ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
I support Bernie and Warren definitely. First time we've had truly progressive politics in the conversation in decades. ..

The staggering cost of Elizabeth Warren’s plans: $4.2 trillion per year.

Elizabeth Warren has a plan for everything. Some of those plans are expensive. With Warren emerging as a front-runner in the Democratic presidential contest, Yahoo Finance tallied the cost of her plans.

Altogether, the Massachusetts senator’s agenda would require $4.2 trillion per year in new federal spending, and a like amount in new taxes, if she paid for everything without issuing new debt. The federal government currently spends about $4.4 trillion per year, so Warren’s plans would nearly double federal spending
.......

Adios señora.
 
So wc...if it were up to you we'd still be in Vietnam?

Curious to know if you can explain why we were there? What was our objective and what threat was Vietnam to the US? Was it worth your life or the lives of any US soldiers?

I guess you considered Nixon to be anti-American...or did you not follow the 1968 Presidential election? How about Trump? ...i mean I know you think Bill Clinton was but he and Trump were in the same boat when it came to this issue.

Once a war begins you pretty well lose control of when it ends...especially when it is on someone else's soil. The Vietnamese people had been at war for nearly 100 years not even counting their wars with China. They had been losing all of the "major battles" for the entirety of that time. They kept fighting and making the French, the Japanese, the Thai, the Chinese and Americans all continue to pay a price for occupying their land. Their history indicates that they would fight another 100 years. How many American lives was it worth? Winning wars is easy, winning peace...not so much. That is reality.

You don't win the peace, that's how you get in situations like Syria, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany after WW1. A war isn't simply between two opposing military's, the civilian population's will to fight or oppose must also be broken. Trying to win the peace ends up costing more American soldiers lives than necessary.
War is awful and brutal, it should be the last resort. The point of it is for the enemy populace to fear you enough that the thought of opposing you isn't worth it. See Japan and Germany after WWII, the South after the civil War.
 
The staggering cost of Elizabeth Warren’s plans: $4.2 trillion per year.

Elizabeth Warren has a plan for everything. Some of those plans are expensive. With Warren emerging as a front-runner in the Democratic presidential contest, Yahoo Finance tallied the cost of her plans.

Altogether, the Massachusetts senator’s agenda would require $4.2 trillion per year in new federal spending, and a like amount in new taxes, if she paid for everything without issuing new debt. The federal government currently spends about $4.4 trillion per year, so Warren’s plans would nearly double federal spending
.......

Adios señora.
Hmmm...the amount that we currently spend on healthcare. Where do you think the $4.2T already being spent would go if her plan was implemented? Did you honestly think that everyone would get to pocket the premiums, co-pays, etc currently being spent?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ed323232
Many on this board dispute that very thing. Climate change is debated constantly here. Whether or not it’s happening and whether or not it’s man-made both. Not just what we should about it. The left and right are having a debate about the problem, not the solution.

** News Flash from the 'Hold them accountable' Department. **

China now burns more coal than all other countries combined: 1907m tonnes vs 1864m tonnes.

73103455_968701496795992_266116637516627968_n.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: warrior-cat
You don't win the peace, that's how you get in situations like Syria, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany after WW1. A war isn't simply between two opposing military's, the civilian population's will to fight or oppose must also be broken. Trying to win the peace ends up costing more American soldiers lives than necessary.
War is awful and brutal, it should be the last resort. The point of it is for the enemy populace to fear you enough that the thought of opposing you isn't worth it. See Japan and Germany after WWII, the South after the civil War.
Bill, winning the peace means that the opposing forces give up the fight.

A civilization or culture that has never known anything but war might be willing to fight for eternity. In the course of history there have been at least 8 wars that lasted > 500 years. Unless you're willing to exterminate a civilization then war may be a test of willpower more than military power. If you think differently then I'd just tell you to go brush up on your history, it's pretty well documented. The US didn't win the American Revolution because we had a stronger military...we won because we had a better reason to fight.

For every Germany, every Confederacy, even Japan post WWII there's Ottoman Empire that remained at war for over 600 years...there's an Arab - Israeli conflict that seems to have no end. Afghanistan has been in constant war since 1978...we have been there 18 years.

To appreciate peace you have to know peace. If war/conflict is all you have ever known and the end of one conflict only signals the beginning of another then what incentive do you have to surrender? That is how much of the 3rd world lives. Not much different than life on the African Sahara. Always trying to eat and not be eaten. Because you ate today doesn't guarantee you will eat tomorrow or that you won't meet up with some force stronger than yourself.

In your defense you know little about that kind of life. Your mindset is that there is some limit of suffering that anyone is willing to endure that isn't beyond your ability to dish out. On the other hand what are the limits that you would defend your home? I don't know that life either but I'm well enough read to know that it exists.

BTW, Germany post WWI was kind of our own doing. Europe thought it needed to punish Germany for WWI. The terms of surrender under the Treaty of Versailles economically devastated the Germany. That's exactly what created the conditions that allowed Hitler to rise to power and take over. We took a 180 degree approach to Germany post WWII. We helped them back on their feet and helped them rebuild. We did the same with Japan.
 
So wc...if it were up to you we'd still be in Vietnam?

Curious to know if you can explain why we were there? What was our objective and what threat was Vietnam to the US? Was it worth your life or the lives of any US soldiers?

I guess you considered Nixon to be anti-American...or did you not follow the 1968 Presidential election? How about Trump? ...i mean I know you think Bill Clinton was but he and Trump were in the same boat when it came to this issue.

Once a war begins you pretty well lose control of when it ends...especially when it is on someone else's soil. The Vietnamese people had been at war for nearly 100 years not even counting their wars with China. They had been losing all of the "major battles" for the entirety of that time. They kept fighting and making the French, the Japanese, the Thai, the Chinese and Americans all continue to pay a price for occupying their land. Their history indicates that they would fight another 100 years. How many American lives was it worth? Winning wars is easy, winning peace...not so much. That is reality.
Never said anything of the sort. Simply stated that we won the major battles and the politicians lost the war. Like normal, you lefties inject what you want into the post to twist it they way you want it to be. Sound familiar. Adam Schiff taught you well.

So you are OK with Trump pulling out of Syria right? I am.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT