Posted by all3 on 4/16/2020 9:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 4/15/2020 7:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 4/15/2020 4:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 4/15/2020 4:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 4/15/2020 4:16:00 PM (view original):
random call-out considering I thought Trump was going to win

He's just being objective. Why can't you be objective?

More lies. NOBODY as far left as tang thought Trump was going to win.
If I cared enough, I'd go back and look through the 4-year old threads, but pretty sure that doug and I were the only ones who thought Trump had a chance. Heck, fan-boy b_l has since disappeared from the site because he can't handle the truth that his prized HRC lost after having a double-digit lead in polls at the end of October. Biggest fail ever in a Presidential campaign.

Tang really isn’t that far left and has no reason to lie about thinking Trump would win.

You obviously haven't been paying attention. Wasn't AOC even at the top of his dream list for a while? That's as far left as it gets. It's "cute' that you feel the need to try to defend him though.

"Cute".

Posted by gomiami1972 on 4/16/2020 12:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 4/15/2020 11:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by usf_bulls on 4/15/2020 10:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 4/15/2020 7:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 4/15/2020 7:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 4/15/2020 4:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 4/15/2020 4:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 4/15/2020 4:16:00 PM (view original):
random call-out considering I thought Trump was going to win

He's just being objective. Why can't you be objective?

More lies. NOBODY as far left as tang thought Trump was going to win.
If I cared enough, I'd go back and look through the 4-year old threads, but pretty sure that doug and I were the only ones who thought Trump had a chance. Heck, fan-boy b_l has since disappeared from the site because he can't handle the truth that his prized HRC lost after having a double-digit lead in polls at the end of October. Biggest fail ever in a Presidential campaign.

Tang really isn’t that far left and has no reason to lie about thinking Trump would win.

nah, social democracy is a radical marxist ideology and I support killing all billionaires

Well, social democracy is a radical marxist ideology...

It technically has some roots in Marxism, but has since changed a lot and diverged from socialism. Radical? Absolutely not. You get a 0.5/2 on this one.

LOL. There is nothing mainstream about social democracy. Radical does not mean bad or dangerous, just espousing complete change.

It's one of the primary governing parties in Europe. Social democracy is mainstream in every part of the world except for the USA.

For all all3 complains about "DEMS LIE ABOUT TRUMP" he doesn't seem to hesitate when lying about me. I defended AOC once on a forum and suddenly I'm her biggest fan? I criticize AOC all the time.

Me wants a threesome with AOC and Huma Abedin!

Posted by tangplay on 4/16/2020 10:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 4/16/2020 12:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 4/15/2020 11:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by usf_bulls on 4/15/2020 10:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 4/15/2020 7:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 4/15/2020 7:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 4/15/2020 4:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 4/15/2020 4:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 4/15/2020 4:16:00 PM (view original):
random call-out considering I thought Trump was going to win

He's just being objective. Why can't you be objective?

More lies. NOBODY as far left as tang thought Trump was going to win.
If I cared enough, I'd go back and look through the 4-year old threads, but pretty sure that doug and I were the only ones who thought Trump had a chance. Heck, fan-boy b_l has since disappeared from the site because he can't handle the truth that his prized HRC lost after having a double-digit lead in polls at the end of October. Biggest fail ever in a Presidential campaign.

Tang really isn’t that far left and has no reason to lie about thinking Trump would win.

nah, social democracy is a radical marxist ideology and I support killing all billionaires

Well, social democracy is a radical marxist ideology...

It technically has some roots in Marxism, but has since changed a lot and diverged from socialism. Radical? Absolutely not. You get a 0.5/2 on this one.

LOL. There is nothing mainstream about social democracy. Radical does not mean bad or dangerous, just espousing complete change.

It's one of the primary governing parties in Europe. Social democracy is mainstream in every part of the world except for the USA.

OK, I thought we were talking about the US and not the Earth?

Posted by bronxcheer on 4/16/2020 11:16:00 AM (view original):
Me wants a threesome with AOC and Huma Abedin!

I’m holding out for a 3 way with Kyrsten Sinema and Gretchen Whitmer. Wanna watch dumbOut? You seem like the cuck type.

