Print

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

[Wolfhunter107]

The problem is also that the protection of Japan is in exchange for Japan not having a standing military. Similar shit with Germany. "If you countries ever go imperial again then we know we're completely fucked, so, uh, we'll just protect you instead, okay?"

We already have a deal there. Saying "Pay us or we remove our troops" is contrary to the reason for those troops being there, which is occupation.

Last time I checked, both Japan and Germany had militaries. Granted, Japan's is a strictly defensive force, and the Germans have been gutting theirs for a while now, but they both exist.

Edit: Occupation ended a long, long time ago. Our guys are there because their militaries, if it came to a shooting war, would likely be unable to defend themselves without our help.

[Loud Whispers]

 

The problem is also that the protection of Japan is in exchange for Japan not having a standing military. Constitutionally. "This country no longer possesses the power of war." Similar (but less sealed-in-stone-and-blood) shit with Germany. "If you countries ever go imperial again then we know we're completely fucked, so, uh, we'll just protect you instead, okay?" "Hey, Japan, no nuclear weapons for you, but we'll keep you under our shield in case China or Korea ever tries something."

We already have a deal there. Saying "Pay us or we remove our troops" is contrary to the reason for those troops being there, which is occupation. If we leave, then we lose influence in those territories and Japan has a very rational reason to change constitution and start stockpiling arms again.

Of course, that's the plan. The USA is already overextended and Barack Obama has already set the shift in NATO to stop being a game of "America pls lift" and is demanding that dependent nations start pulling their own weight because the USA is not living in a world of undisputed power anymore and needs to sort out inefficiencies in its military already.
Also there are plenty of ways to rearm yourself without violating constitutional constraints, Germany can just keep their paramilitary police and found their military arm on the European level with EUFOR and Japan can just continue building their "not carriers" which just so happen to be flat topped warships which can carry planes

Pure coincidence

[mainiac]

It's not really a protection racket if you simply say pay us or we stop protecting you from an external treat. IMO those countries should just be glad that the US is pulling out anyway and just refuse the deal, it's not exactly a threat.

Not exactly a threat?  Russian troops are literally inside Ukraine right now.  The North Korean government does not recognize the right of the South Korean government to exist.  American support intrinsically affects these situations, just like Soviet support kept the US from bombing China in 1951 least the commies decide to invade west Germany.

I agree as much as the next guy that American efforts around the world are a mixed bag.  But that doesn't mean that you could massively upend global security without consequences.

Clearly not what I'm talking about.

Well then what you are talking about is pretty silly.  You can't say "they do nothing important" and then say you aren't talking about whether or not the government shuts down because you are talking about other, less important things.

[chaoticag]

I know we still have bases in the middle east in countries where we have some dicey relations, but at the same time, I haven't even heard a grumble about shutting them down.

I don't think there's any US air bases down here in Dubai/UAE, but we have some US airforce planes stationed in Al Dhafra Air Base, so far no one is complaining. I wouldn't know about Kuwait or Jordan or anything though. Haven't asked anyone from around there, and I haven't been meeting as many people from there lately.

[Vector]

Edit: Occupation ended a long, long time ago. Our guys are there because their militaries, if it came to a shooting war, would likely be unable to defend themselves without our help.

Yeah. What I'm trying to say is that the point of that is partially by design. I don't mean literally "occupying," (even though folks on Okinawa do feel that way), I mean that the troops are there because the military is weak because we said "dudes, keep it weak in exchange for our troops being there."

[Loud Whispers]

Not exactly a threat?  Russian troops are literally inside Ukraine right now.

Nah m8 they're totally native self defence forces

The North Korean government does not recognize the right of the South Korean government to exist.

It also cannot launch a military campaign against South Korea
Maybe start some shit

Nah the big thing the USA is there for is to keep China's historical claims from rolling all over the seas it shares with its maritime neighbours

American support intrinsically affects these situations, just like Soviet support kept the US from bombing China in 1951 least the commies decide to invade west Germany.

Also Israel

[Ibid Straydrink]

It's not really a protection racket if you simply say pay us or we stop protecting you from an external treat. IMO those countries should just be glad that the US is pulling out anyway and just refuse the deal, it's not exactly a threat.

