Syria and the "moderate rebels"

[Pali]

7 hours ago, Vaerick said:

1. Democrats and DNC leaks. They have been running the evil Russia narrative since the primaries and haven't let up. They've accused them of basically putting a Russian agent in the white house. That sounds an awful lot like the accusations that lead to a cassus belli either for a war with Russia or a coup with the whitehouse, or both.

Not a single ranking Democrat has suggested war with Russia or a coup against Trump, or even pushed for simple impeachment at this point (with a Republican Congress, why bother?) - they have questioned his legitimacy as a result of FBI announcements of investigations into possible collusion between campaign and Russian officials combined with US intelligence agencies and private security firms concluding that Russia used targeted hacking in an attempt to influence the election, but they have at no point threatened any action beyond the legal against him.  I am no more worried that the Democrats will try to run a coup against Trump than I was worried that Republicans would try one against Obama, whose presidency many Republicans denied the legitimacy of in ways at least as vehement (and usually far more insane, such as declaring Obama a Muslim Kenyan) as the Democrats use against Trump.  Coups simply are not how business in the US gets done.

 

7 hours ago, Vaerick said:

2. China and the South China Sea. The Chinese have said in no uncertain terms that they won't let us dick around there. North Korea's programs aside, there is a great deal of heat generating from the artificial islands that have now been militarized. Now if you factor in North Korea, China isn't going to let their vassal state get wiped out by us either, and there a reason they're building aircraft carriers.

Define "dick around" - it's not like China was going to declare war on us when we were part of TPP and making a play for the region economically, and we're not going to start bombing their new island bases or other assets.  Sure, they're building carriers now - Soviet-era Kunetsov-class carriers that have a capacity of 35-50 aircraft depending on type, one active, two expected to finish construction over the next decade.  One Nimitz-class carrier has double that capacity, and we have ten of them currently active, as well as a brand new Gerald Ford-class of slightly greater capacity expected in 2020 - China is not about to establish naval dominance over the US, or come anywhere close.  China knows that perfectly well, hence why they're building the island bases.  I acknowledge that if Trump wakes up a bit crazier than normal one day and decides to bomb NK China will respond, but as dumb, ignorant, and chaotic as I think Trump is, even I am not going to waste much time worrying that he'll do that.  He's actually got a decent national security council put together now that Bannon's off it, and the strike against Syria wasn't some overly disproportionate reaction to events.

 

7 hours ago, Vaerick said:

3. Capabilities are not certainly known between competing nations, but geopolitical influence is almost directly tied to military capability(main competitors anyway), so it lends to the notion a combined force of countries not in the American Hegemony could threaten NATO nations.

Sure, if China and Russia decide to pair up against the US and Europe, we'll have a proper World War Three.  But none of those governments actually want that to happen.  We've spent the decades since WW2 consistently backing down from direct fights against the other major powers, and I don't see any reason to expect that pattern of behavior to end anytime soon.  Are there a few crazies in every government that may look forward to nuclear war?  Sure.  Are they the ones with their fingers on the buttons?  No - not in China, not in Russia, not in Europe, and as shocked as I am to see myself type this, not even Trump and his team.

[Fool_Hardy]

I believe at the time of WWII governmental powers across the globe were absolute.

Times they are changing.

Our world seems to follow a timeline not unlike the Shadow Run series, where corporate opinion currently sways government action.

Eventually we may see a WWIII, but it likely will not happen until two of the five world banks separate from the other three. JMHO.

[Vaerick]

Ebbs and flows. certain actions in Syria and China that are unacceptable to the respective powers certainly could push it that way.  And American politicians have many times suggested doing just those things. 

 

I I wouldn't have as much faith in leadership. What we have now is much more similar to wwi than wwii. The various alliances, powder keg regions turning into a powder keg world. Not to mention a dramatic change in weapons since the last world war, which is something that tends to change before new conflicts. 

Moreover what we're seeing in the media against trump is what I expect other countries have gone through when we decided it was time for regime change. Not saying trump is good but they are clearly trying to force him out, either via resignation (he won't) or impeachment.  Again I despise trump but I despise what we're watching even more. 

 

I dont pretend tend to know the absolute truths in all this  but I do know is the whole damn thing is fishy,  none of our leaders are worth trusting, and they are all owned by rich people.  None of those three facts lead to anything positive, and doubly so when a lot of the "official stories" have holes.

 

 

 

 

[Vaerick]

Also one important thing. Our politicians don't actually call for things until they're positive there won't be negative ramifications. 

