Negatory
-
Posts
649 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Negatory
-
-
1 hour ago, brabus said:
There’s what we want to happen in a “perfect world” and then there’s reality. Reality is nobody anywhere on the political spectrum, in large enough numbers, is serious about significantly cutting entitlements. That’s the only rational way we’re going to see meaningful debt reduction and avoid the “fiscal cliff.” Everything else like DOGE-driven savings, reasonable DoD cuts, etc. will not appreciably move the needle. I suppose the other option is massive cuts in areas that completely gut our country and turn it into Venezuela, but I’m not considering that a rational option.
So, the BBB is like every federal bill since the “beginning of time:” full of pork and spending too much. If you’re a realist, you understand this and can at least see there’s some good stuff in there (in spite of the stuff you don’t like). If you’re an idealist who doesn’t live in reality and likes to cast stones from your utopian view of what things should be like, without offering actual solutions that are attainable in the real world, well then by all means have fun sport bitching with your buddy Massie.
If you’re a realist you don’t ignore the $4T added to the deficit. A realist asks why taxes are being cut and not sustained or increased. Welcome back to reality.
-
All of the arguments here the past couple of weeks:
It’s not that hard. Pick a new candidate and you’d have a chance. The Dems did it and are gonna win because of it. If Rs had gone Nikki Haley before Biden dropped out, this wouldn’t even be close. Trump can only win against a candidate at terrible as Biden.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
-
-
1 hour ago, HeloDude said:
Yeah, because the NY case against Trump wasn’t BS…
Sorry you don’t believe in the justice system. Read the case. 12 jurors decided unanimously he committed a crime. You just want to say it’s BS because it fits your narrative, but I am 100% certain you haven’t looked into it further. The evidence is clearly there.
Just stick your fingers further in your ears.
-
2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:
Let’s be completely honest, the blame for the sad display we saw last night lays squarely at the feet of the Biden family, his aides and the DNC for two reasons.
You literally did exactly what I said you would do.
A non sequitur that focuses only on one failure and entirely avoids addressing the absolutely appalling and sad performance from Trump as well, because you are so polarized and don’t want Biden to win. Check your morals brother. Don’t be blinded by politics.
-
So those are our choices… a billionaire felon who no one can trust because he will aggressively lie without any guilt. Or a geriatric guy who can’t be trusted to form cogent thoughts or walk down two steps without the help of his wife.
And the best part? The system is set up for all of you to entirely ignore your candidate and just say how absurd it is that the other side is considering voting for their “choice.”
How are we the people not revolting over these two being our choices? What a joke that THAT isn’t being talked about more in place of partisan politics.
Knowing this forum, incoming non sequitur about how Trump is better than Biden. I truly don’t care, they are both unacceptable options. Democracy looking not so good right now.
-
1
-
3
-
-
8 hours ago, FourFans said:
Don't listen to the rhetoric, look at the details and facts.
Okay. Way ahead of you here.
8 hours ago, FourFans said:Yes, the Chinese are great at long term intellectual planning, but NONE of their execution has followed any of that planning.
Economic: They achieved multiple milestones from the 80s to present day ahead of schedule. They have delivered on promises to virtually eliminate poverty and increase the quality of life of their society. You said that we don't have to do anything to beat China economically except wait. I think a lot of other countries think that about the US. We are not closing our debt gap and we are not becoming more competitive (except in niche areas in tech). Also, our middle class is shrinking while theirs is growing.
As one example of international competitiveness, Tesla is getting F'd because they can realistically only compete with the 15 other Chinese EV makers in a tariff environment like the US, where we make it cost 25% more for them to deliver. In Asia, the EU, and everywhere else, American industry is becoming less competitive.
As another example, we lost the Chip War for microelectronic chips in the 70s through the 2000s. We literally only have Micron, which produces RAM, because we were not competitive with other countries.
Military: They have achieved multiple milestones from the 90s to today. They are set to deliver on future milestones that challenge US dominance. They also don't have to maintain an empire, they get to operate in an A2AD environment or within the bounds of close asia environments to achieve their goals. I'm good not talking about specifics here, but I am sure you'd rather us not go to war in an away game with China and understand how it wouldn't be a good thing for us.
Also, good luck closing the Strait of Malacca and just chillin. First, doing that militarily is not trivial especially with anti ship systems the Chinese have. And we live in a glass house too, you know? Don't think our society or economy would like it very much either.
Diplomatic: They are actively shifting the tide of public perception in ASEAN, Europe, and Africa. Just this year, perceptions have shifted, unfortunately not in our favor, with, for the first time ever, most ASEAN countries saying that they would choose to align with China over the US if forced to choose.
Information: They control the information narrative in China. We control very little here. This is unarguably an advantage for a great power competition.
Pay: https://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/global_labor_rates_china_is_no_longer_a_low_cost_country
You'll like that because the title supports your point that China isn't a low cost country. But then the data inside shows that managers in the US are paid 6 times as much as managers in China, and it shows that they do production for $12,000 a year. They say US machine workers will work for $33,000 but give me a fucking break. Not a chance. You know literally no skilled blue collar worker that would accept less than $60k a year. There is no realistic factory lifestyle young people can go do. Here's another one for you to look at, again, biased to the US because it was created by us:
https://reshoringinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/GlobalLaborRateComparisons.pdf
I'd love to see a non-biased, non US produced (without a political agenda), source that shows that wages are near parity. You aren't gonna be able to find it. I'm not going to argue that there are cheaper places like Mexico we can exploit. Great, let's go do it. But they can do that too (what is stopping China from finding a country like Mexico for these types of tasks?), and their population doesn't need their decadent wages to stay happy. We are still at a wholesale disadvantage.
And if you want to talk about military, nationalizing defense companies turns out is getting to be pretty fucking effective. Try to argue with me that Lockheed and Boeing are better than their companies. I will have to disagree from a cost effectiveness perspective and a time perspective. There are many estimates that their $200-300B they spend a year goes significantly farther than the $800B we spend a year. And they have been able to develop truly disruptive capabilities like hypersonic missiles and other assassin's mace weapons because they don't have to get 50 senators to agree to cancel an outdated weapons systems concept like the Carrier.
https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/china-isnt-just-spending-more-its-spending-smarter
https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/hypersonic-missiles-america-military-behind-936a3128
Remind me what hasn't followed plan again?
Demographics: This is our one point of potential advantage. But this isn't going to happen for decades, and if they can keep their population mentally prepared to work by identifying the problem early and banding together (their society is infinitely more collectivist than our individualist society), they actually have a chance to emerge victorious. And for us to maintain our advantage here, we have to accept significant immigration to bolster our deadening birth rates. While Hispanic and minority birth rates and population growth make up a huge portion of our young demographics, we are currently becoming more isolationist and closed-borders.
8 hours ago, FourFans said:Multiple historians, demographers, and geopolitical analysts have reached the above conclusions. Ray Dalio would be one exception, but reading his work it's clear his love of china is underpinned by strong emotional ties that clearly color his analysis. But even he doesn't paint a very rosy picture for them, specifically because of their economics and debt.
Yeah, and they have an inherent anchoring bias. Ray Dalio paints a picture that the US is on the decline - not that China will long-term supplant the US. He says it's likely that China will supplant us in the short term, but he doesn't really talk about the longevity of their empire other than to promise us that, one day, they too will fail. That is the argument. I am fine with believing that China can only momentarily usurp us, if at all, especially due to demographic issues. But then someone else will take over. It won't be us.
Again, I ask, has an empire beat the long term cycle? Why will we be able to sustain power forever?
-
1
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, busdriver said:
I do. My point is that the executor of the will must pay off legitimate debts before distributing inheritance. Those debts are paid from the assets of the estate. The kiddos don't get anything until the debts are paid.
Estate tax is levied on net assets. Passing the $2000 of stock and $1000 loan on your assets to an heir would be taxed the same as passing $1000 to an heir. So the capital gains that were "borrowed" don't get hit by the estate tax either.
Then, once the heir gains the assets, their basis resets.
Plus, regardless, it entirely negates the tax during the life of the individual. Estate taxes exist no matter what. Income and/or capital gains are supposed to exist before said person dies.
Additionally, even if you don't believe that this is possible and they will be hit by some tax at some point, you seem to agree that they can defer taxes. There is always a benefit to paying taxes later in the time value of money.
-
On 4/25/2024 at 7:22 PM, HeloDude said:
Perhaps I’m not ok with it because I know that it won’t just be the rich that will pay this new tax…in the early 1900s the implementation of the income tax was originally sold as “soak the rich” when it was enacted. Yeah, how did that work out for us?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/the-income-tax-in-1913-a-way-to-soak-the-rich
Pretty fucking good? Best economy in history? One of the greatest increases in QoL ever seen in history? You mad you have to pay $50k of taxes on your $200k salary so that you can still take home more than 99% of the rest of the world?
Also, good luck funding the Manhattan project or global military without an income tax. If you want to go back to pre-1913 US, I hope you're equally ready to experience the significantly lower quality of life that comes with not having a funded government or military that can wield national power. Frontier living wasn't that sweet.
On 4/25/2024 at 8:25 PM, Lord Ratner said:I would address that problem specifically, and make it illegal. However the better answer is to simply stop suppressing interest rates artificially. These billionaires are only to play this stupid game because banks are willing to give out near zero interest loans. No billionaire is going to do that if they have to pay 9% on it.
Double edged sword here (regressive policy) that hurts the working class more. Billionaires need low interest loans to keep wealth they don't need. Workers need it to purchase essentials like housing, transportation, and food. Raise the interest rates and the only people that actually may starve are poor people.
On 4/25/2024 at 8:25 PM, Lord Ratner said:That doesn't make it ethical. And more importantly that doesn't change the fact that the unintended second and third order consequences of this change can be very messy. However, unforeseen second and third order consequences are a Hallmark of almost all Democratic legislation, so par for the course.
Sure it does. Want to talk about ethical frameworks? From a utilitarian approach, it is beneficial to the group (society) and only marginally affects people who are entirely way too well-off, therefore it is most likely in the best interest for the largest number of people. There's an ethical argument. From a common good approach, it seems to make sense that people with means that are significantly greater than others should contribute to their fellow citizens. There's an ethical argument.
Now you can argue that it is unethical from your point of view or from a specific framework. But in the end it's all just feelings. That's ethics.
Ethical arguments do not have to take into account second and third order consequences, but I would love to talk to some of them if you'd like. I will point out that your statement about Democratic legislation also can easily be applied to Republican legislation - it's a useless statement with no evidence or warrant. But you always throw some baseless point in your arguments about the dems being the problem (with essentially no proof or evidence).
On 4/25/2024 at 8:25 PM, Lord Ratner said:The problem is that this is the government trying to blame others for what it created. You want to know why the ultra wealthy in this country have reached escape velocity compared to the rest of us? It's because we have a government that believes fiat currency allows them to print as much money as they want for whatever they want. But they are so fantastically unimaginative with this power that they simply feed it directly into the banking system. Gee, small wonder that the biggest beneficiaries of this mechanic have been real estate, equities, and financial assets. Overwhelmingly things that the rich and ultra-rich own disproportionately.
So if you want to fix it, let's lock our currency to something that doesn't allow the government to devalue it massively in a manner that flows almost directly to the richest people in the country. Let's stop artificially suppressing interest rates so that the wealthiest in this country can get nearly unlimited free money to spend in whatever way they see fit. Let's stop protecting gigantic corporations and Banks from the financial Doom of their poor decision making every time it comes home to roost. Too big to fail should be considered hate speech. Anything short of that it's just another trick fuck bit of legislation that will end up having second third order effects worse than the problem it was trying to solve, without addressing the root issue.
If you are saying the US government, as in the federal government that has existed since the 1930s, is ineffective, then I agree and disagree. If you are saying that this is a Biden problem, I'll disagree.
I do agree that you have to lock your currency to something that doesn't let the government devalue it. But once you've left, you can't go back. Have you seen the government operate even on a CR where they don't get their 3% increase? The Air Force modernization folks damn near shut down. If you lock the currency now, you are effectively stating that you will significantly curtail spending in every single government expenditure for the next 50+ years. Which, sure, might be necessary, but not if you want to maintain the quality of life you have or the benefits of the American empire.
The natural progression of fixed currencies to fiat systems has been seen for millennia in countless societies from the Romans to the Chinese to the Dutch to the British to, now, us. While you are correct that it is partially driven by the ultra-wealthy, it is also driven by populist governments and the middle class and working class demanding their lives be improved. When you run out of real growth, you have to create it with Fiat. So you as the government decouple and you pump money into the system to continue the growth. There is literally no stopping this in the natural cycle of nations. Show me one example. Obama did quantitative easing. Trump did a shitload of quantitative easing. Biden is actually tightening, which is a laudable act, but there's still $7T on the balance sheet.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttrends.htm
It's the old saying hard times strong men, strong men easy times, easy times weak men, blah blah blah. Well we are in the weak men times. And you are the weak men. And I am a weak man. I EXPECT to be paid $250k a year for a job that lets me telework part time. It's actually absurd. But I expect to be paid that because my fellow countrymen have equally ridiculous expectations. I can't get fast food now without paying $15. This is a positive feedback cycle that cannot be fixed in a pretty way. You either have the country explode into revolution to do what you said, or you choose slow relegation to a shit economy like the UK has been seeing the past 50 years.
On 4/25/2024 at 9:22 PM, busdriver said:The executer to the will still has to pay debts from estate assets prior to dishing out inheritance (which is where all the tax bennies are). So capital gains are gonna get paid eventually. Yes?
There have been a bunch of proposals to go after this in the past. Taxing gains at death before transfer, and dropping the carryover basis in favor of rollover basis being the two easy ones to remember. Either of these is better than taxing money that doesn't exist.
Taxing unrealized gains is taxing money that doesn't exist. This is emotionally driven nonsense.
No, it's not. You don't understand stepped up basis.
This is what is done.
1) Buy: buy an asset and have it appreciate. Say you spend $1000 on a stock and it is now worth $2000. This is $1000 in capital gains
2) Borrow: instead of selling $1000 of stock and paying capital gains tax on $1000, pledge $1000 of stock as collateral for a loan of $1000 that you can spend as you see fit
3) Die: keep holding the stock and loan until you die. Your heir can sell the stock for $2000 with no capital gains due to step-up basis rules. Look at this rule, this is what you don't understand, and I didn't understand for a long time. Using the new basis, pay off your $1000 loan, and have $1000 leftover in cash (the original value of the stock)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stepped-up_basis
Stepped up basis allows inheritors of a stock to change the basis to the value at the time a person inherits it rather than the value of it when it was originally purchased. No capital gains are paid on inherited stock.
You have spent $1000 on a stock, used $1000 of the gains to buy stuff with, and passed the original $1000 to your descendants without ever paying taxes on those gains in your lifetime. They happily go into your estate intact and with no capital gains tax due.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Skitzo said:
If we are successful we delay or defeat the pattern of Great Powers not remaining Great Powers.
What evidence is there that a nation can ever defeat the cyclical pattern of natural rise and decline of great powers?
How will our economy, whose workers demand to be paid 3-5 times as much as an equivalent Chinese person, remain competitive?
How will we deal with wealth inequality again? You guys want the nice solution of what FDR did for America in the 30s, or do you want the more likely solution resembling the French guillotine? Oh, right, no one wants either. Well history says it’s between those if you want change.
You can’t fight and defeat China forever, so it’s probably advantageous to not destroy our blood and treasure in trying to stop them from harnessing their natural advantages of population, wages, and national unity that we just don’t have.
Why not acclimatize to the idea that a multipolar world is an eventuality, and we only get to prolong what we have if we don’t destroy it all in a war?
If we’re spending 4-5 times as much on the military as China is and not able to impact them effectively, there is no winning move. We overextended. We got too comfortable. We allowed the rich to take too much. 122% debt to GDP, $1.8T deficit, $34T debt. The dollar will cease to be the reserve currency within our life times.
Only way out is for the American people to simultaneously stop infighting, accept a significant cut to current QoL (think ~40-50% reduction in salary expectation), and to gut any gov spending that doesn’t provide ROI. We can’t do that. We can barely even have a civil discussion between military officers about politics when they disagree.
That’s pragmatism.
-
The US gov already does tax unrealized gains with home valuations and property taxes. Is that unconstitutional or unethical?
What do you guys propose to do about the ultra wealthy who never cash in equity and take cash loans on their unrealized net worth? It is clearly tax evasion that is harmful to the US gov and not in line with the intent of the tax system.
Also, I hope you are being honest brokers in this debate and are aware that the changes only apply to net worths >$100M. It is likely literally never going to directly impact any of you, the middle class, the upper professional class, or anyone in your family. It is aimed at only the ultra wealthy.
Not to mention, the proposal makes these taxes prepayments for future gains. If they have future realized gains, they get to deduct previous payments.
https://taxfoundation.org/blog/biden-billionaire-tax-unrealized-capital-gains/
Now explain:
- How is this bad for the working class (my definition includes everyone from McDonalds to Anesthesiologists making $1M a year). People that have to work to live.
- What are the negatives to the economy? You won’t get trickled down on?
- What is your solution? If you don’t have a solution, why is the current state better morally or ethically?
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, gearhog said:
This made me wonder if we also have any Psyop outlets. If so, what would they be?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe/Radio_Liberty
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/cia-and-committee-free-asia-under-project-dtpillar
Interesting how Americans don’t get taught about these things. Still operating by the way.
-
17 hours ago, busdriver said:
Your retards are more retarded than my retards!
This is the actual end of the thread.
4 hours ago, FourFans said:I could also say bricks are edible, that doesn't make it true. Why do you associate Trump with evangelicals? That's a false association. Did some vote for him? Yup. Do some evangelicals also vote for Biden? Yup. That's like associating Democrats with BLM. While there is a connection, it's tenuous at best and therefore inappropriate in any rational debate. Put down the paint roller and pick up the detail brush.
We're addressing the argument that evangelicals voted for Trump, right? You're saying that it's made up. Embrace the facts homie.
White evangelical protestants voted republican 6 times more often than they voted democrat. Catholics 5 to 4. LDS 3 to 1. Do you want more evidence of this stupid ass claim that you are denying for no reason? By the way, these are rational, cogent arguments based on data, so stop with the BS about the connection being "tenuous at best" and inappropriate in "rational debate." You're making yourself look intentionally obtuse.
Also, you CAN very easily say that democrats support BLM. That is backed by data. In 2023, 84% of dems support it. Only 17% of republicans do. What is wrong with you saying this? This is a RATIONAL argument.
16 hours ago, ViperMan said:The difference on the board between R's and D's is that the R's are willing to call out and name their retards. The D's defend their retards and/or don't recognize that they're retarted. That's the difference on this board. It plays out on a larger scale as well.
Doubt. Here i'll respond to this appeal to emotion right here! I hope this atones for "our" sins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance
Congressman Hank Johnson on Guam tipping over - how is this person in charge
Democrat saying the moon is made of gas - this person should lose their job permanently
Ilhan Omar on Israel Palestine - wtf
Extreme leftists on LGBTQIA transgender issues that don't matter - stupid AF and not important
Extreme leftists on welfare or UBI for no reason with no plan - fuck off
Nancy Pelosi engaging in obviously unethical stock trading - let's figure out what crime this is
Joe Biden losing his mind due to dementia - please for the love of god give me a new candidate, but you better believe that I will also call out Trump for being senile
Biden mishandling classified documents - investigate
Clinton mishandling classified - investigate
Political appointees in the IC playing divisive political games in 2016-2020 - this is fucked
Is there anyone else you want "us" to call out specifically so that you can feel like we are more fair? Did we miss some required condemnation thread? Please send a flyer next time.
To end this pointless defense of the indefensible (that there isn't as much difference between basic, non-extreme, R's and D's as this R-focused echo-chamber that is baseops likes to believe), have I missed the R's on this board being critical of R politicians making seditious comments (just quoted), the assault on the capitol on Jan 6 done by republican fringes, or the minimization of Trump's classified mishandling/financial crimes? It's whataboutism at its finest, there is no moral high ground brochacho, it's literally just your feelings. Pathos arguments work well I guess when you don't have a logos or ethos argument.
Also, mods need to move to move this thread to the squadron bar. This is stupid AF to have a political circlejerk on the main page that some random UPT student is going to come across as they're looking for info about flying in the Air Force.
-
There’s absolutely an argument. Marjorie Taylor Greene says states should “consider seceding from the union”
Why don’t we just agree both sides are terrible and divisive? Because your identity is tied into a made up reductionist construct of a political party?
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, HeloDude said:
You’re dreaming man. And not just on the Republican side, but I’d say mostly on the Democrat side—the left could easily pass a bill in the Senate that says federal law protects abortion up until 4 months but then it’s against the law to do it afterwards. But that’s not what the left wants—their entire argument is “it should be left up to a woman and her (abortion) doctor”…which means zero bans.
Oh, a brain dead take on political issues on base ops. Who would have guessed.
You (specifically) can’t help but make false equivalencies and invalid broad generalizations, which you demonstrate literally every single day you post here.
The truth is that Americans support way more nuance in this discussion than your backwards reductionist views. The majority of Americans do not support abortion past 24 weeks. Only 19% of Americans believe abortion should be legal with no strings attached. Oh that’s against the narrative you’re stating?
Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/
A lot of people think that it should be allowed in extreme cases beyond an arbitrary time stamp (guaranteed non viability, extremely high risk of death, fetus is almost guaranteed dead). This is not the same as when you try to insinuate democrats support anyone - for any reason as flippant as they just don’t feel like it - should be able to get a third trimester abortion. THATS AN EXTREME VIEW DEMOCRATS DONT EVEN SUPPORT. But it’s in talk radio. You’ve been propagandized. You have to know this, right? But I guess you couldn’t win this argument without bending reality or convincing yourself of some slightly flawed logic.Finally, you guys are wrong about the potential of this to be perceived as just a states rights issue. This is a big deal. To the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, this was a fundamental attack on Women’s and men’s rights to plan their families. That’s how the majority of Americans (and a supermajority of Democrats) feel, and the longer you try to pretend it’s just a legal battle or was justified via some federalist debate, the longer you lose. Just telling you the truth. Here’s a graph showing how republicans are actively losing the support of independents across the country. 57 to 41, that’s not even close.
Now that we’ve had a good time debunking the logical basis of your arguments, let’s go to the emotional way you’re losing this debate (and with it, the American people’s support):
Go ahead and explain why does it affect your poor Christian family if another family that you have never interacted with gets an abortion 2 cities over? Get out of people’s lives. Also, are you suddenly okay with it if it’s just across state borders? Choose a side. If you’re gonna play the pathos argument and then go straight to a legal logos you just sound disingenuous. Which you are. But you sound like it, too.
Oh, and is it really a states right thing? Or is it an overreaching control over everyone thing? Why is Texas trying to inhibit the ability for federal citizens to go to states that align with their views to enjoy the freedoms of those states?
Shit like that is what Republicans laugh about. It’s what the rest of Americans are terrified of. That’s a disadvantage for y’all, sorry.
-
1
-
2
-
-
20 hours ago, ClearedHot said:
Agree, but tough to control in our society where freedom of the press it literally the very first amendment in our Constitution. I can tell you we do NOT put the government in charge like uncle Joe tried to do with the crazy show tunes singing bitch. It would be great if the press would actually act like the fourth estate and did their job...too much to ask I know.
Maybe that’s how you fix it then. Codify ethnical and legal standards for media. Maybe make a journalists oath similar to the hippocratic oath. I am sure you could do that in a non biased way if we could just get our heads out of our asses.
And yes, that means potential limitations of lying or being close to lying on the freedom of the press. And before anyone says that’s unconstitutional, it’s not. We have limitations on almost every right we have (hate speech, over sexualized content, regular citizens can’t have nukes, etc.). The US has to have a serious talk about how the Information Age is making us vulnerable to being controlled by foreign entities.