Not exactly a threat?  Russian troops are literally inside Ukraine right now.  The North Korean government does not recognize the right of the South Korean government to exist.  American support intrinsically affects these situations, just like Soviet support kept the US from bombing China in 1951 least the commies decide to invade west Germany.

I agree as much as the next guy that American efforts around the world are a mixed bag.  But that doesn't mean that you could massively upend global security without consequences.

Clearly not what I'm talking about.

Well then what you are talking about is pretty silly.  You can't say "they do nothing important" and then say you aren't talking about whether or not the government shuts down because you are talking about other, less important things.

Perhaps I communicated poorly. What I am referring to is the partisan tug-o-war on certain issues, wherein one administration or congress promotes and sees a bill shot down and another ratified, only to have that outcome reversed by the next. By adding a third, overlapping political influence, I feel that it would necessarily establish a more contiguous legislative and even judicial trend.

[Frumple]

So what is the Hitler point, exactly, if it's not to defame someone with specious insinuations that bear no relation to reality?

To note that he's been directly proposing actions that are straight up identical to how the nazi party treated jews? That's really most of the point. It's about treatment of a minority, not treatment of jews specifically. We could talk about whether that's a bad thing, I guess, but I'd like to think most folks here can recognize why it's a problem...

[mainiac]

He's gone fairly in-depth on his economic plans, though yeah, things like healthcare and VA issues could do with some more detail, and I expect to see it elaborated on as we approach the general election.

We literally dont even approximately know what his position on trade is.  That is something so basic that for a normal candidate it's not even a question.  Trump is proposing somewhere between 0% to 35% import duties of all US imports.  We are talking about somewhere between "status quo" and "biggest disruption to the global economy in 100 years".  That is not fairly in depth.  That is he has no position.

Perhaps I communicated poorly. What I am referring to is the partisan tug-o-war on certain issues, wherein one administration or congress promotes and sees a bill shot down and another ratified, only to have that outcome reversed by the next. By adding a third, overlapping political influence, I feel that it would necessarily establish a more contiguous legislative and even judicial trend.

How does this actually happen? Nancy Pelosi is going to accept the same vague promises on healthcare that Mitt Romney made if Trump makes them?  Mitch McConnell spent years raging against Obamacare but if Sanders advocates an even bigger expansion of federal power McConnell will be okay with it?

These disagreements exist for reasons.

[Reelya]

For the Soros stuff, literally every link was from some Tea Party level "news" outlet. All of them point back to the unfounded accusations by Orban, the president of Hungary that Soros is behind the migrant crisis. Orban is a straight up fascist however: he has said that he rejects the tenets of liberal democracy as being central to the state. Most of his ministers are from the ex-communist dictatorship era. The same one Soros helped to overthrow many years ago.

You can read this breitbart expose:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/02/soros-admits-involvement-in-migrant-crisis-national-borders-are-the-obstacle/

The only evidence of Soros' wrongdoing is that he gives aid to some human rights organizations that are pro-refugee. Non-Government Organizations, which Soros aids, don't control border policies however, and there's absolutely zero evidence cited of Soros bribing anyone who could actually change these laws, e.g. politicians or political parties. So, no, there is no evidence of Soros masterminding any weakening of borders.

[sluissa]

So what is the Hitler point, exactly, if it's not to defame someone with specious insinuations that bear no relation to reality?

To note that he's been directly proposing actions that are straight up identical to how the nazi party treated jews? That's really most of the point. It's about treatment of a minority, not treatment of jews specifically. We could talk about whether that's a bad thing, I guess, but I'd like to think most folks here can recognize why it's a problem...

He's following the same playbook with broad strokes. He's a charismatic grand stander, he's suggesting that America is hurting (and needs to be made great again) and in the same speech laying the blame of that hurt at the feet of minorities specifically targeting race and religion and suggesting that if we just got rid of all of these people, we'd be great again.

He's also taking liberties with what, exactly, he'd be able to do as President, and Hitler wasn't one for taking little things like written laws and traditions as an insurmountable barrier when he captured a bit of power. But that's also not really anything unusual. Presidential candidates promise a lot of things they can't do.

So these are just ways in which his actions and words are similar to Hitler's actions and words. They don't guarantee that he'll be Hitler, invade Poland, commit Genocide or invoke a new age in laws protecting animals. But it's something to take into consideration with the bigger picture and like it or not, they are part of reality.

[Dorsidwarf]

Which actions has he proposed that are identical to how the Nazis treated Jews?

"We need a national database of muslims"
I'm pretty sure he said something about making them wear ID badges.

His constant vilification and dehumanisation of mexican illegals and by proxy legal hispanics.

His suggestion to deport several million people (and of course, the years-long manhunt to identify them involving tens of thousands of armed officers or the National Guard) to a country which will refuse point-blank to take them.

Nobody except a loonie is suggesting he's going to grow a silly mustache and start goose-stepping, that's a strawman. Drawing a parallel with the actions of the Nazis is not saying "He is identical in every way to one of the most evil political insitutions known to mankind". It's just saying "That's uncomfortably close to how some incredibly horrifying things got started at a time of similar popular opinion and similar rhetoric".

[Bauglir]

i don't think anybody actually expects literal hitler, but there are possibly good reasons to think that letting a nominally right-wing populist, with xenophobic policy proposals, no political experience, and a groundswell of support from the folks who think the government ought to mandate family values and stuff but are angry about everything else it does, get power won't work out much better for us this time

of course, there are also important differences - a hypothetical president trump would actually have won an election, for example, instead of worming his way into power through backroom deals and mere violence, and would be coopting a party and its ideology instead of forging one. likewise, i don't think we have any reason to expect any sort of lebensraum shenanigans - his imperial designs are more based on tribute than on conquest, after all. and he doesn't seem to be too into eugenics.

but obviously the point of a comparison isn't to say "this is going to be literally the same, i hope you stocked up on swastikly paraphernalia", it's to say "maybe we should think about whether this is going to be similar in some important ways"

[Lord Shonus]

The North Korean government does not recognize the right of the South Korean government to exist.

It also cannot launch a military campaign against South Korea

Wrong. It is very unlikely that North Korea could win a war against South Korea even without the US backing the latter, but they have more than enough military strength to launch one and make one hell of a nasty fight out of it, particularly if they've managed to miniaturize their nuclear weapons enough to make them deliverable. With SK alone, it is possible, although improbable, that Kim would decide that a political crisis in the ROK or a severe chilling of Chinese relations with the West would enable a reunification by force. With the US in the picture, not only is there zero chance of NK winning, there's no chance of the hypothetical war resulting in anything except a ROK conquest of the DPRK. Simply having greater strength alone is not enough to act as a deterrent (or, for that matter, ensure military victory - Israel was the weaker power by a large margin in the Six Day War), you have to be seen by the potential enemy to possess overwhelming power.

[Descan]

By adding a third, overlapping political influence, I feel that it would necessarily establish a more contiguous legislative and even judicial trend.

I don't know why people keep bringing this up, as if it would even work.

The problem with the American system is that, because for the most part it's winner-take-all first-past-the-post percentage based, any third party would mean the party most opposite to them would always win. If you have 51% of the vote one time, and 49% of the vote the next time, and it keeps switching back and forth every election, then what happens if a party that's very similar to you (like Democrats compared to Green party) gets 5-10% of the vote? Or worse, 25+%?

Then that makes you got between 25 to 45% of the vote, the republicans can get maybe 45-49% of the vote (I'm sure some people would go from republican to green, but their bases aren't exactly 100% overlapping, yeah?) and then the Republicans win. And the next time, greens take from democrat party, republicans get under 50%, and win again. And again. And again.

Unless and until the American system starts switching over to proportional, where (for example) the House of Representatives are based on percentages in the entire state rather than who gets the plurality in a single district, then this will keep happening. Eventually, as people get fed up with never having a say in government and pivot so that everyone votes on the same party instead of splitting the vote, the system will re-stabilize on either the Democrat/Republican two-party system again, or Green-Republican two-party system again, but either way, the third party will wither and die back to the point where it no longer acts as a spoiler to their closer ideological ally. 

tl;dr it is literally impossible for a third party to become viable in America, unless and until structural changes to the voting system are made, and saying "man it would be great if we added a third party" is completely ignoring this