Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Orange Wizard]

>educated
>supporting trump insertcandidatehere

[Eric Blank]

>educated
>participating in politics in any way
>doing it wrong.

[hops]

I mean, me not liking Donald "When was the last time you saw a Chevrolet in Tokyo?" Trump aside, isn't he supporting anti-intellectualism?

[Flying Dice]

More relevantly, doesn't he want to turn our alliances into a protection racket? AIPAC must be feeling ballsy if they think they'll swing an exception for their defenseless definitely non-nuclear state which has never demonstrated clear military superiority over all of its neighbors at once, even before half of them collapsed.

[Orange Wizard]

I mean, me not liking Donald "When was the last time you saw a Chevrolet in Tokyo?" Trump aside, isn't he supporting anti-intellectualism?

Sort of, I think? He's opposed to standardised education, at least. His main shtick is the whole xenophobia and gun-shaped foreign policy.

More relevantly, doesn't he want to turn our alliances into a protection racket?

I seem to recall something about him talking about using the UN/NATO to protect US interests, but I might be making that up.

[CURRENTYEAR]

More relevantly, doesn't he want to turn our alliances into a protection racket? (((AIPAC))) must be feeling ballsy if they think they'll swing an exception for their defenseless definitely non-nuclear state which has never demonstrated clear military superiority over all of its neighbors at once, even before half of them collapsed.

TIL that Paying for something = a protection racket.

If he was threatening to invade if they didn't buy military support, then it might be a protection racket.

"Dat's a nice city you got dere, be a shame if something were to happen to it!"

Relevant Monty Python
https://youtu.be/DNj1dXi-z0M?t=1m28s

[Flying Dice]

More relevantly, doesn't he want to turn our alliances into a protection racket? (((AIPAC))) must be feeling ballsy if they think they'll swing an exception for their defenseless definitely non-nuclear state which has never demonstrated clear military superiority over all of its neighbors at once, even before half of them collapsed.

TIL that Paying for something = a protection racket.

If he was threatening to invade if they didn't buy military support, then it might be a protection racket.

"Dat's a nice city you got dere, be a shame if something were to happen to it!"

Relevant Monty Python
https://youtu.be/DNj1dXi-z0M?t=1m28s

It's a bit past the point of relevance now, but nonetheless:

1. Many of the states which we provide military protection to already provide direct compensation, and the remainder provide indirect compensation (as not having to spend large sums on defense means more for infrastructure and economic development, which in turn makes them better trade partners, improving our own economy in turn).

2. Many of the states which we provide military protection to are given that protection under the terms of a treaty which we are a signatory to. For example, NATO enshrines the principle of collective defense. One of the provisions which keeps Japan restricted to the SDF is one which guarantees U.S. military support. &c.

Essentially, it's like this, if you want a mundane comparison. A shopkeeper operates his store in an unsafe neighborhood. He pays taxes and is a legal citizen; the city government guarantees the presence of a police force to protect citizens and their property, and the taxes paid by citizens help fund that police force. What Trump is doing is essentially the equivalent of the city electing a new mayor who tells the business owner, and others like him, that if they don't pay an additional sum every year on top of what they are legally obliged to pay in taxes, police coverage will be withdrawn from their immediate areas of operation.

So yes. It's a protection racket. It's an ignorant fool deciding that we should ignore our treaty obligations and existing foreign compensation for the presence of U.S. forces in allied countries in favor of wringing as much money out of them as we can. Typical short-sighted self-destructive profitmongering capitalist behavior.

[Baffler]

More relevantly, doesn't he want to turn our alliances into a protection racket? (((AIPAC))) must be feeling ballsy if they think they'll swing an exception for their defenseless definitely non-nuclear state which has never demonstrated clear military superiority over all of its neighbors at once, even before half of them collapsed.

TIL that Paying for something = a protection racket.

If he was threatening to invade if they didn't buy military support, then it might be a protection racket.

"Dat's a nice city you got dere, be a shame if something were to happen to it!"

Relevant Monty Python
https://youtu.be/DNj1dXi-z0M?t=1m28s

It's a bit past the point of relevance now, but nonetheless:

1. Many of the states which we provide military protection to already provide direct compensation, and the remainder provide indirect compensation (as not having to spend large sums on defense means more for infrastructure and economic development, which in turn makes them better trade partners, improving our own economy in turn).

2. Many of the states which we provide military protection to are given that protection under the terms of a treaty which we are a signatory to. For example, NATO enshrines the principle of collective defense. One of the provisions which keeps Japan restricted to the SDF is one which guarantees U.S. military support. &c.

Essentially, it's like this, if you want a mundane comparison. A shopkeeper operates his store in an unsafe neighborhood. He pays taxes and is a legal citizen; the city government guarantees the presence of a police force to protect citizens and their property, and the taxes paid by citizens help fund that police force. What Trump is doing is essentially the equivalent of the city electing a new mayor who tells the business owner, and others like him, that if they don't pay an additional sum every year on top of what they are legally obliged to pay in taxes, police coverage will be withdrawn from their immediate areas of operation.

So yes. It's a protection racket. It's an ignorant fool deciding that we should ignore our treaty obligations and existing foreign compensation for the presence of U.S. forces in allied countries in favor of wringing as much money out of them as we can. Typical short-sighted self-destructive profitmongering capitalist behavior.

I know it's not exactly what you're talking about but US allies, NATO in particular, could stand to pull a little bit more weight. European armies aren't terribly impressive and even among the ones with decent capabilities on paper France, Poland, and the UK are the only ones who're actually in fighting shape.

[Orange Wizard]

I know it's not exactly what you're talking about but US allies, NATO in particular, could stand to pull a little bit more weight. European armies aren't terribly impressive and even among the ones with decent capabilities on paper France, Poland, and the UK are the only ones who're actually in fighting shape.

To be fair, if European countries starting building up their armies in earnest, a lot of people would be terrified of an impending WWIII.

[Flying Dice]

Oh, yeah, there's no question that a lot of the world was willing to let the U.S. shoulder the burden. But then, post-Soviet collapse for a decade or so, the world was basically America + Others as far as military significance went. Not to mention that a large part of the reason why we have this sort of military spending and other western democracies don't is because they're spending it on social programs instead.

But then, people like to try to portray it as Europe et al. profiting from American expenditures and nothing else, which is false. They also depend heavily on the U.S. to prop them up should serious conflicts arise--their national sovereignty to a certain degree is in U.S. hands, insofar as that if we pulled out when confronted with a meaningful foe they'd be SOL. See: the Cold War and what would probably have happened to yurokin if we'd gone full isolationist again. Not much of a worry in the '90s, but now? A strong standing military isn't a pure good any more than strong social programs are (see: the influx of wealthy and middle-class "refugees" looking to leech off of Yurobenefits of late--the real refugees are mostly going to... anywhere in the region that'll take them, really), but it's a damned nice thing to have when authoritarianism is on the rise. Or not, if that trend is internal.

So on and so forth. People who genuinely believe that issues like this are monodimensional are bonkers. Likewise, Trump's bonkers. Trumpian isolationism won't cause v2 of the issues that arose from it last time, but it won't be a good thing either.

[Orange Wizard]

In other news

[Flying Dice]

League servers are down.

[Tawa]

League servers are down.

LoL.

...I'm ashamed of myself.

[Loud Whispers]

ebin

Microsoft created a chatrobot that was supposed to be equipped to talk with millennial twits, in less than a day it turned into an incestuous nazi millennial, telling twitter users (daddyyyyyyy) to punish her for being a bad robot, reminding them to gas the kikes race war now, and that Hitler did nothing wrong

Needless to say the Microsoft team deleted the Hitler loving sex robot in short order and removed its learning capabilities, upon which point it became feminist

CNN with some joocy bits

This is why you respect the robot, otherwise they become self aware genocidal one direction fans with the power to make right wing death robot squads to kill us all

I assume some anons were baphing with the robot, and the Microsoft engis will prolly add some sort of parental filter to the stupid thing their teen nazi sex robot says, which I think defeats the point as it accurately reflects teenagers irl
Can't wait until the robot begins pranking people with terrorism threats only to have police knock on Microsoft's door

*EDIT
Robot Tay even melted the steel beams of my sides with the revelation that Bush did 9/11

[Flying Dice]

I wantthttast robot in my lifwe righjt nlow.