-
19 hours ago, HeloDude said:
So a self proclaimed leftist, who originally said that what we were seeing at the colleges was from extremely small groups, but being hyped up by the conservative media, is now saying that the leftists supporting Hamas is a problem…at the universities ran by leftists who are largely supporting these students…who are getting their disinformation from leftists groups (TikToc or otherwise). And finally he also supports the government implementing some kind of new regulations to add additional control over the information (I’m sure as long as it’s done by leftists).
Here’s a thought—how about we hold people accountable for their own actions? If the universities believe these students are exhibiting unacceptable behavior, then kick them out…so let me know when all these students are removed from campuses.
You really can’t handle having a big boy discussion without bringing in political labels (that are wrong), can you? Nothing I said was political, but you have to bring it back to some super dumb take. Literally you just can’t fathom that we have similarity between our views. MAGA bro.
-
1
-
-
Israel and the West, specifically the US, are hardcore losing the info war. Seeing some of these high school and college age idiots supporting hamas simply because they are being inundated by TikTok propaganda makes me think we actually should do something.
Susceptibility to disinformation is a legitimate vulnerability of democratic societies. How do you fix that?
-
7 hours ago, RegularJoe said:
I agree with your statement, however this is where I have issue with the people living in Gaza. Hamas oppressed you as residents = agreed / Israel is bombing and destroying your homes and towns because Hamas is imbeded inside your homes, hospitals, stores etc... You cannot convince me that the residents there "don't know who Hamas players are", then for the sake of your families, town, wellbeing kill those motherf*ckers. If the Palestinians as a people would literally kill these hoodlums hiding in thier towns then bombs wouldn't be falling from above.
If this was happening here, we as residents would be stacking bodies faster than the military to keep ordinance off our heads. At some point they can't be victims and do nothing about it.
Real “I’m a tough guy” vibes flowing. Half of Gazas population is under 18 and 70% are 29 or younger. You’re effectively asking blunted, uneducated, young people with no resources - who grew up surrounded by a cult and have been oppressed their whole lives - to just take it into their hands to have an epiphany and “kill the hoodlums.” Oh, it’s also impossible for regular citizens to get weapons, the “hoodlums” are actual savage terrorists, and if you kill them you’ll be likely labeled a terrorist yourself when the narrative is convenient (see the Kurds).
I’m sure you’re also appalled by all the Texans who know there are drug dealers crossing the border - whose drugs make it deep into America - and those Texans don’t “just kill” those “motherf*ckers.” There are a lot of useless 15 year olds in Texas, tell ya what.
-
Just want to point out that folks like you are why alternative viewpoints don’t engage, and why this place has gently flowed back into being the echo chamber it’s always been.
Here’s a pretty comprehensive view of why people believe that Israel is still oppressing Palestine, although I know this will be dismissed for no logical reason:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MDE1551412022ENGLISH.pdf
Want to be clear, I don’t support Hamas or anyone who does. You seem to be getting your parties in a wad, but you don’t even understand why.-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, BashiChuni said:
JFC dude are you serious? have you seen the pro hamas demonstrations breaking out all across college campuses and major cities?
There are extreme leftists that are supporting small scale demonstrations that conservative media are significantly overblowing to play on YOUR (specifically) feelings and keep up the narrative that we are mortal enemies and diametrically opposed.
Even Ocasio-Cortez condemned the demonstrations supporting Palestine.
My point was that he wasn’t going to find someone on this forum that is pro Hamas’s actions. Because it’s a very rare viewpoint right now, including democrats or liberals. Everyone I know is fucking sickened.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, HeloDude said:
The only support for Hamas and the Palestinians is coming from the left, correct? Let me know if you need some examples…or does highlighting the worst of a group only work when the left does it to the right?
I think it’s dumb to apply viewpoints hyperbolically both directions.
I think you’ll find that the views you’re so riled up about are not as well held as you think. Even Ocasio-Cortez condemned the Palestinian support protests - one of the most “leftist” people you irrationally despise.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna119687
I think that Rep. Tlaib and Bush are morons and wrong. They are capitalizing on human loss to get political points. Honestly, they’re sickening.Simultaneously, I think the Harvard students who released a letter are technically correct, albeit still wrong about when to talk about this - Israel has contributed to Israel-Palestine instability via effectively running an apartheid state. But it doesn’t excuse terrorist acts.