 

No no what they do is ramp up propaganda and statements in the direction they want it to go and then let it simmer. 

 

For example. If say the dems say Putin is 100% attacking Clinton and trying to steal the election from her. Ok so assuming she had won, what do you think the normal human reaction to that would be? You think Hilary's gonna ask the guy who tried to cheat her out of being president if it's ok for a no fly zone? Of course not. 

Another example would be the trump Russian agent angle. If they TRULY believe trump is working for a foreign government, which would be the worst treason in the history of the country, do you think for one second they are going to handle the impeachment process in the same way as Nixon or Clinton? If trump really is a Russian spy he would start ordering deaths or bringing in outside support so that would have to be stopped....

They don't ever say what they mean  they speak the seed so it can grow on its own in the ear of the people so they have plausible deniability if shit goes wrong  

 

The republicans use the same tactics. They just have to use them less right now since they're in power. 

[Pali]

5 hours ago, Vaerick said:

If they TRULY believe trump is working for a foreign government, which would be the worst treason in the history of the country, do you think for one second they are going to handle the impeachment process in the same way as Nixon or Clinton?

I don't think that many actually think Trump is being directly employed by Russia - I certainly don't.  The issue at hand is a foreign entity meddling with our electoral process and calling into question its legitimacy, and how much if any coordination there was with the Trump campaign to do so.  Right now, they are calling for investigations and seeking that those investigations not be run by Trump stooges like Nunes.  If Trump is found by the FBI or other investigations to have committed crimes during the campaign, then he'll lose the protection of the Republican caucus and become impeachable (and then capable of being tried in criminal court).  Again, keep in mind that Republicans spent the last 8 years saying that Obama was literally destroying the country, that his presidency was illegitimate, that he was setting up death panels to kill grandpa, some even declaring him the anti-Christ - and they still didn't try to push for a coup against Satan's top agent.

5 hours ago, Vaerick said:

If say the dems say Putin is 100% attacking Clinton and trying to steal the election from her. Ok so assuming she had won, what do you think the normal human reaction to that would be? You think Hilary's gonna ask the guy who tried to cheat her out of being president if it's ok for a no fly zone? Of course not. 

Considering that was exactly her suggestion throughout the campaign, even after allegations of Russian involvement came up, yes, actually, I do.  Would she have been less likely to approach Russia in a friendly way?  Sure, and I suspect she'd have followed Obama's plan to retaliate against them in some way, likely through sanctions or espionage of our own.  Would she have decided "well, fuck the Russians, I'm going to ignore them and risk war"?  No.  She's nowhere near stupid enough to do that.

 

5 hours ago, Vaerick said:

What we have now is much more similar to wwi than wwii.

In some respects, but in crucial other areas we're not.  The glorification of war that existed in the pre-WWI era has long been abandoned.  Nations now are far less likely to go to war over an incident than they used to be, usually pursuing diplomatic or economic punishment of the violator, and the sense that national honor must be upheld is likewise nowhere near as strong as it used to be - we spent the entire Cold War with the US and Soviets mutually backing down from confrontations that a century earlier would've certainly led to fighting.  We've gotten used to peace and working through international issues diplomatically in ways that the world a century ago had not.

 

5 hours ago, Vaerick said:

none of our leaders are worth trusting, and they are all owned by rich people

And this attitude being held by too many citizens is what will destroy democracy in the end, rather than anything someone in office does.

[Vaerick]

I've seen msm straight up accuse trump of being a Manchurian candidate. Rachel Maddow for one but I know there's others. If you accept that premise as true or anything even remotely touching being backed financially by Russia that is grounds for civil war and an overthrow of the government. And that's exactly the the case the dems are trying to make. A much more potent narrative than the republicans "Obama isn't really an American" and far far more reaching in terms of accusations of treason for down the ladder folks. If it's true it is just but I doubt it. The Russia story was used for the dnc leaks too which is bs. 

 

Ultimately agree to disagree I guess lol. But I do want to touch on our leaders. The system we have has eroded democracy. Citizens unitied was simply the nail in the coffin. The fact is the vast majority of them are bought and sold. I trust Bernie sanders, tulsi Gabbard, and merkley I think it is from Oregon but that's about it. Any politician you hear using politic-speak is bought and that's most of em. I find it discouraging you would admonish such a conclusion as not to trust these snakes given the alternative is following them off a cliff. No progress is going to be made until people stop defending the shitheels in their chosen parties. And that means a no tolerance policy toward bribery, sorry I mean lobbying. Cory booker for example sells himself as a "progressive" and yet he is owned by pharma. And you know my thoughts on hrc. Not like the republicans are any better but at least they're honest about who they bend the knee to. The dems pay lip service to working class while stabbing them in the back. 

