Hillary or Bernie?

A forum to seperate the more serious discussions from the lighter topics in Off-topic.

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby Malevolence » 20 Feb 2016, 22:27

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.
Creator of 1939, Superpowers, Future of the World, Fate of the World, Fantasy CYOC, Outbreak, History of the World, Italian Renaissance Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Inheritors
User avatar
Malevolence
 
Posts: 7585
Joined: 20 May 2011, 22:01
Location: Washington, DC
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1049)
All-game rating: (1031)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby condude1 » 20 Feb 2016, 22:40

Malevolence wrote: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?
Telleo wrote:I don't think I've ever met someone who more perfectly embodied Chaotic Neutral than Condude1.


Moderator of the Mafia Subforums!

Silver member of The Classicists!
User avatar
condude1
 
Posts: 8160
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 03:41
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1368)
All-game rating: (1307)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby GregorV » 20 Feb 2016, 22:43

condude1 wrote:
Malevolence wrote: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 got left with nothin' but a Penny, so I had to do it the Hardaway.

What is Mafia? It is a never ending time sink where seemingly trivial inconsequential passing comments are often portrayed as cast iron proof of guilt. Run away backs rather whilst you still can. For me, there is no hope.
User avatar
GregorV
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2442
Joined: 02 Jun 2015, 17:12
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: 1065
All-game rating: 1054
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby Malevolence » 20 Feb 2016, 22:59

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.
Creator of 1939, Superpowers, Future of the World, Fate of the World, Fantasy CYOC, Outbreak, History of the World, Italian Renaissance Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Inheritors
User avatar
Malevolence
 
Posts: 7585
Joined: 20 May 2011, 22:01
Location: Washington, DC
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1049)
All-game rating: (1031)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby I Love Italy » 20 Feb 2016, 23:27

Malevolence wrote: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.
I have special eyes.
User avatar
I Love Italy
 
Posts: 2357
Joined: 31 Jul 2013, 23:08
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1041)
All-game rating: (1059)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby condude1 » 21 Feb 2016, 00:20

GregorV wrote:
condude1 wrote:
Malevolence wrote: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.
Telleo wrote:I don't think I've ever met someone who more perfectly embodied Chaotic Neutral than Condude1.


Moderator of the Mafia Subforums!

Silver member of The Classicists!
User avatar
condude1
 
Posts: 8160
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 03:41
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1368)
All-game rating: (1307)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby GregorV » 21 Feb 2016, 00:32

condude1 wrote:
GregorV wrote:
condude1 wrote:
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.
I got left with nothin' but a Penny, so I had to do it the Hardaway.

What is Mafia? It is a never ending time sink where seemingly trivial inconsequential passing comments are often portrayed as cast iron proof of guilt. Run away backs rather whilst you still can. For me, there is no hope.
User avatar
GregorV
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2442
Joined: 02 Jun 2015, 17:12
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: 1065
All-game rating: 1054
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby Zosimus » 21 Feb 2016, 00:38

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.
Be more aggressive.
User avatar
Zosimus
 
Posts: 660
Joined: 19 Aug 2014, 22:17
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1632)
All-game rating: (1665)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby Rolan A Doobie » 21 Feb 2016, 00:40

condude1 wrote: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.
Some of you I know, some of you I'm meeting for the first time...
User avatar
Rolan A Doobie
 
Posts: 5323
Joined: 08 Apr 2009, 08:10
Location: Space Volcano
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby condude1 » 21 Feb 2016, 00:40

GregorV wrote:
condude1 wrote:
GregorV wrote:
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.
Telleo wrote:I don't think I've ever met someone who more perfectly embodied Chaotic Neutral than Condude1.


Moderator of the Mafia Subforums!

Silver member of The Classicists!
User avatar
condude1
 
Posts: 8160
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 03:41
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1368)
All-game rating: (1307)
Timezone: GMT-8

PreviousNext

Return to Debates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests