Trump Regime thread.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

The United States like all of those other empires has accomplished some great things but they didn't do those things with armies...unless you count killing and subjugating people as a great thing. Why can't we after what? 6 thousand years of civilization do something different.

Dude, you often start strong in a debate, and then go way to far and fuck it all up. No good things ? How about freeing a Country from a tyrant to be able to govern themselves? Or should I tell black people their freedom isn't really a good thing? What about telling the Jews that stopping the Holocaust wasn't all that great...

 

 

My god man, it's crazy how you start off so rational, and then go Uber lib and say super dumb shit lol. Of course, I say this with all of the hetero, manly, not gay love in the world that you can have for an internet person.

Edited March 16, 2018 by Omerta

[seanbrock 1,684]

Let's also not forget who put Saddam in power in the first place. We wouldn't have needed to use our military to depose Saddam if we didn't put him into power. I mean, yeah the English are partly to blame. Iraq probably should have never been a country but still. It's pretty hard for me to believe that we "liberated" Iraq for the Iraqi people just based off our history. I fully believe that 90%+ of the actual people in the military wanted to help and had the best of intentions.

 

You're also right about the Nazi's but don't forget that there was a STRONG contingency of people, some of whom were in positions of political power and many of whom like Ford were titans of the business world, in this country that loved Hitler. Goebbels and Hitler both had great admiration for the American propaganda machine. (We kind of stole our ideas from Prussia and German thinkers anyway)

 

You are right though, our military was responsible for saving a lot of people's freedom so maybe some of my statements were rash but that was one of the few wars where the United States military was used the way it should be. In self defense/need and approved by congress after vigorous debate. Sometimes war is necessary but how many wars have been fought for freedom and justice vs. money and power. There's an old saying "war is old men sending young men to die." It's been around for a long time for a reason.

Edited March 16, 2018 by seanbrock

[OSUViking 505]

WW2 was a HUGE opportunity for the US with almost no conceivable consequence outside of financial and human life loss. The Axis were going to lose. The US did what it needed to in order to secure it's hegemony in the West and parts of the Far East. Roosevelt was itching to be able to get into the war.

 

The war was justified, but protecting other's freedom wasn't the only main objective of the war.

[Thanatos 2,847]

The Axis were going to lose? Without US involvement? That is a bold claim indeed. I don't think its a true one either. I think if the Allies lost either Great Britain or the US, they would have been in the losing position.

 

Now perhaps Hitler's betrayal of Russia doomed the Axis anyway, but without US involvement I don't know if GB holds out long enough for Hitler not to conquer them first. Plus, if the US doesn't intervene, at all, your most likely scenario is Russia taking all of Germany and also probably all of Japan. It's one of the understated reasons why Truman decided to drop the A-bomb, because Russia was massing north of Japan and clearly about to invade.

[seanbrock 1,684]

If the plot to overthrow FDR had worked the United States may well have been PART of the Axis. There was a plot to overthrow FDR and the government too. That is a conspiracy, not a conspiracy theory. Scary part is that Prescott Bush may have been involved in it. As I'm sure the people that read this thread know, he's the father and grandfather of 2 former presidents. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Dude, you often start strong in a debate, and then go way to far and fuck it all up. No good things ? How about freeing a Country from a tyrant to be able to govern themselves? Or should I tell black people their freedom isn't really a good thing? What about telling the Jews that stopping the Holocaust wasn't all that great...

 

 

My god man, it's crazy how you start off so rational, and then go Uber lib and say super dumb shit lol. Of course, I say this with all of the hetero, manly, not gay love in the world that you can have for an internet person.

 

Here is the thing with that train of thought though... There are tyrants all over the world to this day. How do we go about saying we need to free a country from an evil ruler but let the same thing happen in some African nation? We killed Saddam more than a decade ago, yet we are still in THAT war and not playing freedom fighters elsewhere with these other horrible people.

