke the right to bear arms, such that this people can remain free from jews
3) that forbids all immigration except of biological kin, where no person of jewish origin may live, vacation, or traverse"
I honestly think it is kind of insulting that you would say what you did. The Germans today are a very moral people, I think. They have learned from their past. Some countries have not, it appears.
|
On July 11 2018 23:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 17:20 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/AP/status/1016952343450046464Another year, another chance for Trump to show us how wrong we are, and that he is in fact a defender of democracy and not a Putin-plant. Oh, well, I guess there's next year? If NATO still exists by then? I bet Germany is really happy it sent all those soldiers to Afghanistan. When every other country was done, Germany was still there. My brother served other there with Germans. He never saw the French or English. Just the Germans. The most casualties Germany has faced since WW2 was this, Afghanistan, entirely for our sake and against the political-will of the German people. And this is the thanks we give them... Republicans are traitors to my country and to democracy, and I will treat them as such until they completely apologize for this shit. No civil war. I just pretend you're all dead already. edit: https://twitter.com/GarthDerby/status/1016955906523783168I mean, that sums it up, but the guy makes the tiresome mistake of acting like this is all just dumbfuckery, and not malicious intent. At this point, it is clearly the latter. Trump doesn't need to "read history" (his voters certainly fucking do) he needs to be bayoneted by a ghost of a WW2 soldier. If the Europeans really cared about NATO, they'd meet their defense funding obligations. Instead, they're freeloading on America's defense spending. Now, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and presume that you're someone who doesn't like the US spending as much as it does on defense. Surely you're not on board with the idea that the US should be subsidizing the national defense of foreign, wealthy countries.
See, here's the thing why Trump, people like you and the people in the EU don't see eye to eye on this and won't be getting any closer to it either: Your perception and our perception on this is completly different. Noone here consideres it freeloading and noone feels like this kind of US spending is needed in the first place.
If the US cuts military spending in an attempt to force the EU to spend more, I don't think spending in the EU would go up any further than what we've already agreed on doing a couple years ago to please the US despite it being incredibly unpopular over here. Actually it might, but more in response to China or other things but not because of Russia.
The truth of the matter is we're (for the most part) not feeling threatened by Russia since we're already outspending them by a ton. I can understand Russia being in the back of your mind if you're some eastern European nation, or Finnland, or Sweden (which are eastern but I'd assume most people would classify them as northern european). And as you can see, those nations generally already are spending what "they should".
But in Germany Russia isn't even part of what we think about when we think of defense spending so outlandish is the idea of them invading Germany. Or at least that's the way for me.
I can only assume it's even less so a thing in, let's say, Spain or France where Russia would have to go through a couple eastern European countries and Germany to get to them.
So the idea that we're freeloading isn't even on our minds. You could call back all the US soldiers you have stationed in Germany and noone would feel more threatened than they did the day before.
Hence me saying this is why we don't see eye to eye on this. You clearly misunderstand our perception of the situation by saying you're defending us. You're stationed in Europe because having a continent as basicly a giant aircraft carrier to sortie missions into the middle east is what you want, not because Germany needs US soldiers here to defend against Russia.
Which isn't to say I'm trying to argue that we should spend less. We need to have some kind of baseline European spending to be able to defend ourselves against Russia or whoever else so starting an argument "oh, we don't feel threatened so let's cut spending" until you're at 0 is equally stupid. I just don't think, anyone here feels like we're close to "spending too little"
|
On July 12 2018 01:29 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2018 00:35 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2018 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 17:20 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/AP/status/1016952343450046464Another year, another chance for Trump to show us how wrong we are, and that he is in fact a defender of democracy and not a Putin-plant. Oh, well, I guess there's next year? If NATO still exists by then? I bet Germany is really happy it sent all those soldiers to Afghanistan. When every other country was done, Germany was still there. My brother served other there with Germans. He never saw the French or English. Just the Germans. The most casualties Germany has faced since WW2 was this, Afghanistan, entirely for our sake and against the political-will of the German people. And this is the thanks we give them... Republicans are traitors to my country and to democracy, and I will treat them as such until they completely apologize for this shit. No civil war. I just pretend you're all dead already. edit: https://twitter.com/GarthDerby/status/1016955906523783168I mean, that sums it up, but the guy makes the tiresome mistake of acting like this is all just dumbfuckery, and not malicious intent. At this point, it is clearly the latter. Trump doesn't need to "read history" (his voters certainly fucking do) he needs to be bayoneted by a ghost of a WW2 soldier. If the Europeans really cared about NATO, they'd meet their defense funding obligations. Instead, they're freeloading on America's defense spending. Now, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and presume that you're someone who doesn't like the US spending as much as it does on defense. Surely you're not on board with the idea that the US should be subsidizing the national defense of foreign, wealthy countries. American global spending is an irrelevant and distractory argument when looking at NATO specific defence obligations. If the UK spent 2% due to commitments in the Falklands you’d not view that as a NATO contribution. Significantly more importantly, no sane person should want any particular European power from spending too much on defense. For fuck's sake, I know America came in at the end, but both World Wars started in Europe. The EU, NATO, the reduced defense spending, it's all about preventing the slow but inevitable rise of tensions in Europe that eventually boiled over into those two events from happening again. But hey, fuck it. Let's have Germany 'pull its weight' and start super spending on defense and military again. I'M SURE NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG. It amazes me how much people have forgotten about events that are only just outside living memory.
