|
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 |
United States24753 Posts
On November 11 2018 01:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 01:07 micronesia wrote:On November 11 2018 01:05 KwarK wrote:On November 11 2018 00:58 micronesia wrote:On November 11 2018 00:48 Broetchenholer wrote:
It makes even less sense when you compare the military spending of a hegemonical superpower that tries to extend it's power all around the globe with a group of nations that want to defend themselves on their border and at best stabilize the areas around them. Not to try to excuse the U.S. for every one of its actions involving itself internationally, but let me ask whose responsibility it is to maintain freedom of the seas and airways beyond the areas around Europe and the USA? The USA thinks it needs to play an unrivaled role in this, in part because its allies have other priorities, all the while using words like hegemonical. And if they were out chasing pirates off the coast of Somalia that’d be relevant. But they can’t drop a hundred billion dollars in Iraq and then demand to know why Germany isn’t chipping in. I agree but we were discussing military spending more generally than German spending on oppressing Iraqis, despite whatever bizarre claims Trump might be trying to make. Maintaining freedom of the seas is also way more than playing police officer in Somali pirate territory. And what does maintaining freedom of the seas actually entail? It's simply an American display of military power. Why should NATO for USA benefiting off their displaying of their naval power? As for the airways, for the most part USA pays no part in the costs of protecting anybody's airspace. So what exactly are you expecting NATO members to pay for exactly? It appears that off hand comment that is Trump playing to to base by demanding tribute is more and more accurate.
As I said before, I'm not defending Trump's claims in particular. The issue I had was with lumping together travesties in the middle east that the USA has previously lead with the overall freedom (not in the sarcastic sense) preservation missions worldwide, particularly in international territory. That is a mission that other countries help with, although obviously the USA plays the most major role. As an example, the USA leading the effort to prevent China from annexing territory in the South China Sea, progressing towards the rest of Southeast Asia, and the international community generally agrees with that effort. I don't agree that maintaining freedom of the seas is simply an American display of military power. It is potentially an excuse to do bad things, but that's a separate matter.
|
On November 11 2018 02:12 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 01:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 11 2018 01:07 micronesia wrote:On November 11 2018 01:05 KwarK wrote:On November 11 2018 00:58 micronesia wrote:On November 11 2018 00:48 Broetchenholer wrote:
It makes even less sense when you compare the military spending of a hegemonical superpower that tries to extend it's power all around the globe with a group of nations that want to defend themselves on their border and at best stabilize the areas around them. Not to try to excuse the U.S. for every one of its actions involving itself internationally, but let me ask whose responsibility it is to maintain freedom of the seas and airways beyond the areas around Europe and the USA? The USA thinks it needs to play an unrivaled role in this, in part because its allies have other priorities, all the while using words like hegemonical. And if they were out chasing pirates off the coast of Somalia that’d be relevant. But they can’t drop a hundred billion dollars in Iraq and then demand to know why Germany isn’t chipping in. I agree but we were discussing military spending more generally than German spending on oppressing Iraqis, despite whatever bizarre claims Trump might be trying to make. Maintaining freedom of the seas is also way more than playing police officer in Somali pirate territory. And what does maintaining freedom of the seas actually entail? It's simply an American display of military power. Why should NATO for USA benefiting off their displaying of their naval power? As for the airways, for the most part USA pays no part in the costs of protecting anybody's airspace. So what exactly are you expecting NATO members to pay for exactly? It appears that off hand comment that is Trump playing to to base by demanding tribute is more and more accurate. As I said before, I'm not defending Trump's claims in particular. The issue I had was with lumping together travesties in the middle east that the USA has previously lead with the overall freedom (not in the sarcastic sense) preservation missions worldwide, particularly in international territory. That is a mission that other countries help with, although obviously the USA plays the most major role. As an example, the USA leading the effort to prevent China from annexing territory in the South China Sea, progressing towards the rest of Southeast Asia, and the international community generally agrees with that effort. I don't agree that maintaining freedom of the seas is simply an American display of military power. It is potentially an excuse to do bad things, but that's a separate matter.
Except China doesnt really want to progress to the rest of South Asia, at least not militarily, they just want to secure the immediate area around them. Theyve already got much bigger plans that are well into motion. Theyve learnt from the US's stupidity, they arent interested in exercising millitary might beyond a certain scope. They are playing a totally different game debt trapping countries through things like the OBOR, that many observers keep pointing out is going to be the bigger problem when it comes to keeping them at bay. But hey keep maintaining that freedom.
|
Why say you not not defending Trump's claims, when not only have you not said so before, when the issue is nonsensical demands for money from countries which make up NATO, and that is exaclty what you are defending? If USA see fit to prevent the annexation of teritories to the Chinese, that concern is for each and every independent country in the world to decide whether it is their concern or not. Since USA has decided to isolate itself diplomatically, it is hardly the place of any country to simply pay the USA for the USA to act upon it own concerns. NATO is not an extention of USA's military arm where USA does whatever it feels like militaryily and NATO members pay into it. If USa feels that the international community is aligned with it, then it is up to the USA and those aligned countries concerned with the matter to fund it themselves. If they can or will not, then demanding money from NATO, which has nothing to do with the South East Chinese matter to helf fund USA's exceptionalism, is simply ridiculous.
|
NVM, was a typo. Found it.
|
On November 11 2018 02:24 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 02:19 Rebs wrote:On November 11 2018 02:12 micronesia wrote:On November 11 2018 01:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 11 2018 01:07 micronesia wrote:On November 11 2018 01:05 KwarK wrote:On November 11 2018 00:58 micronesia wrote:On November 11 2018 00:48 Broetchenholer wrote:
It makes even less sense when you compare the military spending of a hegemonical superpower that tries to extend it's power all around the globe with a group of nations that want to defend themselves on their border and at best stabilize the areas around them. Not to try to excuse the U.S. for every one of its actions involving itself internationally, but let me ask whose responsibility it is to maintain freedom of the seas and airways beyond the areas around Europe and the USA? The USA thinks it needs to play an unrivaled role in this, in part because its allies have other priorities, all the while using words like hegemonical. And if they were out chasing pirates off the coast of Somalia that’d be relevant. But they can’t drop a hundred billion dollars in Iraq and then demand to know why Germany isn’t chipping in. I agree but we were discussing military spending more generally than German spending on oppressing Iraqis, despite whatever bizarre claims Trump might be trying to make. Maintaining freedom of the seas is also way more than playing police officer in Somali pirate territory. And what does maintaining freedom of the seas actually entail? It's simply an American display of military power. Why should NATO for USA benefiting off their displaying of their naval power? As for the airways, for the most part USA pays no part in the costs of protecting anybody's airspace. So what exactly are you expecting NATO members to pay for exactly? It appears that off hand comment that is Trump playing to to base by demanding tribute is more and more accurate. As I said before, I'm not defending Trump's claims in particular. The issue I had was with lumping together travesties in the middle east that the USA has previously lead with the overall freedom (not in the sarcastic sense) preservation missions worldwide, particularly in international territory. That is a mission that other countries help with, although obviously the USA plays the most major role. As an example, the USA leading the effort to prevent China from annexing territory in the South China Sea, progressing towards the rest of Southeast Asia, and the international community generally agrees with that effort. I don't agree that maintaining freedom of the seas is simply an American display of military power. It is potentially an excuse to do bad things, but that's a separate matter. Except China doesnt really want to progress to the rest of South Asia, they just want to secure the immediate area around them. Theyve already got much bigger plans that are well into motion. Theyve learnt from the US's stupidity, they arent interested in exercising millitary might beyond a certain scope. They are playing a totally different game debt trapping countries through things like the OBOR, that many observers keep pointing out is going to be the bigger problem when it comes to keeping them at bay. But hey keep maintaining that freedom. I googled "obot" and "obot China" and got nothing. Mind explaining what you mean?
OBOR* it was a typo
|
United States24753 Posts
On November 11 2018 02:23 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Why say you not not defending Trump's claims, when not only have you not said so before, when the issue is nonsensical demands for money from countries which make up NATO, and that is exaclty what you are defending? If USA see fit to prevent the annexation of teritories to the Chinese, that concern is for each and every independent country in the world to decide whether it is their concern or not. Since USA has decided to isolate itself diplomatically, it is hardly the place of any country to simply pay the USA for the USA to act upon it own concerns. NATO is not an extention of USA's military arm where USA does whatever it feels like militaryily and NATO members pay into it. If USa feels that the international community is aligned with it, then it is up to the USA and those aligned countries concerned with the matter to fund it themselves. If they can or will not, then demanding money from NATO, which has nothing to do with the South East Chinese matter to helf fund USA's exceptionalism, is simply ridiculous.
Recall I was taking issue with, "It makes even less sense when you compare the military spending of a hegemonical superpower that tries to extend it's power all around the globe with a group of nations that want to defend themselves on their border and at best stabilize the areas around them." I was not taking issue with disagreeing with Trump's claims that NATO allies need to pay more into NATO. It was a poor criticism, in my opinion, for other reasons. However, because it gives the illusion that I agree with Trump on his idiocy now other people besides the one I took issue with the words of are jumping on me for saying how NATO allies need to funnel their economy into missions that involve violating human rights, in the form of a big fat paycheck to the Trump foundation, and that I think China wants to take over nearly the entirety of Southeast Asia rather than simply push their lines through large amounts of contested territory.
|
On November 11 2018 02:25 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 02:24 Acrofales wrote:On November 11 2018 02:19 Rebs wrote:On November 11 2018 02:12 micronesia wrote:On November 11 2018 01:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 11 2018 01:07 micronesia wrote:On November 11 2018 01:05 KwarK wrote:On November 11 2018 00:58 micronesia wrote:On November 11 2018 00:48 Broetchenholer wrote:
It makes even less sense when you compare the military spending of a hegemonical superpower that tries to extend it's power all around the globe with a group of nations that want to defend themselves on their border and at best stabilize the areas around them. Not to try to excuse the U.S. for every one of its actions involving itself internationally, but let me ask whose responsibility it is to maintain freedom of the seas and airways beyond the areas around Europe and the USA? The USA thinks it needs to play an unrivaled role in this, in part because its allies have other priorities, all the while using words like hegemonical. And if they were out chasing pirates off the coast of Somalia that’d be relevant. But they can’t drop a hundred billion dollars in Iraq and then demand to know why Germany isn’t chipping in. I agree but we were discussing military spending more generally than German spending on oppressing Iraqis, despite whatever bizarre claims Trump might be trying to make. Maintaining freedom of the seas is also way more than playing police officer in Somali pirate territory. And what does maintaining freedom of the seas actually entail? It's simply an American display of military power. Why should NATO for USA benefiting off their displaying of their naval power? As for the airways, for the most part USA pays no part in the costs of protecting anybody's airspace. So what exactly are you expecting NATO members to pay for exactly? It appears that off hand comment that is Trump playing to to base by demanding tribute is more and more accurate. As I said before, I'm not defending Trump's claims in particular. The issue I had was with lumping together travesties in the middle east that the USA has previously lead with the overall freedom (not in the sarcastic sense) preservation missions worldwide, particularly in international territory. That is a mission that other countries help with, although obviously the USA plays the most major role. As an example, the USA leading the effort to prevent China from annexing territory in the South China Sea, progressing towards the rest of Southeast Asia, and the international community generally agrees with that effort. I don't agree that maintaining freedom of the seas is simply an American display of military power. It is potentially an excuse to do bad things, but that's a separate matter. Except China doesnt really want to progress to the rest of South Asia, they just want to secure the immediate area around them. Theyve already got much bigger plans that are well into motion. Theyve learnt from the US's stupidity, they arent interested in exercising millitary might beyond a certain scope. They are playing a totally different game debt trapping countries through things like the OBOR, that many observers keep pointing out is going to be the bigger problem when it comes to keeping them at bay. But hey keep maintaining that freedom. I googled "obot" and "obot China" and got nothing. Mind explaining what you mean? OBOR* it was a typo
Looks like modern mercantilism. But China has been maneuvering themselves into that type of position for a while. I think an underlying point is, however, that if the US wasn't sailing around the South China Sea, "protecting" Philippine or Vietnamese autonomy, then they would be free to push such policies far more aggressively. Not just monopolizing infrastructure, but annexing land under an ever expanding "one China" policy.
Whether that is true, I don't know. In the long run tho, the main thing stopping China from completely dominating Asia is a strong India. And India isn't doing too well right now.
|
On November 11 2018 02:12 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 01:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 11 2018 01:07 micronesia wrote:On November 11 2018 01:05 KwarK wrote:On November 11 2018 00:58 micronesia wrote:On November 11 2018 00:48 Broetchenholer wrote:
It makes even less sense when you compare the military spending of a hegemonical superpower that tries to extend it's power all around the globe with a group of nations that want to defend themselves on their border and at best stabilize the areas around them. Not to try to excuse the U.S. for every one of its actions involving itself internationally, but let me ask whose responsibility it is to maintain freedom of the seas and airways beyond the areas around Europe and the USA? The USA thinks it needs to play an unrivaled role in this, in part because its allies have other priorities, all the while using words like hegemonical. And if they were out chasing pirates off the coast of Somalia that’d be relevant. But they can’t drop a hundred billion dollars in Iraq and then demand to know why Germany isn’t chipping in. I agree but we were discussing military spending more generally than German spending on oppressing Iraqis, despite whatever bizarre claims Trump might be trying to make. Maintaining freedom of the seas is also way more than playing police officer in Somali pirate territory. And what does maintaining freedom of the seas actually entail? It's simply an American display of military power. Why should NATO for USA benefiting off their displaying of their naval power? As for the airways, for the most part USA pays no part in the costs of protecting anybody's airspace. So what exactly are you expecting NATO members to pay for exactly? It appears that off hand comment that is Trump playing to to base by demanding tribute is more and more accurate. As I said before, I'm not defending Trump's claims in particular. The issue I had was with lumping together travesties in the middle east that the USA has previously lead with the overall freedom (not in the sarcastic sense) preservation missions worldwide, particularly in international territory. That is a mission that other countries help with, although obviously the USA plays the most major role. As an example, the USA leading the effort to prevent China from annexing territory in the South China Sea, progressing towards the rest of Southeast Asia, and the international community generally agrees with that effort. I don't agree that maintaining freedom of the seas is simply an American display of military power. It is potentially an excuse to do bad things, but that's a separate matter.
But, that has nothing to do with Nato. I don't like the Bundeswehr because i see it as underfunded and incompetent while at the same time being absolutely against giving it more money or making it better at what they are doing. It's a probably a schizophrenic german thing or maybe i am just weird. The point is, should the Russians suddenly feel like they need to conquer Finland and Estonia, Europe would probably have enough stopping power to keept them long enough from doing that so that a buildup in military spending and a focus on military technology and priority can kick in to win a war with them. And should China suddenly feel like starting the third world war, we could ramp up all of it as well. And this is all that is needed by the military of Europe. If this means that there are still scry places on the globe where trade does not flow as well, i can live with that. And if there should be a global situation that actually has to be solved military by forces that cannot be done with our current military spending, we can increase that speding. Or should we built 3 Aircraft Carrier groups with our remaining 0,8% and build enough airplanes that the second biggest Air force in the world is not the US Navy anymore?
