2020 US Election (Part One)

[Ironsided]

Are you equating the ills and corruption of the overblown Military IC with a plan to make healthcare a human right? How? I’m cynical as all get out but this one is beyond me.

 

[Tristan_C]

And it shouldn't be beyond you. That's the essence of my complaint about this. In military matters people assume bad faith, and in domestic matters people assume good faith.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why does peoples' cynicism about the vicious ulterior motives and general incompetence of the government go away once they start talking about things like single payer health care, or regulating business?

Have you ever spoken to a European, even once, at any point in your life?

 

[Estebonrober]

And it shouldn't be beyond you. That's the essence of my complaint about this. In military matters people assume bad faith, and in domestic matters people assume good faith.

bad faith and bad action, bad faith and good action. It is pretty obvious. The complaint is dumb and only shows your bias for bad bombs (fun!) and no healthcare (too boring).

 

[Farm Boy]

Phrase it however you want. We engaged in conventional war against a foreign power with whom we had negotiated a cessation in nuclear armament. Our acts of war played a key role in the deposition and execution of the leader with whom we conducted that negotiation.

If you are stupid or evil because your friends egged you on, you are still stupid or evil.

 

[Estebonrober]

Phrase it however you want. We engaged in conventional war against a foreign power with whom we had negotiated a cessation in nuclear armament. Our acts of war played a key role in the deposition and execution of the leader with whom we conducted that negotiation.

If you are stupid or evil because your friends egged you on, you are still stupid or evil.

Letting dictators run over their local populations like slaughtering cattle when you have the ability to stop it can also be described as evil. "If good men do nothing. . ."

I put Lybia in the bag that I'm very glad I didn't have to make that choice. Syria less so, that was our destabilization in effect and once ISIS was a thing we were kind of responsible to fix it. The old Powell you broke it you bought it theory still playing out from Iraq.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Truly it must be terrible to be in a situation where every choice you make - including the choice to do nothing - means people will die.

 

[Sommerswerd]

It depends on how terrible you are... if it's "the average amount" than sure... it would suck... but the more terrible you are, the closer to "meh, whatever, don't care" it becomes...

 

[Tristan_C]

Have you ever spoken to a European, even once, at any point in your life?

Yes, but more importantly, I have listened to them. Thus my question.

Why does all this cynicism get channeled selectively to the military industrial complex and not to the government's other bureacracies? What makes people think that governments have their best interests at heart and can manage their lives better than they can?

 

[cardgame]

Yes, but more importantly, I have listened to them. Thus my question.

Why does all this cynicism get channeled selectively to the military industrial complex and not to the government's other bureacracies? What makes people think that governments have their best interests at heart and can manage their lives better than they can?

The MIC's purpose, at the end of the day, is to kill people. Healthcare is explicitly the opposite. This isn't hard.

Also, "better than they can" isn't exactly a high bar when private citizens are the victim of conspiracy by insurers.

 

[onejayhawk]

It was Harry Reid's idea to filibuster a jobs bill for veterans during an election year?

It was his idea to force the filibuster of a bill that could be made to look like a veterans bill. That was standard Reid practice--put poison in everything so the other side has to filibuster.

They were unarmed civilians peacefully protesting for democracy. Assad labled them "terrorists" and ordered his troops to shoot them

The truth is somewhere in the middle, but I lean to your version. In practice, no one in that part of the world is unarmed. However, there was a large disparity in force.

Letting dictators run over their local populations like slaughtering cattle when you have the ability to stop it can also be described as evil. "If good men do nothing. . ."

I put Lybia in the bag that I'm very glad I didn't have to make that choice. Syria less so, that was our destabilization in effect and once ISIS was a thing we were kind of responsible to fix it. The old Powell you broke it you bought it theory still playing out from Iraq.

Powell's theory was made to work, albeit with considerable effort. It's more the Obama, I threw it away so I don't have any responsibility theory.

J

 

[Farm Boy]

Letting dictators run over their local populations like slaughtering cattle when you have the ability to stop it can also be described as evil. "If good men do nothing. . ."

I put Lybia in the bag that I'm very glad I didn't have to make that choice. Syria less so, that was our destabilization in effect and once ISIS was a thing we were kind of responsible to fix it. The old Powell you broke it you bought it theory still playing out from Iraq.