 

In reality, we have been farming the Middle East for decades. The Gulf War, The Iran-Iraq War, our Iraq War, etc etc. Heck, we openly supported Saddam for much of that time. If we killed Saddam just because we were fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people and just for that -- you are going to have to explain why we told Saddam to invade Iran with our permission and why we gave him BILLIONS to do it.

 

People being freed from a dictator is great, and it makes for a great story on CNN and FOX news to rally sheep and our good military people.

 

[OSUViking 505]

The Axis were going to lose? Without US involvement? That is a bold claim indeed. I don't think its a true one either. I think if the Allies lost either Great Britain or the US, they would have been in the losing position.

 

Now perhaps Hitler's betrayal of Russia doomed the Axis anyway, but without US involvement I don't know if GB holds out long enough for Hitler not to conquer them first. Plus, if the US doesn't intervene, at all, your most likely scenario is Russia taking all of Germany and also probably all of Japan. It's one of the understated reasons why Truman decided to drop the A-bomb, because Russia was massing north of Japan and clearly about to invade.

 

Germany and the USSR were going to fight regardless of US involvement or not. Germany was pretty much always going to lose that fight, because the US was heavily involved even when it wasn't officially in the war. They engaged German submarines in the Atlantic and the Lend-Lease program provided crucial supplies on both European fronts. It was advantageous for the US to take a leading role in the war, because afterwards Europe was so devastated that it basically took the mantle of Western civilization with zero resistance.

 

There was absolutely no chance that Germany could have occupied the UK. It's not even a hypothetical possibility. They were relying on collected river barges for Operation Sea Lion, and the British still had naval supremacy in the Channel.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion#Landing_craft

 

The Axis never had the capability to match Allied mass production and manpower, especially when the US kicked into full gear and the USSR revived some of its industry east of the Urals. I've read a few opinions that said MAYBE the Germans could have reached Moscow before fall mud/winter set in, if they didn't have to save the Italians in the Balkans. It's still all speculative. They'd have to face more manpower, more industry, and inferior logistics.

 

The US played an instrumental role in ending the war as soon as it did, as did the rest of the Allies (particularly the USSR in Europe). However, it was most likely always going to end up with Axis defeat. The USSR would have dominated Europe, certainly. Japan's fate I'm more uncertain about, but I think with the USSR fresh off Germany they could pummel Japan's mainland Asia force quite easily. I'm not sure about their amphibious capabilities.

Edited March 16, 2018 by OSUViking

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Here is the thing with that train of thought though... There are tyrants all over the world to this day. How do we go about saying we need to free a country from an evil ruler but let the same thing happen in some African nation? We killed Saddam more than a decade ago, yet we are still in THAT war and not playing freedom fighters elsewhere with these other horrible people.

 

In reality, we have been farming the Middle East for decades. The Gulf War, The Iran-Iraq War, our Iraq War, etc etc. Heck, we openly supported Saddam for much of that time. If we killed Saddam just because we were fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people and just for that -- you are going to have to explain why we told Saddam to invade Iran with our permission and why we gave him BILLIONS to do it.

 

People being freed from a dictator is great, and it makes for a great story on CNN and FOX news to rally sheep and our good military people.

 

I mean fair point, but I was talking about the revolutionary war and the American Revolution. I am in no way saying Iraq is better off because there is really no way to measure that.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Was the American Revolution fought for freedom? Whose freedom? Even that is HIGHLY debatable and our founding fathers shouldn't be deified either. Some of them were great but some were definitely assholes. If you go back and read some of the arguments in the Federalist Papers they're pretty shocking and that's excluding the debates they had about slavery.

Edited March 16, 2018 by seanbrock

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Come on, of course it was fought for freedom. Obviously the whole taxation without representation is a big thing, however when you let that bear itself out, it's still about freedom. The Colonials were getting tired of being told how to govern, and not being allowed to govern themselves, and the taxes that were levied we're not going to help build the infrastructure around them, it was the enrichment of a monarch. And when you ask who's Freedom, how silly is that? Yours, my wife, my daughter's, my sons, my father's, my mother's, the members who contribute to this site, I hope that is a sufficient answer.