[Pali]

Maddow is not a ranking Democrat.  You will easily find people on Fox saying things just as bad or worse about Obama over the last several years, and Republicans spent last year chanting for Clinton to be locked up - hasn't happened, won't happen.  This is political rhetoric, grandstanding, and the media receiving higher ad revenues when it goes for controversial sensationalism (kinda Maddow's thing).  Frankly, I find your fears that Democrats are going to try to start a civil war to oust Trump paranoid.

 

Lobbying has gotten out of hand, no denying it, but a significant part of why it has managed to do so is diminishing civic engagement.  The US has shitty voter turnout on a consistent basis, especially in non-presidential elections, and low turnout increases the influence of moneyed interests and extremists.  The way we get crap politicians out of office is to vote them out, and if nearly every politician is labeled as shit, then few people are going to see the point of voting in the first place, and more and more will simply not bother, and the lobbyists and extremists get even stronger.  Disengaging from the system because politicians are scum will not fix it, it will only make it worse.

 

And no, Republicans and Democrats simply are not the same when it comes to the working class.  One party wants to tax rich people to provide healthcare to those who can't afford it, and the other doesn't - the other instead spent the last decade lying to the working class by promising them a fantasy where taxes would go down, premiums would go down, there would be no mandate, yet coverage and quality go up, edit: then tried to pass a bill that was largely a tax break for the super rich while calling it healthcare.  Are both parties too friendly with Wall Street?  Are both parties largely neo-liberal in their approach to economic policy?  Sure.  But the differences are real and substantial.

[Vaerick]

I'm not gonna bother point by point but the entire economic crisis from 08-now was created because bill Clinton unbuttoned the trousers of Wallstreet/banksters in order to impose the neoliberal economic system on the world. The revocation of the glass Stegal act in one stroke did more damage than most republicans can do in their best dreams. Like Cory booker selling himself as a progressive who might run as president backing pharma, And all the million examples in between of false lip service  

There are so many inherit things wrong with this system itself that the idea of repairing it is like painting a haunted collapsing mansion with foundation problems, and to ignore that the foundation is crumbling is itself a dream that keeps the shithouse going and able to corrupt more dreamers. In reality the best we could hope for is a quiet death and quick rebirth. Just like the articles of confederation and many other constitutions and governments in many places ours has outlived its lifespan. The biggest problem is said system has collectively engineered a level of ignorance that leads me to believe that it's probably going to have to get very bad before it gets better if we collectively as a species are to survive at all. 

You talk about engagement and voter participation.  People don't show up because they know it's a waste of time. Igngoring the obvious question of how do we even know the votes were counted properly (BOTH political parties have insinuated or accused of various degrees of electioneering and fraud so even the two most potent political organizations in the country don't trust the system you're asking me to trust lol), there's the raw factor that billionaires and corporations can basically outspend any decent person or group and thus will receive better representation. And the truth is there's no undoing that those people aren't just going to hand that kind of power back. We (the commoners) had to go to war to stop kings from doing that same thing. But now we have new kings and new masters who must in turn be brought to heel. 

 

[Pali]

19 minutes ago, Vaerick said:

I'm not gonna bother point by point but the entire economic crisis from 08-now was created because bill Clinton unbuttoned the trousers of Wallstreet/banksters in order to impose the neoliberal economic system on the world. The revocation of the glass Stegal act in one stroke did more damage than most republicans can do in their best dreams.

I agree - Democrats have hurt the working class badly.  That still does not mean the parties are the same now, or that they are pushing for the same policies now.

Edit: Below is how Congress at the time voted.  Note which party voted more against the Glass-Steagall repeal.  The differences between the two aren't an absolute, they are a degree, but that degree is real.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act#/media/File:Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Vote_1999.png

I find it ironic that you are afraid of the Democrats causing a civil war... when you also say that the system is irredeemable.  What is your prescription then?  Upending the system and starting from scratch would itself require a civil war.  Leaving the system alone to collapse, if that is what it's headed towards, would almost certainly result in a civil war.  Literally the only way to change the system WITHOUT a civil war is to vote, and you seem to have given up on voting, so...

