2020 US Election (Part One)

[Broken_Erika]

You do realize, he's just replacing the swamp with his own swamp, right?

 

[rah]

the only way he could be considered to be draining the swamp is by having more of his colleagues thrown in jail. I think he has set a record for this so far.

 

[Takhisis]

^That's a bit like Anakin Skywalker bringing balance to the force by finally killing all the Sith and all but one of the Jedi.

If you're gonna call the man out, at least use the correct summoning spell:

SUMMON @Commodore !!!

404 error
invalid target

 

[Berzerker]

LOL..."just happened" to see that, eh? What a strange coincidence that Trump bleeted out a tweet about it and it is being blasted from every horn in the Trumpet section of the BS spewing right wing echo chamber and you "just happened" across it. What a freakin' surprise.

That said, when you ask a poll question in a strange way you get a strange result. The explanation is pretty easy to find, unless of course you are totally satisfied with Dingbat Don's misleading interpretation...which I'm assuming you will be repeating ad nauseum.

Oh, wait, we're already sick of it.

I didn't know USA Today was leading the chorus in the right wing echo chamber. What question did they ask to get a poll favoring Trump? I haven't heard Trump's misleading interpretation, the poll takers didn't include it in their results.

We've seen multiple polls over the months showing how most or all of the Democrats were leading Trump and one comes out showing him in the lead and its a right wing conspiracy.

 

[Broken_Erika]

^That's a bit like Anakin Skywalker bringing balance to the force by finally killing all the Sith and all but one of the Jedi.

well, by Episode 4, there were exactly 2 jedi and 2 sith. That's balance.

 

[Tristan_C]

You do realize

jej

Moderator Action: Don't spam the thread, thank you. ~ Arakhor

 

[Commodore]

Which is one of the reasons why I do not think that the actions of the US government are inherently bad because they are American, however, I still have yet to see the list of Good Actions™ which we owe the US, unless I've missed a post by Commodore in the last 8 pages

Well, for one, we are the single largest contributor when it comes to international aid with 200 countries receiving and from the US, which is pretty much the entire world.

 

[rah]

A list of the countries and amounts could be illuminating. (if you have one handy)

 

[AmazonQueen]

Well, for one, we are the single largest contributor when it comes to international aid with 200 countries receiving and from the US, which is pretty much the entire world.

But only 0.17% of GDP, near the bottom of the list for developed countries.

 

[Commodore]

A list of the countries and amounts could be illuminating. (if you have one handy)

I can post it later, but it's available with a quick search on Google. I do remember the top 3 ( by a large margin) were 1. Iraq, 2. Afghanistan, 3. Israel.

But only 0.17% of GDP, near the bottom of the list for developed countries.

This is a prime example of what I'm talking about. I point out a good thing the US is doing, and someone always has to find a way to tear it down instead of just saying "good job US". It's like there are just some people in the world that refuse to say anything positive about the US or give us credit for anything.

EDIT: I would also count our defense budget as international aid, since we provide security for the rest of the world, not just ourselves. And our defense budget is something like 3.4 percent of our GDP. So add that to the 0.17 in monetary aid we provide and that puts us at the top of the list by a large margin.

 

[Arakhor]

Maybe if you could find a number of how much was spending on garrisoning foreign bases, then you could count that as international aid, but otherwise, come on now.

 

[Commodore]

Maybe if you could find a number of how much was spending on garrisoning foreign bases, then you could count that as international aid, but otherwise, come on now.

Except it's not just our forces stationed overseas that provide security services for other countries. For example, the Marine Corps regularly deploys marines from within the US to aid other nations with internal security operations or training exercises. Same with disaster relief efforts. If the closest overseas unit isn't sufficient, troops garrisoned in the US will be deployed to provide assistance. Then there's also the fact that our forces in the US can be deployed anywhere in the world within 24 hours to respond to a crisis. Our military satellites and other assets are also used to provide intelligence to other nations that they wouldn't be able to collect otherwise.

So given all that, I'd say we most certaiy get to claim our entire defense budget as international aid.

Also to further address the point AmazonQueen raised: those numbers you cited don't factor in private donations. A significant amount of international aid from the US doesn't come from our government, but rather from our corporations and charities. So it hardly seems fair to judge the US on the amount of international aid it provides when the numbers you are looking at discount a large portion of that aid simply because it doesn't come from the government.