 

Then let's talk about how some of them weren't the nicest of guys, I'm not sure that can be argued. However, are you saying that because somewhere bad people that the intentions of the good people, in the merits of the American Revolution are now invalid because of a few people? If that's what you're saying, then no war of independence, and no war for freedom from oppression from anyone ever, was a good thing. As soon as I can awful Stone stands to take when you consider that just about every war from oppression, or every war for even a good thing, had people Empower where the protagonists were not necessarily good people. This is starting to get silly.

[seanbrock 1,684]

It was fought for freedom in some respects, I agree but I think to say that it was fought for freedom is an oversimplification of a very complicated war just like it would be an over simplification to say that most of the leaders of the revolution really just wanted to keep more of their money and have more opportunity to make more money. They're both half of the truth (admittedly the second part is probably less than half but still). When I ask whose freedom they were fighting for, it's a valid question because originally only white land owners could vote in this country, women couldn't, blacks were legally considered 3/5 of a person etc. There were a lot of people over the years who fought and died and were jailed to expand those rights for everyone.

 

I was merely saying that it's important to see the whole picture (not that I always do. I'm only human and I don't read nearly as much as I should lol). I don't think that the American Revolution was invalid but to think it was fought for purely altruistic purposes is extremely and I would argue, dangerously naive and very short sighted.

Edited March 16, 2018 by seanbrock

[seanbrock 1,684]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/worldviews/wp/2016/12/13/what-is-the-russian-order-of-friendship-and-why-does-trumps-pick-for-secretary-of-state-have-one/

 

Remember this? Weird isn't it? Funny how this isn't brought up AT ALL. Which is it?

 

WE'RE BEING LIED TO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited March 18, 2018 by seanbrock

[Thanatos 2,847]

Guys its not brought up AT ALL. *Links to large media outpost doing exactly that.*

[seanbrock 1,684]

Check the date on the article, bud. Now that Trump is clearly doing Putin's work by firing Tillerson, it's just kind of funny how everyone in the news was saying how Trump picked Tillerson because Putin last year but nobody talks about that.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Check the date on the article, bud. Now that Trump is clearly doing Putin's work by firing Tillerson, it's just kind of funny how everyone in the news was saying how Trump picked Tillerson because Putin last year but nobody talks about that.

It fit the narrative at the time. It isnt convenient to talk about how they were wrong before . Lol

[Thanatos 2,847]

Check the date on the article, bud. Now that Trump is clearly doing Putin's work by firing Tillerson, it's just kind of funny how everyone in the news was saying how Trump picked Tillerson because Putin last year but nobody talks about that.

 

Because Tillerson had ties to Russia, like half of Trump's picks. Tillerson dared to speak out against Russia and said they were behind the poisoning of the UK spy and then a day later he's fired.

 

It doesn't make Tillerson a good person, nor does it make Trump right for hiring him in the first place.

 

You realize you can fire the right person for the wrong reasons, yes? You also realize two bad people can not like each other?

Edited March 18, 2018 by Thanatos

[seanbrock 1,684]

In light of the new school shooting which I'm pretty much just numb to at this point I just have some questions on "gun control." If we ban certain kinds of guns can we ever really get rid of them? We tried banning alcohol, we tried a war on drugs, both supposedly in the name of "safety" and I think it's safe to say that they resulted in way less safety. Would cornering the market on manufacturing illegal guns be a possible boon to organized crime? Would it result in there being unsafe, undocumented guns that are highly dangerous on the streets? Just like you can manufacture and illegally import drugs and alcohol, you can do that with guns. It already happens of course but would it happen more? The principles of supply and demand as I understand them seem to indicate to me anyway that there will be somebody to step in and fill that demand for a great profit.