I think this is a little out of context, the events you're referencing happened during a much different time than today
I don't think France would have the same concerns over Germany increasing its defense spending today as they did back in the 1930s
|
On July 12 2018 01:38 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2018 01:29 iamthedave wrote:On July 12 2018 00:35 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2018 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 17:20 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/AP/status/1016952343450046464Another year, another chance for Trump to show us how wrong we are, and that he is in fact a defender of democracy and not a Putin-plant. Oh, well, I guess there's next year? If NATO still exists by then? I bet Germany is really happy it sent all those soldiers to Afghanistan. When every other country was done, Germany was still there. My brother served other there with Germans. He never saw the French or English. Just the Germans. The most casualties Germany has faced since WW2 was this, Afghanistan, entirely for our sake and against the political-will of the German people. And this is the thanks we give them... Republicans are traitors to my country and to democracy, and I will treat them as such until they completely apologize for this shit. No civil war. I just pretend you're all dead already. edit: https://twitter.com/GarthDerby/status/1016955906523783168I mean, that sums it up, but the guy makes the tiresome mistake of acting like this is all just dumbfuckery, and not malicious intent. At this point, it is clearly the latter. Trump doesn't need to "read history" (his voters certainly fucking do) he needs to be bayoneted by a ghost of a WW2 soldier. If the Europeans really cared about NATO, they'd meet their defense funding obligations. Instead, they're freeloading on America's defense spending. Now, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and presume that you're someone who doesn't like the US spending as much as it does on defense. Surely you're not on board with the idea that the US should be subsidizing the national defense of foreign, wealthy countries. American global spending is an irrelevant and distractory argument when looking at NATO specific defence obligations. If the UK spent 2% due to commitments in the Falklands you’d not view that as a NATO contribution. Significantly more importantly, no sane person should want any particular European power from spending too much on defense. For fuck's sake, I know America came in at the end, but both World Wars started in Europe. The EU, NATO, the reduced defense spending, it's all about preventing the slow but inevitable rise of tensions in Europe that eventually boiled over into those two events from happening again. But hey, fuck it. Let's have Germany 'pull its weight' and start super spending on defense and military again. I'M SURE NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG. It amazes me how much people have forgotten about events that are only just outside living memory. Yeah... I'm not so worried about Germany this time around. The video in the spoiler was 15 years ago. They've gone from invading countries in 2001/2003 to locking up little kids in 2017/2018 in the same post-9/11 rise of xenophobia. I don't see Germany locking up little refugee kids. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poqoClsEhR4 And, just as expected, that train is right on time: https://forward.com/fast-forward/405235/jews-must-be-stopped-california-gop-congressional-candidate-robocall/Show nested quote +Robocalls in support of California congressional candidate John Fitzgerald assert that Jews are taking over the world and ‘must be stopped.’ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/patrick-little-neo-nazi-california/Show nested quote +We received several enquiries from readers about the authenticity of these statements. They are authentic quotations. On his account with the social network Gab, Little made the following statement:
"I propose a government that makes counter-semitism central to all aims of the state. A government:
1) Of a People, for that people, free from jews
2) That cannot revoke the right to bear arms, such that this people can remain free from jews
3) that forbids all immigration except of biological kin, where no person of jewish origin may live, vacation, or traverse" I honestly think it is kind of insulting that you would say what you did. The Germans today are a very moral people, I think. They have learned from their past. Some countries have not, it appears.
The GOP has like 5 full blown Nazis running for office nation wide right now. I don't think any of them have a chance of winning, but it is a fucking problem that they are a nominee under the flag of one of the major parties. The primary laws/rules might need to be looked at to address this problem. Rather than taking the reddit/twitter stance that Nazis are impossible to deal.
|
On July 12 2018 01:51 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2018 01:29 iamthedave wrote:On July 12 2018 00:35 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2018 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 17:20 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/AP/status/1016952343450046464Another year, another chance for Trump to show us how wrong we are, and that he is in fact a defender of democracy and not a Putin-plant. Oh, well, I guess there's next year? If NATO still exists by then? I bet Germany is really happy it sent all those soldiers to Afghanistan. When every other country was done, Germany was still there. My brother served other there with Germans. He never saw the French or English. Just the Germans. The most casualties Germany has faced since WW2 was this, Afghanistan, entirely for our sake and against the political-will of the German people. And this is the thanks we give them... Republicans are traitors to my country and to democracy, and I will treat them as such until they completely apologize for this shit. No civil war. I just pretend you're all dead already. edit: https://twitter.com/GarthDerby/status/1016955906523783168I mean, that sums it up, but the guy makes the tiresome mistake of acting like this is all just dumbfuckery, and not malicious intent. At this point, it is clearly the latter. Trump doesn't need to "read history" (his voters certainly fucking do) he needs to be bayoneted by a ghost of a WW2 soldier. If the Europeans really cared about NATO, they'd meet their defense funding obligations. Instead, they're freeloading on America's defense spending. Now, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and presume that you're someone who doesn't like the US spending as much as it does on defense. Surely you're not on board with the idea that the US should be subsidizing the national defense of foreign, wealthy countries. American global spending is an irrelevant and distractory argument when looking at NATO specific defence obligations. If the UK spent 2% due to commitments in the Falklands you’d not view that as a NATO contribution. Significantly more importantly, no sane person should want any particular European power from spending too much on defense. For fuck's sake, I know America came in at the end, but both World Wars started in Europe. The EU, NATO, the reduced defense spending, it's all about preventing the slow but inevitable rise of tensions in Europe that eventually boiled over into those two events from happening again. But hey, fuck it. Let's have Germany 'pull its weight' and start super spending on defense and military again. I'M SURE NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG. It amazes me how much people have forgotten about events that are only just outside living memory. I think this is a little out of context, the events you're referencing happened during a much different time than today I don't think France would have the same concerns over Germany increasing its defense spending today as they did back in the 1930s
France would be fine with it (I'd hope?).
Not so sure how people feel about it the more east you go though. Especially if "Germany needs to pull more of it's weight" and as a response german soldiers getting stationed in Poland to replace some of the US soldiers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
