Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (democratic socialist) wins NY primary

[DasJazz]

My comment about the mainstream media was in reference to your response in a different thread to a post of mine saying that I'm brainwashed by CNN or some such nonsense. I can find it if that's important.

The use of the military is very much connected to the budget. I would rather see a majority of the money taken from the military, while significantly reducing its size and scope, and diverted elsewhere. I'm not that concerned with public healthcare or other expanded social programs (altho I do think many would be worthwhile ideas to try), and would like the money going to the military to go to other industries that have nothing to do with American power projection. I lean toward redirecting the money to massive infrastructure projects that would push technology forward the way military industries do, while providing good jobs and high, yet sustainable, GDP growth. If we're going to keep that much money invested in defense, then we should use it to develop actually useful defensive capabilities, like improved cybersecurity (but I can think of a lot else!).

And that's a discussion I'd love to have and I appreciate the thoughts and don't necessarily disagree. Again, I am under no illusions that money can be better spent, but I don't know if right now is the right time to necessarily divert the funds when we have an extremely ageing fleet/aircraft/etc among many other things in the military. I think we need to be able to modernize our military equipment more (namely the things I mentioned), before we can scale back the funding. I do think there needs to be legitimate oversight (No bias if that's even possible!) of how the monies in all industries including the military is spent.

 

[Stoked]

Yes, they are, I've lived it first hand thanks, but I'm not here to argue the point.

That is a management decision made by the military. Not a $ issue. The military has seen funding increase by over 200 billion in the time period you mentioned. It’s simply being spent elsewhere.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

I haven't heard or read a coherent argument for cutting military spending yet. It's always the same old nonsense full of cherry picked stats and no context. I've heard it as far back as I can remember, always from people with no real world insight or an agenda.

It sounds cute to the masses like all good populist propaganda does. "Deficit", "Imperialism", "MIC", "waste", "big oil CONSPIRACY!!!" and my favorite "endless war" (duh, this is humanity we are talking about).

 

[Hekate]

He just repeats what he hears on Fox. They've been talking about how underfunded the military is for years. I mean it's slightly less than the rest of the world combined! Shameful. Lower taxes, and divert all existing taxes to the military.

People deserve Trump.

We have been saying that for Tayyip and we have been stuck with for 16 years. It sucks.

 

[Gameface]

I haven't heard or read a coherent argument for cutting military spending yet. It's always the same old nonsense full of cherry picked stats and no context. I've heard it as far back as I can remember, always from people with no real world insight or an agenda.

It sounds cute to the masses like all good populist propaganda does. "Deficit", "Imperialism", "MIC", "waste", "big oil CONSPIRACY!!!" and my favorite "endless war" (duh, this is humanity we are talking about).

You're saying that the U.S. outspending the next several nations combined is the only rational thing to do? There's no argument to be made for limiting our spending so that we can only kick everyone's *** all at once instead of being able to kick everyone and their brother's *** all at once?

My favorite way to describe U.S. military dominance is this: The biggest air force in the the world is the U.S. Air Force, the second biggest air force in the world is the U.S. Navy. I don't know, but I'd put money on the U.S. Marines being in the top 10.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

You're saying that the U.S. outspending the next several nations combined is the only rational thing to do?

Did I offer an opinion on that either way? Pidgeonholing foreign policy like that is obviously stupid. We don't and have never done so.

Are you making an anti-unilateral argument against what many consider our current approach to internationalism? If so, why are you against Trump's NATO agenda? Unless you are an isolationist (err, neo-isolationist), any US drawdown would necessitate buildup from allies.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Oh, and I think Iraq-Afghanistan fatigue and Crimea prove we don't have the strength to simply "kick everyone and their brother's *** all at once". It seems plenty obvious that power and influence can only be stretched so far or thin.

Is there any evidence that we can simply mow over whoever we want? We pick our battlegrounds pretty carefully.

 

[Gameface]

Oh, and I think Iraq-Afghanistan fatigue and Crimea prove we don't have the strength to simply "kick everyone and their brother's *** all at once". It seems plenty obvious that power and influence can only be stretched so far or thin.

Is there any evidence that we can simply mow over whoever we want? We pick our battlegrounds pretty carefully.

We can break anything we want to break. Military force is not an all-powerful thing. It is a destructive capability. We have the ability to break more of our enemies toys than they can break of ours.

When military capability is used for other purposes fatigue is certainly an issue. Just like using a screwdriver as a pry bar. It works, but you should have used a ****ing pry bar, because your screwdriver is now pretty ****ed up and the work you did looks like ***.

 

[gandalfe]

The one place I can think of where black men provably had it better than white women was that they were technically able to vote sooner - although Jim Crow and other such laws made it unfeasible until the 60's and early 70's.

 

[Stoked]

Oh, and I think Iraq-Afghanistan fatigue and Crimea prove we don't have the strength to simply "kick everyone and their brother's *** all at once". It seems plenty obvious that power and influence can only be stretched so far or thin.

Is there any evidence that we can simply mow over whoever we want? We pick our battlegrounds pretty carefully.

I disagree. The Iarq and Afghan wars are immensely different than “everyone at once”. While in Iraq and Afghanistan we still have forces at home, in Germany, S. China Sea, Diego Garcia, Guantanamo...

Bring everyone against us and we pull everything home and the gloves would come off. We’d have millions sign up and the production means to supply and train them.

On a side tangent, @Siro mentioned cyber security and infrastructure. That’s a huge back door into the US now. It should be a priority to renew roads, bridges, ports, power plants, railways, nuclear plants, take all power and internet lines underground...

Just imagine how much 200$ billion could get done. Go state by state if you need to. Whatever.

 

[Siro]

Did I offer an opinion on that either way? Pidgeonholing foreign policy like that is obviously stupid. We don't and have never done so.

Are you making an anti-unilateral argument against what many consider our current approach to internationalism? If so, why are you against Trump's NATO agenda? Unless you are an isolationist (err, neo-isolationist), any US drawdown would necessitate buildup from allies.

Well, I am in support of Trump's anti-NATO agenda. It's the only thing about him that I like. Let the Europeans take care of themselves. As for "this is just how humanity is" comment; the US is the only developed country that is continuously engaged in war. Arm and train the mujahideen in Afghanistan, then engage them in a decades long war. Destabilize Iraq in the name of democracy, then spend a couple of decades fighting the Islamists that filled the void. Over and over. It's absurd.

There are no serious military threats to the US. There's no amount of money that would make war with Russia anything less than a mass extinction event, and thus out of the question. There is no justification for spending a trillion dollar on a fighter jet that doesn't work. It is ****ing absurd.

 

[Deleted member 848]

The one place I can think of where black men provably had it better than white women was that they were technically able to vote sooner - although Jim Crow and other such laws made it unfeasible until the 60's and early 70's.

The very suffragette movement of the United States was also incredibly anti-black.