Posted by usf_bulls on 4/16/2020 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 4/16/2020 10:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 4/16/2020 12:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 4/15/2020 11:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by usf_bulls on 4/15/2020 10:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 4/15/2020 7:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 4/15/2020 7:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 4/15/2020 4:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 4/15/2020 4:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 4/15/2020 4:16:00 PM (view original):
random call-out considering I thought Trump was going to win

He's just being objective. Why can't you be objective?

More lies. NOBODY as far left as tang thought Trump was going to win.
If I cared enough, I'd go back and look through the 4-year old threads, but pretty sure that doug and I were the only ones who thought Trump had a chance. Heck, fan-boy b_l has since disappeared from the site because he can't handle the truth that his prized HRC lost after having a double-digit lead in polls at the end of October. Biggest fail ever in a Presidential campaign.

Tang really isn’t that far left and has no reason to lie about thinking Trump would win.

nah, social democracy is a radical marxist ideology and I support killing all billionaires

Well, social democracy is a radical marxist ideology...

It technically has some roots in Marxism, but has since changed a lot and diverged from socialism. Radical? Absolutely not. You get a 0.5/2 on this one.

LOL. There is nothing mainstream about social democracy. Radical does not mean bad or dangerous, just espousing complete change.

It's one of the primary governing parties in Europe. Social democracy is mainstream in every part of the world except for the USA.

OK, I thought we were talking about the US and not the Earth?

Not necessarily. We can agree that if we define "radical" as out of the mainstream, then social democracy is a radical concept in the US, but not in nearly any other part of the world.

Yes, we agree on that point. What I'm not sure you fully comprehend (IMHO) is that the rest of the world can play around with their social democracy farce because the United States of America bails them out of military defeat and then pays for their defense, freeing up a whole bunch of money that they can then spend on idealism that they would NEVER be able to afford if left to their own exertions.

To be honest, tang, I'm an American, not a globalist and I'm proud of it. The reason why those utopian dreamers that believe in pink elephants and unicorns (to name a few) like Sweden, Britian, France, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Portugal, Spain, Austria, Finland, Luxembourg, Greece, Poland, Hungary, Romania and The Netherlands have not been crushed under the boot of an authoritarian regime is because the USA is NOT quite like the rest of the world.

We actually agree on this:

the United States of America bails them out of military defeat and then pays for their defense, freeing up a whole bunch of money that they can then spend on idealism that they would NEVER be able to afford if left to their own exertions.

Where we disagree is that you assume an authoritarian regime will come and invade everyone the second the USA stops spending so much on our military. That I disagree with. I can (maybe) get behind the idea that we should spend more on our military than other countries, but the amount we spend now is exorbitant. Your entire argument hinges on the idea that Russia starts WW3 the second that we reduce our military spending slightly. I find that ridiculous.

And even from a framework of "America over globalism", why can't we just say "**** all of those countries, we are going to improve our lives."

Posted by tangplay on 4/16/2020 2:35:00 PM (view original):
We actually agree on this:

the United States of America bails them out of military defeat and then pays for their defense, freeing up a whole bunch of money that they can then spend on idealism that they would NEVER be able to afford if left to their own exertions.

Where we disagree is that you assume an authoritarian regime will come and invade everyone the second the USA stops spending so much on our military. That I disagree with. I can (maybe) get behind the idea that we should spend more on our military than other countries, but the amount we spend now is exorbitant. Your entire argument hinges on the idea that Russia starts WW3 the second that we reduce our military spending slightly. I find that ridiculous.

I'm glad we agree on part of it.

Authoritarian regimes are always waiting for a moment of weakness to subjugate large numbers of people. The Assyrians, Egyptians, Chinese, Romans, Persians, Ottomans, British, etc. all did it.

Just as there was a Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Soviet Union that was stopped through our direct intervention, there will be a Communist China or maybe a Russia (or maybe a theocracy, who knows) just praying for the end of American strength so that they can try their turn at dominance. It doesn't necessarily require WWIII or a physical invasion, just a power vacuum that will be filled, either militarily or economically, with the end result being the same. They will not be respecting the gentle societies of the utopian social democrats. They will destroy it and replace it with their own doctrine.

If you find that ridiculous, so be it. I do assume...and an assumption it is...but it is one backed up by the entirety of recorded history and by human nature.

Please also tell us HOW these authoritarian regimes subjugated large numbers of people.
Start with a fairly recent one Germany.
Just what tactic was used to "subjugate" the German people?

Don't you think that THAT is worth pointing out?
These days particularly?

Posted by gomiami1972 on 4/16/2020 3:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 4/16/2020 2:35:00 PM (view original):
We actually agree on this:

the United States of America bails them out of military defeat and then pays for their defense, freeing up a whole bunch of money that they can then spend on idealism that they would NEVER be able to afford if left to their own exertions.

Where we disagree is that you assume an authoritarian regime will come and invade everyone the second the USA stops spending so much on our military. That I disagree with. I can (maybe) get behind the idea that we should spend more on our military than other countries, but the amount we spend now is exorbitant. Your entire argument hinges on the idea that Russia starts WW3 the second that we reduce our military spending slightly. I find that ridiculous.

I'm glad we agree on part of it.

Authoritarian regimes are always waiting for a moment of weakness to subjugate large numbers of people. The Assyrians, Egyptians, Chinese, Romans, Persians, Ottomans, British, etc. all did it.

Just as there was a Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Soviet Union that was stopped through our direct intervention, there will be a Communist China or maybe a Russia (or maybe a theocracy, who knows) just praying for the end of American strength so that they can try their turn at dominance. It doesn't necessarily require WWIII or a physical invasion, just a power vacuum that will be filled, either militarily or economically, with the end result being the same. They will not be respecting the gentle societies of the utopian social democrats. They will destroy it and replace it with their own doctrine.

If you find that ridiculous, so be it. I do assume...and an assumption it is...but it is one backed up by the entirety of recorded history and by human nature.

The only problem with this thinking is that it’s NOT 1940. Several countries have MORE than enough to destroy the world 1,000 times over. The game is a little different today so your “recorded history” comment most certainly does NOT hold water, or **** for that matter

Posted by rsp777 on 4/16/2020 3:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 4/16/2020 3:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 4/16/2020 2:35:00 PM (view original):
We actually agree on this:

the United States of America bails them out of military defeat and then pays for their defense, freeing up a whole bunch of money that they can then spend on idealism that they would NEVER be able to afford if left to their own exertions.

Where we disagree is that you assume an authoritarian regime will come and invade everyone the second the USA stops spending so much on our military. That I disagree with. I can (maybe) get behind the idea that we should spend more on our military than other countries, but the amount we spend now is exorbitant. Your entire argument hinges on the idea that Russia starts WW3 the second that we reduce our military spending slightly. I find that ridiculous.

I'm glad we agree on part of it.

Authoritarian regimes are always waiting for a moment of weakness to subjugate large numbers of people. The Assyrians, Egyptians, Chinese, Romans, Persians, Ottomans, British, etc. all did it.

Just as there was a Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Soviet Union that was stopped through our direct intervention, there will be a Communist China or maybe a Russia (or maybe a theocracy, who knows) just praying for the end of American strength so that they can try their turn at dominance. It doesn't necessarily require WWIII or a physical invasion, just a power vacuum that will be filled, either militarily or economically, with the end result being the same. They will not be respecting the gentle societies of the utopian social democrats. They will destroy it and replace it with their own doctrine.

If you find that ridiculous, so be it. I do assume...and an assumption it is...but it is one backed up by the entirety of recorded history and by human nature.

The only problem with this thinking is that it’s NOT 1940. Several countries have MORE than enough to destroy the world 1,000 times over. The game is a little different today so your “recorded history” comment most certainly does NOT hold water, or **** for that matter

Hey, rsp.

Every period in history is unique. The Assyrians had different obstacles to overcome than did the Ottomans. The game may be different but the desire of human nature has not changed at all.

What we do here is state opinions. That means everybody's opinion holds a toilet full of **** to the point where we all need to call the plumber at times.

RSP has a good point. It is entirely unrealistic to assume that Russia or China is going to use their military to occupy other countries in this day and age, even if they desire to. If Russia invades any part of NATO, they can expect nuclear war. Now is not the past. World Conquest isn't in any nation's strategic interest anymore. Economic aid is a different matter entirely. I would argue that social democracy is not mutually exclusive with globalism, which you seem to tacitly endorse.

Even in a doomsday world in which we cede global advantage to the Chinese or whatever, you would still have to prove that the United States couldn't ramp up our military back to prior levels and take back hegemony. Keep in mind that I only advocate for reducing military spending to, let's say, 267 billion, nearly double that of China, and, coincidentally, the same % of GDP military spending of Canada.

The risk of this scenario playing out only in a world where we embrace social democracy is slim enough that I am willing to take it.