|
On November 11 2018 02:38 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 02:25 Rebs wrote:On November 11 2018 02:24 Acrofales wrote:On November 11 2018 02:19 Rebs wrote:On November 11 2018 02:12 micronesia wrote:On November 11 2018 01:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 11 2018 01:07 micronesia wrote:On November 11 2018 01:05 KwarK wrote:On November 11 2018 00:58 micronesia wrote:On November 11 2018 00:48 Broetchenholer wrote:
It makes even less sense when you compare the military spending of a hegemonical superpower that tries to extend it's power all around the globe with a group of nations that want to defend themselves on their border and at best stabilize the areas around them. Not to try to excuse the U.S. for every one of its actions involving itself internationally, but let me ask whose responsibility it is to maintain freedom of the seas and airways beyond the areas around Europe and the USA? The USA thinks it needs to play an unrivaled role in this, in part because its allies have other priorities, all the while using words like hegemonical. And if they were out chasing pirates off the coast of Somalia that’d be relevant. But they can’t drop a hundred billion dollars in Iraq and then demand to know why Germany isn’t chipping in. I agree but we were discussing military spending more generally than German spending on oppressing Iraqis, despite whatever bizarre claims Trump might be trying to make. Maintaining freedom of the seas is also way more than playing police officer in Somali pirate territory. And what does maintaining freedom of the seas actually entail? It's simply an American display of military power. Why should NATO for USA benefiting off their displaying of their naval power? As for the airways, for the most part USA pays no part in the costs of protecting anybody's airspace. So what exactly are you expecting NATO members to pay for exactly? It appears that off hand comment that is Trump playing to to base by demanding tribute is more and more accurate. As I said before, I'm not defending Trump's claims in particular. The issue I had was with lumping together travesties in the middle east that the USA has previously lead with the overall freedom (not in the sarcastic sense) preservation missions worldwide, particularly in international territory. That is a mission that other countries help with, although obviously the USA plays the most major role. As an example, the USA leading the effort to prevent China from annexing territory in the South China Sea, progressing towards the rest of Southeast Asia, and the international community generally agrees with that effort. I don't agree that maintaining freedom of the seas is simply an American display of military power. It is potentially an excuse to do bad things, but that's a separate matter. Except China doesnt really want to progress to the rest of South Asia, they just want to secure the immediate area around them. Theyve already got much bigger plans that are well into motion. Theyve learnt from the US's stupidity, they arent interested in exercising millitary might beyond a certain scope. They are playing a totally different game debt trapping countries through things like the OBOR, that many observers keep pointing out is going to be the bigger problem when it comes to keeping them at bay. But hey keep maintaining that freedom. I googled "obot" and "obot China" and got nothing. Mind explaining what you mean? OBOR* it was a typo Looks like modern mercantilism. But China has been maneuvering themselves into that type of position for a while. I think an underlying point is, however, that if the US wasn't sailing around the South China Sea, "protecting" Philippine or Vietnamese autonomy, then they would be free to push such policies far more aggressively. Not just monopolizing infrastructure, but annexing land under an ever expanding "one China" policy. Whether that is true, I don't know. In the long run tho, the main thing stopping China from completely dominating Asia is a strong India. And India isn't doing too well right now.
Thats fair, but thats like 2 countries out of the dozens that they are pushing into, once they monopolize the infrastructure, who owns the land is largely irrelevant.
|
United States24753 Posts
On November 11 2018 02:39 Broetchenholer wrote:
And this is all that is needed by the military of Europe. If this means that there are still scry places on the globe where trade does not flow as well, i can live with that. And if there should be a global situation that actually has to be solved military by forces that cannot be done with our current military spending, we can increase that speding. Or should we built 3 Aircraft Carrier groups with our remaining 0,8% and build enough airplanes that the second biggest Air force in the world is not the US Navy anymore?
I think the bolded text above is more important than you realize, but is already being more or less protected so you can safely keep doing what you are doing for the time being.
|
On November 11 2018 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:
I think/hope T_D is gonna end up deleted soon. The kind of anger they are stoking right now regarding the midterm voting is really scary to see. People are being actively radicalized on one of the biggest websites around. This is so sad to watch.
It is quite disturbing. I hadn't ever been before you said this.
