Print

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

[Naturegirl1999]

Of course it is.

I dont really want to go back into the topic prior, but escaping from seemingly inescapable mental traps requires re-evaluating why you decide things, and being honest about them.


The people with the resources to really study the biases and 'group decision dynamics' of whole populaces are governments, and their respective leaders. And they most certainly do. Specifically to manipulate.

Again, the thing with biden and the kid kissing; This is a pretty clear cut example of both contending power groups twisting the public's decision knobs as hard as they can.


I dunno. What I am trying to say is, if you let them control your thinking for you, you are robbed of your agency. Keeping you just at the edge, and unable to move, but still empowering their networks of control, is exactly where governments want their populaces. If you want things to change, you have to change the narrative, and rob them of that control over you.

Thank you for this, I regret that my question turned into an argument. I just wondered why politicians do a certain action. Thinking about why you think the things you think can lead to new thoughts you’ve never had before

It's OK, it's not your fault.  I legitimately DO have a problem with being an officious asshole. I accept this. It's something I need to work on.

I really do need to work on better delivery.

You’re not alone in this, in person my tone can be harsh which makes it sound like I’m mad all the time

Back to American Politics, have the debates shed any light on the lesser known candidates?

[wierd]

Well, there was the twitterbomb from one of the democratic candidates that exposed her secret life as a crystal healing whackadoo... so, I guess?

(specifically, I mean the debates caused increased interest in her as a candidate, which then prompted people to search her twitter feeds.)

[sluissa]

Harris wasn't the most "lesser known" out there. But she definitely drew some attention she didn't have before.

That debate wasn't really enough to give us much insight into what a candidate might actually do as president though. Personally, I was mostly judging them on their balance of being willing to take time to speak where they could but also not being an asshole and overdoing it.

Harris really pushed the envelope on overdoing it, but I think she would have to in order to get ahead of where she was. Probably worked out for her.

Warren on the other hand, also not really lesser known got a chance to show a side of herself that people don't normally get to see. After all the fox news bad mouthing of her as well as the weird attempts at social media-ing... she actually looked like a reasonable choice up on that stage. She was probably already as low as she could conceivably go without betraying her political stances and from there, a well answered question did a lot to assuage people of the fear that she might be some sort of unelectable robot.

Almost everyone else either died on stage or stagnated to the point where a few more months will kill them off.

I do have a problem with the expectations people have of a president though. A lot of what candidates promise still has to go through congress. They're all guilty of these promises that exceed their expected resources and powers, but at the same time, people continue to believe that a president can just get these things done on their own "if they try hard enough."

[Naturegirl1999]

Harris wasn't the most "lesser known" out there. But she definitely drew some attention she didn't have before.

That debate wasn't really enough to give us much insight into what a candidate might actually do as president though. Personally, I was mostly judging them on their balance of being willing to take time to speak where they could but also not being an asshole and overdoing it.

Harris really pushed the envelope on overdoing it, but I think she would have to in order to get ahead of where she was. Probably worked out for her.

Warren on the other hand, also not really lesser known got a chance to show a side of herself that people don't normally get to see. After all the fox news bad mouthing of her as well as the weird attempts at social media-ing... she actually looked like a reasonable choice up on that stage. She was probably already as low as she could conceivably go without betraying her political stances and from there, a well answered question did a lot to assuage people of the fear that she might be some sort of unelectable robot.

Almost everyone else either died on stage or stagnated to the point where a few more months will kill them off.

I do have a problem with the expectations people have of a president though. A lot of what candidates promise still has to go through congress. They're all guilty of these promises that exceed their expected resources and powers, but at the same time, people continue to believe that a president can just get these things done on their own "if they try hard enough."

It would be amazing if this much attention was given to Congress, considering the fact that they are the ones who can actually DO these kinds of things, question, why don’t we say we are at war when we are literally sending troops to areas and bombing other areas? Maybe the laws we have need to be enforced on Congress as well

[wierd]

As a member state of the UN, we are obligated to perform "Peacekeeping actions."

This distinction enables the US to engage in "joint activities" with the cooperation of other member nations-- which is basically what the US has been doing with its meddling in the middle east (at the request of the Saudi government, and pals) and with its enforcement of UN sanctions and nuclear non-proliferation mandates.

the US has also been using those obligated operations for its own gain, at the same time.
(recent example-- the bullshit Trump has been doing with the Iranian nuclear deal, which is blowing up spectacularly, and will likely result in some very real spectacular, actual explosions, in the near future.)

This kind of blatantly obvious malfeasance has been going on for so long, that I don't think our politicians know any other way to act in the world stage.


The world really is better off without every tinpot in the world having nukes.
The world really is better off without yearly wars going on in underdeveloped nations, fighting holy wars over ideology.

But the would really WOULD be better off, without the US (and other large powers) abusing those actions for direct, tangible quid pro quo, and using them as a cover to install puppet dictators, and usurp actual democratic processes in other nations that have resources the US is interested in.


This is basically fear mongering on my part now-- But the number of "mutual aggression" pacts the world has put together strongly resembles the hotbed of cray-cray that was the powderkeg that initiated the first world war.  Just without kings and kingdoms, and replaced with more elected governments and international unions. All it would take is for Russia to sign a mutual aggression pact with Iran, and then for the US to continue having to intervene there on the behest of Saudi Arabia, over claimed drone strikes and nuclear threats, and boom, shit would get fucking real.

[Lord Shonus]

This is basically fear mongering on my part now-- But the number of "mutual aggression" pacts the world has put together strongly resembles the hotbed of cray-cray that was the powderkeg that initiated the first world war.  Just without kings and kingdoms, and replaced with more elected governments and international unions. All it would take is for Russia to sign a mutual aggression pact with Iran, and then for the US to continue having to intervene there on the behest of Saudi Arabia, over claimed drone strikes and nuclear threats, and boom, shit would get fucking real.

The "great big accident" theory of WWI (which posits that the conflict was a result of lockstep alliances that triggered each other in a failure cascade) overlooks the fact that most of the Powers in Europe wanted a war. The major alliance systems were closer to "opening moves" designed to ensure a Short Victorious War. That fundamental desire to solve disputes with armed conflict (along with most of the disputes in question) simply aren't present in the Europe of today.

[wierd]

I did not say identical, just resembles.

And there are quite a few voices in important cabinets that want war with Iran, and Russia has not minced words about such actions either. (Putin was pretty damn clear about his position on the US installing missile batteries and other deployments in Saudi arabia and pals, which would be necessary to conduct the kinds of campaigns those hotheads want against Iran.)

[sluissa]

“War has changed. It's no longer about nations, ideologies, or ethnicity. It's an endless series of proxy battles, fought by mercenaries and machines. War--and it's consumption of life--has become a well-oiled machine. War has changed.
(...)
Genetic control, information control, emotion control, battlefield control…everything is monitored and kept under control. War…has changed. The age of deterrence has become the age of control, all in the name of averting catastrophe from weapons of mass destruction, and he who controls the battlefield, controls history. War…has changed. When the battlefield is under total control, war becomes routine.”

Strip out the nanomachines and giant robots, and the situation we're in resembles a 10 year old video game plotline. Not identical... but resembles.

We're just a few years too late and a couple of cyborg ninjas short of being in a Hideo Kojima story.

[MrRoboto75]

“War has changed. It's no longer about nations, ideologies, or ethnicity. It's an endless series of proxy battles, fought by mercenaries and machines. War--and it's consumption of life--has become a well-oiled machine. War has changed.
(...)
Genetic control, information control, emotion control, battlefield control…everything is monitored and kept under control. War…has changed. The age of deterrence has become the age of control, all in the name of averting catastrophe from weapons of mass destruction, and he who controls the battlefield, controls history. War…has changed. When the battlefield is under total control, war becomes routine.”

Strip out the nanomachines and giant robots, and the situation we're in resembles a 10 year old video game plotline. Not identical... but resembles.

We're just a few years too late and a couple of cyborg ninjas short of being in a Hideo Kojima story.

MGS2/MGR:R was annoyingly accurate as well.

[smjjames]

Well, there was the twitterbomb from one of the democratic candidates that exposed her secret life as a crystal healing whackadoo... so, I guess?

(specifically, I mean the debates caused increased interest in her as a candidate, which then prompted people to search her twitter feeds.)

Well, it was never actually a secret, just didn't have the exposure it does now. Honestly though, whackadoodleness aside, she does make some good points and the policy stuff on her page, while clearly tinged with the hippie side, are more clearly articulated than when she did on stage.

She'd probably be better in an activist role though than a political role. Also, she made it into the second set of debates later this month.

This is basically fear mongering on my part now-- But the number of "mutual aggression" pacts the world has put together strongly resembles the hotbed of cray-cray that was the powderkeg that initiated the first world war.  Just without kings and kingdoms, and replaced with more elected governments and international unions. All it would take is for Russia to sign a mutual aggression pact with Iran, and then for the US to continue having to intervene there on the behest of Saudi Arabia, over claimed drone strikes and nuclear threats, and boom, shit would get fucking real.

The "great big accident" theory of WWI (which posits that the conflict was a result of lockstep alliances that triggered each other in a failure cascade) overlooks the fact that most of the Powers in Europe wanted a war. The major alliance systems were closer to "opening moves" designed to ensure a Short Victorious War. That fundamental desire to solve disputes with armed conflict (along with most of the disputes in question) simply aren't present in the Europe of today.

Even if they were itching for war, they certainly weren't looking for the bloodbath that was WWI. The cascade of alliances was still key to how WWI got started though, and there was a good deal of Great Power gaming going on too.

“War has changed. It's no longer about nations, ideologies, or ethnicity. It's an endless series of proxy battles, fought by mercenaries and machines. War--and it's consumption of life--has become a well-oiled machine. War has changed.
(...)
Genetic control, information control, emotion control, battlefield control…everything is monitored and kept under control. War…has changed. The age of deterrence has become the age of control, all in the name of averting catastrophe from weapons of mass destruction, and he who controls the battlefield, controls history. War…has changed. When the battlefield is under total control, war becomes routine.”