[Vaerick]

I don't want it but I think that's going to be the case. I'm not blaming the democrats either. I'm blaming the oligarchs who own pieces on both sides. I blame usurers and banksters. The corruption can only go on so long. If you were a republican id focus more on them as to break the illusion that some how the lesser of two evils isn't evil  

 

Its an observation. The only the keeping the country lurching forward is the momentum of the past. I don't want it but it is what it is. Part of its the system, the people, the comfort, etc. lots to blame but it all leads to the same ends. A new kind of tyranny more similar to the Middle Ages than the fascists of the 30s. Instead of family crests of royals we have corporate logos. The game has been reset but this time the stakes are larger and the game is faster. And most people don't even see it. 

That means everything has to be fought for again. Workers rights are hollow again. Food can't be trusted again. The environment will suffer more harshly again. That's how the rich won in the end- not by undoing the laws but by eventually making the system itself irrelevant and outdated and unable to check their monsterus tendrils.  

 

Except this time it isn't a bumbling country untouched by the laurels of imperial domination with established and old sources of power. This time the number of privileged people entrenched in systems that decay us (such as fossil fuel) are much higher and wield more power than say when the constitution, epa, and all other forms of protections, that were examples of progress, were created. Progress in politics is now is a hollowed out shell and that I do blame the dems for- it was Hillary who said we'd never have universal healthcare- I wonder how much big insurance gave to her.

 

And most dangerous and insidious of all is that the concept of truth itself has been whittled away bit by bit  

 

[Pali]

3 hours ago, Vaerick said:

Progress in politics is now is a hollowed out shell and that I do blame the dems for- it was Hillary who said we'd never have universal healthcare- I wonder how much big insurance gave to her

Let's not take things out of context - she was speaking of political realities in the current political climate, that she was in favor of focusing on improving the ACA over trying to fight for single payer, which was a fight she had already tried to win as First Lady during the 90s and failed at.  She was also at the time running against Bernie Sanders, who was pushing very strongly for single-payer, and a significant part of her strategy against him was to paint herself as a pragmatist and him as an ideologue - the quote plays very nicely into that: "People who have health emergencies can't wait for us to have a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass."  Her position was work on improving the ACA rather than spend energy and political capital fighting for something that would almost certainly be DOA in Congress.  I'm not in favor of this approach, as I'd prefer we continue the fight toward single-payer, but it's not an unreasonable one given the political situation of today.

 

And let us not forget the position of the Republicans on the ACA: lie our asses off pretending we can deliver something better when we know we can't, largely because Obamacare was actually our plan from the 90s, but because Obama's proposing it we can't admit that so we have to be blindly against it to keep the base happy.

 

3 hours ago, Vaerick said:

If you were a republican id focus more on them as to break the illusion that some how the lesser of two evils isn't evil

I can work with evil.  In fact, working with evil is pretty much a daily part of life.  The lesser of two evils is absolutely to be preferred and fought for over the greater evil when those are the only options available, and that's granting that Clinton was (edit: or the Democrats in general are) "evil", which is a term I don't apply to people very often - I've never called Trump evil (edit: nor Republicans in general), but I will argue against supporting them so long as I have the energy to do so.  Clinton I wasn't highly in favor of, as she's a neo-liberal with too many close ties to big money and is also a fair bit more hawkish than I like, but pretending she and Trump were equivalents is one of the most absurd things I've seen so many people do.  Pretending the Democrats and Republicans in general are the same is just as absurd: one party is in favor of regulations for workplace and environmental safety, the other is not; one party is in favor of attempting to mitigate the damage climate change will cause, one is not (and that's assuming you can get them to admit it's real); one party has a strong theocratic faction that massively influences its policy, particularly on abortion, trans/gay rights, and treatment of Muslims, the other does not; one party supports healthcare for people who can't afford it, the other does not; one party supports welfare programs, the other does not; one party generally accepts science on evolution, the climate, and a host of other issues, while the other does not; the list continues (edit: these are naturally generalizations that don't apply to every single Dem or Rep).  These are real differences that have already and still will continue to translate into actual policy and action.  Would Clinton's team be dismantling the EPA as an effective agency had she won?  No.  But Trump's are already on it.  If someone doesn't think that will make a far larger difference and cause far more hardship for the average worker than for the billionaire who can afford to control his own climate at all times, I submit they haven't thought it through sufficiently.

 

3 hours ago, Vaerick said:

This time the number of privileged people entrenched in systems that decay us (such as fossil fuel) are much higher and wield more power than say when the constitution, epa, and all other forms of protections, that were examples of progress, were created.