|
On November 11 2018 02:29 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 02:23 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Why say you not not defending Trump's claims, when not only have you not said so before, when the issue is nonsensical demands for money from countries which make up NATO, and that is exaclty what you are defending? If USA see fit to prevent the annexation of teritories to the Chinese, that concern is for each and every independent country in the world to decide whether it is their concern or not. Since USA has decided to isolate itself diplomatically, it is hardly the place of any country to simply pay the USA for the USA to act upon it own concerns. NATO is not an extention of USA's military arm where USA does whatever it feels like militaryily and NATO members pay into it. If USa feels that the international community is aligned with it, then it is up to the USA and those aligned countries concerned with the matter to fund it themselves. If they can or will not, then demanding money from NATO, which has nothing to do with the South East Chinese matter to helf fund USA's exceptionalism, is simply ridiculous. Recall I was taking issue with, "It makes even less sense when you compare the military spending of a hegemonical superpower that tries to extend it's power all around the globe with a group of nations that want to defend themselves on their border and at best stabilize the areas around them." I was not taking issue with disagreeing with Trump's claims that NATO allies need to pay more into NATO. It was a poor criticism, in my opinion, for other reasons. However, because it gives the illusion that I agree with Trump on his idiocy now other people besides the one I took issue with the words of are jumping on me for saying how NATO allies need to funnel their economy into missions that involve violating human rights, in the form of a big fat paycheck to the Trump foundation, and that I think China wants to take over nearly the entirety of Southeast Asia rather than simply push their lines through large amounts of contested territory.
Yet, this is what you actually wrote:
On November 11 2018 01:07 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 01:05 KwarK wrote:On November 11 2018 00:58 micronesia wrote:On November 11 2018 00:48 Broetchenholer wrote:
It makes even less sense when you compare the military spending of a hegemonical superpower that tries to extend it's power all around the globe with a group of nations that want to defend themselves on their border and at best stabilize the areas around them. Not to try to excuse the U.S. for every one of its actions involving itself internationally, but let me ask whose responsibility it is to maintain freedom of the seas and airways beyond the areas around Europe and the USA? The USA thinks it needs to play an unrivaled role in this, in part because its allies have other priorities, all the while using words like hegemonical. And if they were out chasing pirates off the coast of Somalia that’d be relevant. But they can’t drop a hundred billion dollars in Iraq and then demand to know why Germany isn’t chipping in. I agree but we were discussing military spending more generally than German spending on oppressing Iraqis, despite whatever bizarre claims Trump might be trying to make. Maintaining freedom of the seas is also way more than playing police officer in Somali pirate territory. Why should NATO pay for "maintaining freedom of the seas"? For a non- existant US military to maintain national airways? If you don't support that, then don't write it as an argument against what Broetchenholer wrote, to say that China's aggression is an international concern and then don't carry on to call for "a mission that other countries help with" when it is solely none of the concern nor role of NATO.
|
United States24753 Posts
You're right that I should be clear when I'm talking about NATO and when I'm speaking generally. I agree the mission I was talking about and the NATO missions are not the same thing, despite some overlap.
|
On November 11 2018 02:48 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:
I think/hope T_D is gonna end up deleted soon. The kind of anger they are stoking right now regarding the midterm voting is really scary to see. People are being actively radicalized on one of the biggest websites around. This is so sad to watch. It is quite disturbing. I hadn't ever been before you said this.
I know that one should always look but T_D genuinely upsets me. Can one of you kind people give me something of a rundown and spare me the pain?
|
United States24753 Posts
I don't normally look either but here is a rundown of what's happening there at the moment.
- The top thread is updated weekly and summarizes recent Trump news, Trump tweets, and other reddit threads that discuss Trump-centric topics (nothing immediately alarmed me)
- A political cartoon alleging that the Dems are stealing the Florida election; includes statements such as, "[Brenda Snipes] exhibited a penchant for skewing the process in favor of the Democrat Party."
- A tweet discussing Brenda Snipes' poor practice in counting votes
- A thread alleging Florida Vote Scandal complicity between the Media and the Dems
- A thread discussing how Brenda Snipes defied a judge but has still not been arrested, with photos of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders attached for some reason
- A response to a Trump tweet which says, "Can confirm what Trump is saying is 100% FACT. We cannot even remove dead/fallen trees around our House in Lake Tahoe" after Trump blamed California forest management policy for all these fires
- A tweet which says, "In the aftermath of the Texas senator race I think it's wildly funny that white rich progressives are calling conservatives racists because we voted for the Hispanic guy instead of the white guy. You can't make this up."
- A political cartoon depicting the Blue wave, shown as a hurricane approaching the east coast of the "2018 Election" USA, with the name of the hurricane being "election fraud."
You get the idea.
|
On November 11 2018 01:56 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:
I think/hope T_D is gonna end up deleted soon. The kind of anger they are stoking right now regarding the midterm voting is really scary to see. People are being actively radicalized on one of the biggest websites around. This is so sad to watch. I would think there would be a point where Reddit administrators would have to step in. I understand "freedom of speech" and all that, but along the same lines of a bunch of social media platforms banning Alex Jones after some of the stunts he's pulled that resulted in people getting death threats, there becomes a point where it is actually dangerous to allow The_Donald to continue in its current form. Given that a man mailed bombs to a bunch of prominent figures of what he views as the opposition, we already know that these schemes to radicalize people on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and elsewhere are a real thing that can have serious consequences.
There is no freedom of speech on the internet. I wish there was some way to make it clear to the entirety of the world that it simply doesn't exist.
The internet is a series of houses owned by people that they allow x y and z to occur on. Reddit is not a free speech platform. 4Chan isn't. None of them are. The freedoms enjoyed by the users are down entirely to the whims of the moderators and site owners.
re: T_D that... doesn't actually sound too bad compared to some of what I've seen in the past.
|
Seems to be nothing new. We all seen every single point being raised recently in TL itself. If not here, then in the other thread.
Edit: Well, maybe not the one about the trees.
|
The problem is there is nothing abnormal about what is happening in AZ and FL. Elections take time, especially if there are close margins. All of Trumps bluster is much to do about nothing. The problem is people believe him.
That and he is threatening to pull aid during a natural disaster, because he is a complete peice of shit.
Edit: also a bitch because he is scared of rain + seeing leaders of other nations.
|
On November 11 2018 04:59 Plansix wrote:
The problem is there is nothing abnormal about what is happening in AZ and FL. Elections take time, especially if there are close margins. All of Trumps bluster is much to do about nothing. The problem is people believe him.
That and he is threatening to pull aid during a natural disaster, because he is a complete peice of shit.
Edit: also a bitch because he is scared of rain + seeing leaders of other nations.
His stupid base belives him but I think we've gotten into a boy who cried wolf scenario here. He lies and says bullshit about rigged elections so often normal Americans just ignore it. I doubt many people who arent already part of his cult see those tweets and assume he is telling the truth.
This is what happens when statisically it's fair to assume that literally everything he says is a lie until proven otherwise.
|
On November 11 2018 04:22 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 01:56 Ben... wrote:On November 11 2018 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:
I think/hope T_D is gonna end up deleted soon. The kind of anger they are stoking right now regarding the midterm voting is really scary to see. People are being actively radicalized on one of the biggest websites around. This is so sad to watch. I would think there would be a point where Reddit administrators would have to step in. I understand "freedom of speech" and all that, but along the same lines of a bunch of social media platforms banning Alex Jones after some of the stunts he's pulled that resulted in people getting death threats, there becomes a point where it is actually dangerous to allow The_Donald to continue in its current form. Given that a man mailed bombs to a bunch of prominent figures of what he views as the opposition, we already know that these schemes to radicalize people on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and elsewhere are a real thing that can have serious consequences. There is no freedom of speech on the internet. I wish there was some way to make it clear to the entirety of the world that it simply doesn't exist. The internet is a series of houses owned by people that they allow x y and z to occur on. Reddit is not a free speech platform. 4Chan isn't. None of them are. The freedoms enjoyed by the users are down entirely to the whims of the moderators and site owners. re: T_D that... doesn't actually sound too bad compared to some of what I've seen in the past. Oh I'm fully aware of that. It would be the people upset if they shut down that subreddit that would be screaming about free speech. That's why I brought up the example of Alex Jones. His supporters screamed that his first amendment rights were being infringed upon after he was banned when that simply isn't the case. Social media companies were not stopping him from going onto the street and screaming at piles of poop (a thing he was filmed actually doing), they just didn't want him showing video of it on their platforms anymore. It would be the same deal if they shut down that subreddit. Reddit wouldn't be stopping people from saying and thinking horrible things, they would just be stopping it from being shared on their platform.
It seems in general, social media companies don't like policing speech, but there is a point where they have to even if it upsets people. I think it's getting to that point with Reddit, Twitter, and other platforms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