 

Again, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I don't give a fuck about guns. I don't own a gun and I have no desire to own a gun. In fact I think it's illegal for me to have one anyway. I don't think we can fight the government with guns and I also don't think you need anything more than a shotty or a basic pistol to defend yourself unless you Tony Montana or some shit and you have the cartels coming after you. I'm just not convinced that banning certain guns makes anyone safer. I do also think it's pretty ludicrous to believe that having a bunch of people armed in a mass shooting situation is a good thing. How do you know who to shoot? Can everyone that has a gun handle a situation like that? It's a whole hell of a lot different than shooting a gun on a range.

 

Basically I'm sick of people creating these straw man arguments on both sides and not moving the discussion forward at all. All that's being done is both sides are just repeating the same points over and over.

Edited March 20, 2018 by seanbrock

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Yeah thats always been of the biggest things about gun control for me. There is historical precedent that says that probably just isnt going to work that well.

 

But just like drugs we arent very pragmatic in our attempts at solutions. Looking at drugs, making them this indefinite evil that is strictly taboo and nothing else isnt the best way to approach the situation.

 

For example, Switzerland used to be a bustling drug enterprise of Europe. These days ? They are one of the best and cleanest countries in the world. I cant remember the statistic but since they changed their mindset about drugs they have seen a dramatic shift in culture in less than a quarter century. Under their heroin program? I believe there have been 0 overdoses in like 15 years. Its ridiculous and almost impossible to fathom but its happening.

 

I am not saying Switzerlands exact situation or solution would 100% work here... but when they stated those programs they werent looked upon very favorably. And now look at them.

 

Thats why I just kind of laughed (in a sad kind of way) at Trump up there the other day taking on opioids. Basically taking the drug war and cranking it to 11. Shit hasnt worked for decades and the problem largely gets worse. I dont understand how people or Trump himself thinks this is going to work.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Yeah, I mean obviously guns are very different from drugs and alcohol so that line of thinking could be off base but why does it never get brought up. Surely you and I aren't the only ones who have thought of this. It's not a revolutionary concept.

 

I can't help but think this is one of those issues that the powers that be don't want to be solved. At the very least the narrative is being controlled to the point where logical conversation about this subject is almost impossible.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I am not saying either of you, but people who blame guns are fucking retarded imo. I just can't get there in my mind. How is this the guns fault. If it isn't the guns fault, then why fix a problem that isn't there? Columbine happened in the middle of an assault weapon ban. Before pulse the deadliest mass shooting was carried out with pistols. This whole disingenious bullshit throws me for a loop.

 

 

I still think that David Hogg kid is a pandering shithead. I find the other students far more genuine. I think that kid is a puppet.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Yeah, I mean obviously guns are very different from drugs and alcohol so that line of thinking could be off base but why does it never get brought up. Surely you and I aren't the only ones who have thought of this. It's not a revolutionary concept.

 

I can't help but think this is one of those issues that the powers that be don't want to be solved. At the very least the narrative is being controlled to the point where logical conversation about this subject is almost impossible.

 

Oh yeah.. I am not saying it's entirely apples to apples. And with the gun culture in America it makes us wayyyyy different than anywhere else in the world.

 

All I am saying is that it wouldn't hurt to change the way we approach these "problems". Think about them differently, change the stigmata. And what do we have to lose -- shit ain't exactly getting better on any of the above right now. lol

[seanbrock 1,684]

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/378678-mattis-warns-senate-against-ending-support-for-war-in-yemen-report

 

Somebody needs to tell Mattis to shut up because he just keeps telling the truth. This time he's doing it unintentionally but still lol

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

That spending bill tho

[seanbrock 1,684]

Who the fuck knows what the money is spent on too. Just because it says scholarships for Lebanon, doesn't even mean it's being spent on scholarships for Lebanon.

[Thanatos 2,847]

The House and Senate just overwhelmingly passed a bill that is supposedly directed at stopping sex trafficking on the web, but the language in the bill is extremely worrying. It seems like it could easily be used to go after websites whenever their content is misused by people to do something illegal, and it further seems like this was actually the primary purpose of the bill.