Yes.  Largely because they conned a significant section of the public into voting for them, and another significant section of the public into not voting at all, particularly in local and purely Congressional races.  More people voting is what kicks them out.

 

These problems aren't new.  We've gone through periods of the rich largely controlling the system, of hyper-partisan media - read newspapers from the late 1800s and you'll think Fox is actually living up to its "Fair and Balanced" tagline, or take a look at workers' rights and food safety laws in the early 1900s.  We survived them then without a civil war, we can survive them now without one.  To be perfectly honest, I view the people who are simply disengaging from politics to be as much a cause of the issue as anything the parties are doing - the parties will react to what their bases want, and as those bases shrink and get more and more controlled by the most rabid members, the parties will get crazier in response.  More people voting is an incentive for the parties to act in a more sane manner, to compromise more, to be more centrist and less activist.  Fewer people voting just means that they will continue down the path they are currently on, because that is what sustains them.

[Vaerick]

It's a whole different ballgame when you're the world power than when you're not. You can't really compare at all how we operated pre wwII with during/post. 

 

The thing about the dems is they want to give just enough not to have people riot in the streets. The Aca was a failure. It was a failure because it did more good for the insurance companies than it did for the people. That's teally what cracked me up is that it was THE PERFECT republican health care plan (mandatory paying those scum companies, taxes if you don't) and then all kinds of other shit. Obama shouldn't have even pushed it imo because now that standard is what people are talking about and by choosing the Aca they stunted the whole battle for universal coverage.  The only good parts were the kids and pre existing condition provisions. 

 

Pali it's simple. You care about the environment ? They don't. You want people covered for insurance ? They don't. You want affordable medicine? They don't. Who is they? The established senior politicians in this country. Btw If your salary is say 200,000 k. But you get kickbacks from companies for 800,000k, which is the real salary? Lol 

You show me one instance of them being decent and I'll show you a thousand of them being scum.  Politicians should be treated guilty until proven innocent in terms of scrutiny, trust, and faith.  And the fact of the matter is the reason there isn't a better situation in the country for most people is because our politicians don't support such. Like leeches they just suck suck suck down the blood.

The democrats are much better at siphoning out blood while paying lip service to their target. After how they cheated the primaries they'll never see a dollar, a vote, nothing from me (except maybe for extraordinary candidates). Cause what the 2016 primaries taught me is that if you donate a lot to your chosen guy and he loses then he was cheated but if he wins he was doing the cheating  either way not worth putting money down on it  or time for that matter.

 

[Pali]

I think we're going in circles at this point.  You're welcome to think I'm drinking the Kool-Aid, and I'm welcome to think that you're being paranoid.  Fun chat.

[Vaerick]

12 minutes ago, Pali said:

I think we're going in circles at this point.  You're welcome to think I'm drinking the Kool-Aid, and I'm welcome to think that you're being paranoid.  Fun chat.

Spot on. Although if there's one thing I learned from fl it's that you can never be too paranoid! Lolz. Good talk

[f0xx]

 

 

Gotta give it to this man...

[Pali]

Give what, shock therapy?

[Vaerick]

It's like the collapse of the Roman Empire but with wifi. Lol

[Fool_Hardy]

Oh hell, the Romans were more than just the military might of their day, they were far more efficient than the US. Your comparing apples to oranges.

A thousand years from now people may not even realize that America ever existed. What was that one little upstart country? You remember the one that preached freedom and equality?

The one with wifi?

[Pali]

3 hours ago, Fool_Hardy said:

The one with wifi?

The US has crap wifi compared to plenty of other countries.  

[Fool_Hardy]

Some countries do not have the internet at all. 70% of the world has no or limited internet access to the internet according to the BBC.

[Pali]

4 hours ago, Fool_Hardy said:

Some countries do not have the internet at all. 70% of the world has no or limited internet access to the internet according to the BBC.

That looks like the 2010 number - it's closer to 50% these days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage

 

And even so, that doesn't change that much of Europe has significantly better public wifi than the US does.  

[Vaerick]

They can't even afford meals on wheels and you're talking public wifi quality? Lol pffftt

[f0xx]

 

[Pali]

Cutting something out of the budget to give tax cuts to millionaires and more money to the Pentagon is not really the same thing as not being to afford it.  Unless you mean countries like France and Germany can't afford Meals on Wheels, which is an odd complaint to make when both the EU in general and many member countries have their own food or other aid programs.

[f0xx]