Election 2020

[Kevin Seitzer]

The United States worships its military and the power it represents. Do you think the Congress will seriously be willing to kneecap the military industrial complex?

ETA: That's not meant as a jab at you, Teenwolf, more of a lament.

[Teenwolf]

The United States worships its military and the power it represents. Do you think the Congress will seriously be willing to kneecap the military industrial complex?

ETA: That's not meant as a jab at you, Teenwolf, more of a lament.

If the President refuses to approve the budget, and he makes his case for why that funding should be spent elsewhere, and the public is screaming in support on both sides of the aisle (de-escalation is supported across both parties, something Trump ran on)... if you have 1/3 of Congress up for election and feeling the pressure, would that not have a chance to sway the numbers? I just think being true to the values of the average American will appeal to voters more than being a typical politician, ignoring the costs of war.

[Kevin Seitzer]

If the President refuses to approve the budget, and he makes his case for why that funding should be spent elsewhere, and the public is screaming in support on both sides of the aisle (de-escalation is supported across both parties, something Trump ran on)... if you have 1/3 of Congress up for election and feeling the pressure, would that not have a chance to sway the numbers? I just think being true to the values of the average American will appeal to voters more than being a typical politician, ignoring the costs of war.

I think the average American likes having a big military machine. Wars that drag on with no end in sight, maybe not so much, but a huge military--yeah, I think they like that.

[The Feral Slasher]

I think the average American likes having a big military machine. Wars that drag on with no end in sight, maybe not so much, but a huge military--yeah, I think they like that.

In general I agree. It would be interesting to discuss why that is. Why is every other country in the world ok having a military so inferior to ours ? I suppose you could make the case that China and Russia are not, whatever.

[Sour Masher]

In general I agree. It would be interesting to discuss why that is. Why is every other country in the world ok having a military so inferior to ours ? I suppose you could make the case that China and Russia are not, whatever.

I think it is fear of losing freedoms. The way we are taught in schools shows great pride in our fight for independence, and our heroic efforts in WWII. I think there has long been a sense of pride of being the biggest, baddest nation in the world, and no one can push us around and no one could take us on. With the end of the Cold War, though, and the rise of conflicts mostly being economic and intelligence based, I don't know why that MIC fervor has not died down. We could comfortbaly cut our defense budget in half and still have that sense of security, but I don't know if most Americans truly understand that.

[Teenwolf]

It seems like most of the arguments I hear on this board for why progressive policies can never happen is because people are too stupid to recognize their own best interests. It seems highly cynical to me, to think that Americans can't figure these things out.

I personally believe that Trump's rhetoric about how "we need to get out of dumb wars" in 2016 drew out a lot of non-voters and Libertarians. Bernie is making the same play for the anti-interventionist vote, but he's the only one on the Democratic side appealing to them. Pathetic party. Another reason I would only bet the $500 if its Bernie.

[Kevin Seitzer]

It seems like most of the arguments I hear on this board for why progressive policies can never happen is because people are too stupid to recognize their own best interests. It seems highly cynical to me, to think that Americans can't figure these things out.

I personally believe that Trump's rhetoric about how "we need to get out of dumb wars" in 2016 drew out a lot of non-voters and Libertarians. Bernie is making the same play for the anti-interventionist vote, but he's the only one on the Democratic side appealing to them. Pathetic party. Another reason I would only bet the $500 if its Bernie.

You are conflating getting out of wars with reducing the size of the military. I don't think the American public views those two as remotely the same thing.

[Teenwolf]

You are conflating getting out of wars with reducing the size of the military. I don't think the American public views those two as remotely the same thing.

The Generals themselves have been shown screaming "stop making more tanks, we dont fucking need them", and the same with a lot of pork barrel military spending. I think like Sour Masher says, you could easily cut the budget in half, and as long as you're cutting fat, you would hardly notice a difference. I think a lot of Americans could see the logic in that, but it's a tough question to gauge, as mainstream media has never shown Chomsky or anybody very frequently making the case against the military industrial complex. But when the argument is made, like Bernie is making now, I think it will resonate.

[Fresno Bob]

The Generals themselves have been shown screaming "stop making more tanks, we dont fucking need them", and the same with a lot of pork barrel military spending. I think like Sour Masher says, you could easily cut the budget in half, and as long as you're cutting fat, you would hardly notice a difference. I think a lot of Americans could see the logic in that, but it's a tough question to gauge, as mainstream media has never shown Chomsky or anybody very frequently making the case against the military industrial complex. But when the argument is made, like Bernie is making now, I think it will resonate.

I'd be up for fewer tanks and bombers, and higher pay and better VA healthcare delivery for my troops as part of my big military machine

[GwynnInTheHall]

I think the average American likes having a big military machine. Wars that drag on with no end in sight, maybe not so much, but a huge military--yeah, I think they like that.

I don't know if I agree with this. I believe the Average American wants to be protected from any dangers out there, but if the danger was lessened, the need for protection (Military) would too and I believe Americans (at least the non nationalists) would be fine with that.

[The Feral Slasher]

I don't know if I agree with this. I believe the Average American wants to be protected from any dangers out there, but if the danger was lessened, the need for protection (Military) would too and I believe Americans (at least the non nationalists) would be fine with that.

So is the danger great enough that we need to spend many times what any other country spends on the military ? How does the danger from other countries/terrorist, etc compare to other dangers all American citizens face ?

[GwynnInTheHall]

So is the danger great enough that we need to spend many times what any other country spends on the military ? How does the danger from other countries/terrorist, etc compare to other dangers all American citizens face ?

No it isn't.

[Kevin Seitzer]

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1666/military-national-defense.aspx

[Sour Masher]

Any combination of Bernie, Warren, Tulsi or Pete would be just fine by me.

This article on her claims about Assad, based on bad science and weak sources,shows, perhaps, why she is not ready for the big stage yet. It illistrstes how one's ideology informs how one chooses to interpret reality. It reminds me somewhat of how pro-gun advocates look for reasons to defend their positions on the fringe. Gabbard's anti-intervenionalist views, which may be her greatest strength as a candidate, may be so strong as to be blinding to her in regards to Assad. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena...r-filled-mess/. It surprises me that she continues to put forth these conspiracy ideas about Assad, that co to he to have little to no basis in the evidence, on her 2020 campaign site.

[Teenwolf]

This article on her claims about Assad, based on bad science and weak sources,shows, perhaps, why she is not ready for the big stage yet. It illistrstes how one's ideology informs how one chooses to interpret reality. It reminds me somewhat of how pro-gun advocates look for reasons to defend their positions on the fringe. Gabbard's anti-intervenionalist views, which may be her greatest strength as a candidate, may be so strong as to be blinding to her in regards to Assad. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena...r-filled-mess/. It surprises me that she continues to put forth these conspiracy ideas about Assad, that co to he to have little to no basis in the evidence, on her 2020 campaign site.

I think Tulsi Gabbard is 100% right, those chemical weapons attacks were questionable. They were initially reported by 1 source within Syria who claimed to be a doctor. The pictures he shared to the media showed emergency workers touching and moving the bodies of the chemical weapon victims in hazmat suits but with bare hands. Several pictures of that. It's honestly highly suspect. If you think the government wouldn't lie and conspire, I've got one word for you: WMD. Question everything.

The fact that Kamala Harris is smearing Tulsi as both an Assad apologist AND a Russian asset is completely pathetic, and should disqualify her from consideration. She hasn't answered for anything in her awful track record, only to smear and belittle Tulsi. Anderson Cooper asked her about the attack on her record and she said "Oh, I'm a top-tier candidate, and she's at 0 or 1%, and she's an Assad apologist." So therefore, she doesn't feel a need to address her own record.