 

[Gorbles]

Except it's not just our forces stationed overseas that provide security services for other countries. For example, the Marine Corps regularly deploys marines from within the US to aid other nations with internal security operations or training exercises. Same with disaster relief efforts. If the closest overseas unit isn't sufficient, troops garrisoned in the US will be deployed to provide assistance. Then there's also the fact that our forces in the US can be deployed anywhere in the world within 24 hours to respond to a crisis. Our military satellites and other assets are also used to provide intelligence to other nations that they wouldn't be able to collect otherwise.

So given all that, I'd say we most certaiy get to claim our entire defense budget as international aid.

Also to further address the point AmazonQueen raised: those numbers you cited don't factor in private donations. A significant amount of international aid from the US doesn't come from our government, but rather from our corporations and charities. So it hardly seems fair to judge the US on the amount of international aid it provides when the numbers you are looking at discount a large portion of that aid simply because it doesn't come from the government.

Your entire defense budget? Are you for real? Based on the notion that you could theoretically deploy armed forces anywhere within the world to ostensibly help?

This is like saying the theoretical half-built F-35 successor the USAF has sitting in a garage somewhere has the potential to possibly help someone someday, somewhere, therefore that budget counts towards charitable donations.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

There's worshipping the military and the there's fanaticism and delusion

 

[Estebonrober]

Except it's not just our forces stationed overseas that provide security services for other countries. For example, the Marine Corps regularly deploys marines from within the US to aid other nations with internal security operations or training exercises. Same with disaster relief efforts. If the closest overseas unit isn't sufficient, troops garrisoned in the US will be deployed to provide assistance. Then there's also the fact that our forces in the US can be deployed anywhere in the world within 24 hours to respond to a crisis. Our military satellites and other assets are also used to provide intelligence to other nations that they wouldn't be able to collect otherwise.

So given all that, I'd say we most certaiy get to claim our entire defense budget as international aid.

Also to further address the point AmazonQueen raised: those numbers you cited don't factor in private donations. A significant amount of international aid from the US doesn't come from our government, but rather from our corporations and charities. So it hardly seems fair to judge the US on the amount of international aid it provides when the numbers you are looking at discount a large portion of that aid simply because it doesn't come from the government.

I mean I'm one the first socialist types to defend american hegemony on the over all vs its potential substitutes, but this is an extreme take. Where is @Lexicus us to hammer at this premise already?

 

[Arakhor]

Even if we agree to disagree on counting the entirety of the US's ridiculously overblown defence budget as "international aid", it's totally farcical to count non-governmental action as government aid. You're not China, after all!

 

[Estebonrober]

Even if we agree to disagree on counting the entirety of the US's ridiculously overblown defence budget as "international aid", it's totally farcical to count non-governmental action as government aid. You're not China, after all!

We should be able to count not bombing your country into oblivion every year as aid as well and since that means your entire annual GDP the entire planets GDP is our contribution to the world minus our domestic spending. 'meri- @#$%^&^ -cuh!

 

[Commodore]

Your entire defense budget? Are you for real

Yes. The entire defense budget goes, in some way, towards maintaining the military infrastructure that allows us to provide global security. Whether it be money to research new weapons, maintain or launch satellites, or money for incentives to draw new recruits to keep troop levels where they need to be.

Even if we agree to disagree on counting the entirety of the US's ridiculously overblown defence budget as "international aid", it's totally farcical to count non-governmental action as government aid. You're not China, after all!

Sure, but I never said anything about government aid. I have only been talking about international aid, which can take many forms. It was AmazonQueen that was attempting to limit it to government aid in an attempt to make the US look bad. Even though it still doesn't make us look bad because contributing only 0.17% of our GDP still allows us to contribute more than anyone else. Complaining about that is just as ridiculous as a billionaire giving you a million dollars and you call him a jerk because he could technically afford to give you ten million.

 

[Gorbles]

Yes. The entire defense budget goes, in some way, towards maintaining the military infrastructure that allows us to provide global security. Whether it be money to research new weapons, maintain or launch satellites, or money for incentives to draw new recruits to keep troop levels where they need to be.

Right, so by your own sentence, you cannot claim that the entire budget is representative of that purpose. You said the "entire" budget goes "in some way". This means, in real terms, that the entire budget doesn't. This is a reach.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, I thought you were talking about government aid, because if you start talking about a country's contribution to anything, naturally I expect you to mean its government, its sport team or so on, not anybody who happens to live or work in said country.