Strip out the nanomachines and giant robots, and the situation we're in resembles a 10 year old video game plotline. Not identical... but resembles.

We're just a few years too late and a couple of cyborg ninjas short of being in a Hideo Kojima story.

What's also changed is that the world is returning to the multipolar Great Power dynamics that existed centuries before the 20th and is becoming more global rather than Eurocentric. Or at least is starting to resemble it as there is still a strong pro-US and anti-US pole.

[Naturegirl1999]

The problem now is figuring whether anyone is willing to try to stop the cycle of wars
Those that say they will are probably lying to get votes, but will just continue as it always had. Everyone wants the world, no matter how many of their citizens die. Smaller nations will get conquered by larger ones, larger nations, meanwhile, split from within, those smaller new nations, now fighting for power. It seems human history is a cycle of wars, since killing is easier than negotiations in the eyes of many leaders, few mention their wants for peace, for war is seen as glorious expansion of the country. Those who speak against it are traitors, criminals, heretics, executed for criticizing the great nation. The train of war continues on, powered by greed. The cars of the train constantly change, the passengers trapped inside, fueling the machine. It’s sad to know, but don’t have the power to change it, not alone, change requires groups. What can we do to change our country’s obsession with war, it’s. Justification for causing millions of deaths?

[Teneb]

The problem now is figuring whether anyone is willing to try to stop the cycle of wars
Those that say they will are probably lying to get votes, but will just continue as it always had. Everyone wants the world, no matter how many of their citizens die. Smaller nations will get conquered by larger ones, larger nations, meanwhile, split from within, those smaller new nations, now fighting for power. It seems human history is a cycle of wars, since killing is easier than negotiations in the eyes of many leaders, few mention their wants for peace, for war is seen as glorious expansion of the country. Those who speak against it are traitors, criminals, heretics, executed for criticizing the great nation. The train of war continues on, powered by greed. The cars of the train constantly change, the passengers trapped inside, fueling the machine. It’s sad to know, but don’t have the power to change it, not alone, change requires groups. What can we do to change our country’s obsession with war, it’s. Justification for causing millions of deaths?

The thing is that the US economy (not to mention its whole damn culture) depends on there being war. It's pretty much what has kept the US from crashing quite a few times (Gulf War 1 comes to mind as an example). So whomever finally decides to put a stop to that? Going to have to be able to also rework the entire US economy, plus culture.

[wierd]

The problem with the US, and war, is that a significant portion of our economy revolves around the military industrial complex.  We are talking entire cities' populations here, that are employed by BOEING, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and pals.

With no wars to fight, there is no market for weapons, and thus no work.  This is lethal to state economies, and dangerous to the national economy. People who are so employed, will vote to stay being employed.  Senators will go for the pork without fail.

The result-- War mongering USA.

Throw into that mix, the effects of climate change and post-peak oil pricing, with the expected demands of US citizens in the face of the actual costs of the goods and services they consume recklessly, and you have a pretty volatile mixture, held aloft by crony diplomacy, hegemony by violence, and "war is peace".


To fix the US, we have to downsize the military industrial complex, and promote replacement industries to employ those that get let go. There are many actors all around that actively work to prevent that outcome.

And NINJA'd

[Naturegirl1999]

I hate the fact that I live in a country powered by bloodshed.

Are there any candidates attempting any of this?
In a few years, we might n,it be allowed to talk about things like this. I wish I could do something

[smjjames]

The other problem though is that you not only have to stop the spiral happening here, you have to stop or at least slow down the spiral THAT spiral is perpetuating. The thing is that if we vacate an area, that leaves a power vacuum and theres no allies that can fill the vacuum in the way that we can. If the EU had it's own military, it would be pretty equivalent to the US and would be able to fill in the vacuum to some extent.

What I'm trying to say is that the problem isn't just the culture and attitude and everything here, it's the post cold war status quo that has to be dealt with as well. Changing that status quo means destabilization and could actually lead to more war. Changing attitudes is a start, but we've been doing it for so long that theres all these secondary, teritary, quadrinary, septary, etc effects that have to be dealt with.

Probably the only way to truly end war is to have one global government (if the EU looks hard to do, a world government would be even harder, though the UN is one step in the general direction) or to have everybody at equal power or something.

I hate the fact that I live in a country powered by bloodshed.

Are there any candidates attempting any of this?
In a few years, we might n,it be allowed to talk about things like this. I wish I could do something

Not sure why we might not be allowed to talk about things like that in a few years. As for the candidates, there is a general movement towards less warmongery, but we have allies that depend on the warmongery, so, it's pretty hard to withdraw in that kind of status quo without destabilizing everything.

I guess doing the tough love like Trump is doing, just without the assholyness, might help since allies depending less on us for military would help feel better about withdrawing if it gets them to boost up their own forces.