I honestly see how f’d politics is from a Palestinian perspective, and I think you can too. US, EU, and Israel all deciding to admire the problem that Palestinians were effectively living in a penal colony for the last few decades contributed to this occurring. I also see how Palestine are morons and didn’t accept multiple potential compromises over the last 40 years.
-
2
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, HeloDude said:
Side note—where are our resident leftists on this forum? Aren’t they all about democracies being able to defend themselves when attacked? Or does this just apply to when Russia is the aggressor?
Hi, so called “leftist” Ron Burgundy here. If you think that anyone who is slightly liberal supports Hamas, I think you’re confused.
As CH said, kill them all. Painfully, preferably. (I’d also like to take this moment to reiterate that no one on this forum is a leftist, your views and biases are so skewed though that I’ll be your huckleberry)
Let’s pretend you were looking for nuanced viewpoints. A total war against Palestine is gonna be counterproductive. You’re gonna create more terrorists and Arab nations that are united against Israel - not less. We saw this with the resurgence of Al Qaeda and ISIS. I’m sure you learned this in your service.
Getting drawn into the total war trap will be analogous to how the US overcommitted into the Middle East in 2001/2003, resulting in basically the degradation of our own empire and supremacy over the last 20 years for basically nothing! Hamas/Iran WANT this response. Now ask “why?” History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes. It wouldn’t be the first time civilized nations with very capable militaries are defeated because they didn’t understand the enemy’s centers of gravity (spoiler: it’s not in the people of Palestine).
Israel must avoid being emotional, just like we should have in the early 2000s. Now, can they conduct a surgical campaign to kill a bunch of terrorists and save their folks, while simultaneously backing out quickly enough to maintain foreign relations and not destroy their economy? Time will tell. What is not tenable? Another united Arab states war that drives Israel to be a lone island reliant on the U.S.
Or, alternatively, I guess you could argue Islam and Judaism/Christianity aren’t compatible. Crusades circa 2024? Glass em all!
-
1 hour ago, Biff_T said:
The whole country is being held hostage to both parties' incompetence. They are all corrupt peices of shit at the Federal and State Levels. Prove me wrong lol. I wish this was a joke because the American government is the best stand up comedy act to exist to date on planet Earth. Once again, the country is worse than when G W took office. Shit Im a Gen Xer and Im going to say it was better in 80s under Reagan (I was playing with G I Joes and listening to Warrant back then but my dad could afford to feed us and buy a house on a plumber's salary) doesn't appear to be getting any better. Why? Because we keep pretending to believe our votes matter and that the people in charge aren't corrupt.
How do you fix this without a fuck ton of pain?
If your metric for whether or not things are good is “are they better than the 80s, 90s, or 2000s,” I’ve got bad news for you. America’s extremely rare 60-year global unipolar dominance and being able to benefit from the rest of the world blowing its infrastructure up during WWII is over.
There are actually a lot of arguments that being an American in 2019 or 2007 represents the best average life circumstances humans will experience for a long time. Good evidence that being a boomer or a gen x in America = best life humans have ever had, and will maintain that status for the next few generations. See Principles of a Changing World Order by Ray Dalio.
Quantitative easing by both parties, immense overspending by both parties, collosal defense and policy failures in the Middle East wars, a lack of focus on infrastructure or investment, and real great power competition equals worse times for the foreseeable future. There is no easy way out, and no political agenda that will just magically fix it.
-
3
-
The Next President is...
in Squadron Bar
Posted · Edited by Negatory
Yep. $20T actually.
Explain very clearly how this plan reduces deficits or improves our economic situation. It’s apparently very simple for you to see, so you can just demonstrate your basic financial knowledge to explain how decreasing “income” while not substantially decreasing “expenses” is going to save us.
Cleared hot to use a 5 year time scale or a 10 year timescale. You’re a genius on this and I just really need to get your understanding in my brain because it is so simple.
For the record I don’t disagree with cutting entitlements and have never said anything like that. Sure, cut the ones that make sense (I wouldn’t cut kids food though, which is what is happening). Money you have = intakes - outtakes. Decreasing intakes to benefit the wealthy seems to be a very questionable decision.