Hillary or Bernie?

[Malevolence]

Quick response to Bernie's espoused love of socialist scnadinavia- those countries literally have not had to pay for defense for a century.

It may work there, and that's great for them, it's foolish to try to graft it elsewhere with actual defense responsibilities globally.

[condude1]

Quick response to Bernie's espoused love of socialist scnadinavia- those countries literally have not had to pay for defense for a century.

It may work there, and that's great for them, it's foolish to try to graft it elsewhere with actual defense responsibilities globally.

But we didn't, and don't really, need to pay for defense either. Honestly, when was the last time the American military was used for defense?

[GregorV]

Quick response to Bernie's espoused love of socialist scnadinavia- those countries literally have not had to pay for defense for a century.

It may work there, and that's great for them, it's foolish to try to graft it elsewhere with actual defense responsibilities globally.

But we didn't, and don't really, need to pay for defense either. Honestly, when was the last time the American military was used for defense?

The term "defense" encompasses the vast majority of military operations. Furthermore, a considerable deal of the American military's use is as a preventative threat, a counterbalance to any potential dangers. As the saying goes, the 2nd-most powerful navy in the world is the most expensive one.

[Malevolence]

Yes, actually we do have to pay for defense, not just of OUR country but also all the others we shield.

If we do not, we risk them being overrun by geopolitical foes, and thus having to spend more to fend off bigger threats as well as being unable to effectively stand behind Article 5 (mutual defense) of NATO, meaning we would essentially forfeit every gain the US has made since the end of WWII. That is a strategy for a seriously dangerous multipolar world and a recipe for a WWI style catastrophe of misperception and balancing powers.

[I Love Italy]

Quick response to Bernie's espoused love of socialist scnadinavia- those countries literally have not had to pay for defense for a century.

It may work there, and that's great for them, it's foolish to try to graft it elsewhere with actual defense responsibilities globally.

I'm not saying that we go full Scandinavia. I agree, jumping into something like that without appropriate preparations would be disastrous. But, I do think that we can take some of the policies from there slowly, and start working them into America.

[condude1]

Quick response to Bernie's espoused love of socialist scnadinavia- those countries literally have not had to pay for defense for a century.

It may work there, and that's great for them, it's foolish to try to graft it elsewhere with actual defense responsibilities globally.

But we didn't, and don't really, need to pay for defense either. Honestly, when was the last time the American military was used for defense?

The term "defense" encompasses the vast majority of military operations. Furthermore, a considerable deal of the American military's use is as a preventative threat, a counterbalance to any potential dangers. As the saying goes, the 2nd-most powerful navy in the world is the most expensive one.

I know, and I'm just saying that without some of the bloodlust prevalent in American society, there would be much less need for a military. Did America really need to get involved in the Middle East? Cutting defense spending is an extremely logical move IMO.

[GregorV]

But we didn't, and don't really, need to pay for defense either. Honestly, when was the last time the American military was used for defense?

The term "defense" encompasses the vast majority of military operations. Furthermore, a considerable deal of the American military's use is as a preventative threat, a counterbalance to any potential dangers. As the saying goes, the 2nd-most powerful navy in the world is the most expensive one.

I know, and I'm just saying that without some of the bloodlust prevalent in American society, there would be much less need for a military. Did America really need to get involved in the Middle East? Cutting defense spending is an extremely logical move IMO.

Defense spending jumped significantly after 9/11. It is currently trending down as it is. Are you recommending that we not continually upgrade and enhance the military that NATO relies upon for ops? That we not attack the people who tear down our buildings and kill our people in our own lands?

These were the arguments that were made in Congress just after the 9/11 bombings. In hindsight, it is easy to say we shouldn't have gotten involved. But we have significant, powerful allies in the Middle East (Israel, for one), and humans in general have a vested interest in promoting a more humanitarian government wherever it may be.

The point I'm trying to make is, when you say "cut defense spending", where do you cut it? Personnel pay (both active and vets)? Weapons procurement? R&D? Construction? Operations? Those are the categories under which the supermajority of defense money is spent.

[Zosimus]

Well, I've never voted for a Democrat in my life, but I suppose that if you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose between Hillary and Bernie I would grudgingly choose Bernie.

Hillary's a criminal whereas Bernie is just a hypocritical economic ignoramus. Hillary's far too pro-war for me.

The Republican side is hardly better. Rand Paul was kind of okay, but he didn't draw the enthusiasm that his father did. Neither of them had much of a chance of getting elected anyway.

If I voted, I suppose I'd go for Trump, but with no real enthusiasm.

The US is in deep economic trouble. $17 trillion in nominal debt and another $200+ trillion in unfunded liabilities. These are serious problems that need serious answers, but nobody even has proposals. However, we can fight about gay marriage, gun control, abortion restrictions, and cattle grazing on government land in the rural west.

I left the USA in 2004, haven't been back, and don't regret leaving.

[Rolan A Doobie]

I know, and I'm just saying that without some of the bloodlust prevalent in American society, there would be much less need for a military. Did America really need to get involved in the Middle East? Cutting defense spending is an extremely logical move IMO.

The best move would be to stop pretending that our "defense" budget is actually for defense and not for offense. We don't need military bases in every country on the globe to defend our borders. We don't need more aircraft carriers than grains of sand in the Sahara.

Chopping the war-waging budget by over half would go a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way towards helping the sick and starving in this country. Odd that conservatives who claim to have "righteous morality" on their side are more interested in killing others than they are helping their own citizens.


As for the democratic candidates...I'm more interested in Bernie, but I'm not delusional enough to think he could actually win. Which means I'm gonna have to vote for Hillary. I won't be happy about it, but goddamn those republican candidates are some horrible and hateful creatures.

[condude1]

The term "defense" encompasses the vast majority of military operations. Furthermore, a considerable deal of the American military's use is as a preventative threat, a counterbalance to any potential dangers. As the saying goes, the 2nd-most powerful navy in the world is the most expensive one.

I know, and I'm just saying that without some of the bloodlust prevalent in American society, there would be much less need for a military. Did America really need to get involved in the Middle East? Cutting defense spending is an extremely logical move IMO.

Defense spending jumped significantly after 9/11. It is currently trending down as it is. Are you recommending that we not continually upgrade and enhance the military that NATO relies upon for ops? That we not attack the people who tear down our buildings and kill our people in our own lands?

These were the arguments that were made in Congress just after the 9/11 bombings. In hindsight, it is easy to say we shouldn't have gotten involved. But we have significant, powerful allies in the Middle East (Israel, for one), and humans in general have a vested interest in promoting a more humanitarian government wherever it may be.

The point I'm trying to make is, when you say "cut defense spending", where do you cut it? Personnel pay (both active and vets)? Weapons procurement? R&D? Construction? Operations? Those are the categories under which the supermajority of defense money is spent.

I am recommending that America stop continually upgrading their military. There were a few people in a country of 300 million that attacked some buildings, funded by their leader in a country across the world. Does that give you the right to destroy hundreds of thousands of lives crusading against that one man?

How come Scandinavia never has these problems? Switzerland? Escalation is not the solution. I would recommend we cut spending from all those categories. I don't see a problem with doing so.