you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BEB 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Biden and the Democrats are such fucking idiots.

The most crucial election in my lifetime, when we have a literal mad man as US president, and he and his fellow Dems have to keep doubling down on the Flat Earther, women/parent/gay/children/science/free speech hating gendxr ideology.

Do the Dems not want to win? Because when they spout this bullshit it seems like they really don't.

But Trump is just too dangerous. I was listening to a conservative foreign police expert who said that the real fear in the intelligence and military communities is that Trump will just launch a war to save his own hide.

Trump will launch WW III to deflect from his own and his family's corruption.

Seriously, I think we are in an alternate universe.

[–]just_lesbian_things 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Eh, Trump is too incompetent to run a war. Does the military still support him? I think Biden is more likely to start a war than Trump. Most wars involving America in the last few decades have been started under Democrat presidents. Biden is probably still the better candidate, though, especially for Americans.

[–]MarkTwainiac 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes, Trump is incompetent - and most of the professionals in the vast bureaucracies that are the US federal government - including the Pentagon, CIA & State Department - are not behind him.

Also, whilst it's embarrassing and downright scary to have such a loon as President especially from the POV of US domestic affairs, the fact that so many other world leaders and so many citizens of other countries see him as the buffoon he is has helped break, or at least lessen, the US hegemony in world and (most) foreign affairs. I think it's a good thing for most of the world, and for Americans, for the US no longer to be in the global leadership position it ended up in largely due to the two world wars and the Cold War of the 20th century.

What's happening within the US, however, is another story. It's really gone to, and continues to go to, shit. I keep feeling like the US is going the way Yugoslavia did in the 1990s after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the USSR and iron curtain.

[–]just_lesbian_things 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think it's a good thing for [...] Americans, for the US no longer to be in the global leadership position

Why not? There are a lot of perks that comes with being the global superpower. Americans have enjoyed decades of prosperity as a result of it.

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Americans have enjoyed decades of prosperity as a result of it.

Not all Americans, not by a long-shot. The era in which the US has been the global superpower (since WW2) has also been the era when both income and wealth disparity in the US have grown enormously.

Since WW2, Americans have been involved in a never-ending series of financially wasteful, mostly morally indefensible or repugnant wars and dodgy foreign interventions that have cost many Americans and people in other countries their lives. And the US government and economy have become all bolloxed up as a result, with too much money being spent on arms and wars and too little being spent on hospitals, health care, schools, as former general Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in his last address to the nation as POTUS in 1960:

As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.[

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

I think all the ills Ike warned about - and more - have come to pass. Rather than be the global superpower, I'd rather the US took a back seat, or least slid over to the passenger seat for a while. Let somebody else drive.

Lots of countries in Europe have equal or more per capita prosperity to the USA, far less wealth & income disparity amongst the populace, a fairer distribution of resources, more benefits, better education, happier populations and far, far lower levels of military spending than the USA. For example, Sweden, Denmark and Germany.

[–]BEB 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's not Trump's incompetence in running the war, it's that Trump is the most powerful man on Earth and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military, and he's incompetent enough to start a war in a fit of pique and then we're all done.

Biden and the Democrats are war-mongers too, especially in the Middle East. This is a topic I know a lot about. It won't matter if we elect a Democrat or a Republican, the US is a vassal state, and we will be used as the military muscle when our controllers decide it's time to take down Iran.

So yes, war is on the horizon no matter what, it's just that Biden will plan it so that America does slightly better than if Trump decides to randomly bomb North Korea because Kim Jong Un made fun of his spray tan.

[–]just_lesbian_things 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

he's incompetent enough to start a war in a fit of pique

From the amount of people who have quit in his administration, I doubt he'd get the backing he needed. Trump's incompetent but he's not that kind of idiot. The only way he would declare war is if it got him out of going to prison, and I'm sure there are easier ways for him to avoid prison. Biden is far more likely to declare war, and his administration is going to be way more efficient and ruthless. Biden's the far better choice for America, but the more dangerous outcome for any country that's not one of America's core allies.

[–]Rationalmind 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Are you sure? Maybe some, but Iraq and Afghanistan got started because of George Bush.

[–]Rationalmind 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

... Trump has brought unprecedented peace to the Middle East. The message he ran on was to end foreign wars abroad which is what the populist side of the conservative movement wants too. Spending in America and not abroad iirc is what they want.

[–]BEB 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I know it could seem that way to someone not very familiar with the intricacies of the Middle East, but Donald did not bring peace to the Middle East. Trust me on this, the geopolitics of the Middle East were something I used to know a lot about.

Donald pulled us out of the Iran nuclear deal and then assassinated Soleimani, which could have been catastrophic had the Iranians taken the bait.

Donald's Middle East envoy, his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is best friends with Bibi Netanyahu, corrupt Israeli Prime Minister and the man whose plan from the 1990s on was to involve the US in endless Middle Eastern wars.

Netanyahu's plan called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" written with American neo-Conservatives, has been partially implemented. It's online if you want to read it for yourself.

Donald dropped the Mother of All Bombs on Afghanistan, and asked why the US has nuclear weapons if we don't use them.

If Donald gets re-elected or refuses to leave office, expect a foreign war. Biden might start one too, because he's also an uber-Zionist. So we're probably doomed either way, if that makes you feel better about supporting Donnie.

[–]Rationalmind 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Donald Trump did not drop a nuclear weapon on Afghanistan.

Frankly, not hearing about Israel and the aggression Israel faces has been a nice reprieve. I’m glad that the Israelis are forming allies in the Middle East. If Americans don’t have a need to be in the Middle East because of it, all the better.

[–]BEB 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Just a correction: I didn't say Donald dropped a nuclear weapon - Donald dropped the Mother of All Bombs on Afghanistan; it is the largest non-nuclear bomb ever used by the US.

This is not the sub to debate the Middle East, but suffice it to say that if anyone wants to know more about why the fuck the US is constantly killing innocents in the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa, or helping kill innocents there, or funding the killing of innocents there, a book called "The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy" is a great place to start.

Its authors, two giants in their fields, are John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, at the time of writing the Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

"The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy" should be required reading for every American and every citizen of countries America sucks into its military adventures.

And, to my mind, as someone who has been stuck in the middle of one, war is a feminist issue, because beyond the killing, there's the rape and the utter destruction of the lives of the most vulnerable: women & children. As feminists, we can help other women by working for peace.