Of course. Binary thinking and polarization encourages the school of thought where one choice is good and another evil. Sometimes they all suck. But that doesn't matter you still have to choose anyways. Killing somebody you promised not to is an excellent way for an aging empire to ensue no diplomatic leverage short of naked force. Invasions too, not reading that in would be so stupid as to indicate worthlessness of bong brained speaker. We have screwed up a lot of things, but it's an empire builder's lie, well intentioned or not. Enforcing peace takes way way more force than has been imposed in Libya.

More to the point, however, circle to the primary assertion offered. Did we act with "the ability to stop it?" Is it stopped?

 

[Estebonrober]

Of course. Binary thinking and polarization encourages the school of thought where one choice is good and another evil. Sometimes they all suck. But that doesn't matter you still have to choose anyways. Killing somebody you promised not to is an excellent way for an aging empire to ensue no diplomatic leverage short of naked force. Invasions too, not reading that in would be so stupid as to indicate worthlessness of bong brained speaker. We have screwed up a lot of things, but it's an empire builder's lie, well intentioned or not. Enforcing peace takes way way more force than has been imposed in Libya.

More to the point, however, circle to the primary assertion offered. Did we act with "the ability to stop it?" Is it stopped?

Very good points that I cannot quibble with good sir.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Phrase it however you want. We engaged in conventional war against a foreign power with whom we had negotiated a cessation in nuclear armament.

You put that in the past tense, the war with Iran is in the future.

 

[Socrates99]

Why does peoples' cynicism about the vicious ulterior motives and general incompetence of the government go away once they start talking about things like single payer health care, or regulating business?

the Pentagon couldn't audit itself for decades and when it did it flopped. On the other hand Medicare is actually ran pretty well. It negotiates rates down and only sucks up about 3% of the tax money before passing the other 97% on to healthcare providers.

Different agencies, one is efficient the other exists to funnel money to defense contractors or just lose it somewhere in the desert. One will significantly reduce healthcare costs in the U.S. the other is sapping resources that could be better spent domestically.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Medicare and SS are both good programs that are well run. they both meet much higher standards of quality and performance that the current WH.

 

[Farm Boy]

You put that in the past tense, the war with Iran is in the future.

That's right, this is the attempt to look at the context of history to glean why things are now with the hope that maybe we can understand what options are available in shaping the future.

The way things are with Iran right now is shaped in the light of how we acted with Libya. What we did there is written. Iran faces a similar decision to what Gaddafi did. To develop and possess its own nuclear arsenal, or not. The world's interest is in fewer players having them, as more players having them increases likelihood of use, either through intent or losing control of them, so says the doctrine of non-proliferation. Iran will have to act in what it perceives to be Iran's interest. Gaddafi negotiated a cessation in his attempts. Whether or not he would/could have gotten them is almost besides the point. It was an agreement. We waited until enough time had passed that most people didn't bother remembering that anymore and when faced with a tough decision allowed the Europeans to convince us to hold him down with a non-declared conventional war while other people killed him. So let's look forward:

We have a situation where Iran agreed to a deal with major European powers that slowed, but did not stop their nuclear development. Wise, they watched what European powers did. The US never ratified a treaty with Iran, since we can't get verifiable indefinite military nuclear cessation out of them. Wise, they watched what we did at Europe's behest. So what's that leave as an option? The basic model of the only success we've had at non-proliferation has been the one the Canadians/Germans/Australians/South Africans use. A major nuclear power promises alliance and total devastation to any overpowering aggressor, particularly one that might use nuclear weapons on them. So Europe and the US are off the table. Russia had its moment with the Ukraine. It's off the table. That leaves... China? Whatever China controls, China has always controlled. Of all options, it's the hungriest for expanded reach vs status quo upcoming. So maybe, but I doubt it. It's theoretically possible. That leaves North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel. I don't think they're going to work. So now we're to the situation everyone just seems to be figuring out. Iran appears to be willing to endure economic punishment for weapons development. That leaves two options. A nuclear armed Iran capable of obliterating (at least parts of) Europe in the short term and the US in the intermediate term, or a big nasty hot war now. Them's the breaks. The window on NK already passed. It's in the missile refinement stage to extend reach. Non-proliferation is either dead or a new era of war is upon us. Those, at least to me, seem to be the options to try and learn to address.

Edit; Just to lighten the mood a bit -

Spoiler :

 

[Traitorfish]

Iran appears to be willing to endure economic punishment for weapons development.

Or they suspect that the economic punishment is the point, and the nuclear stuff is a pretext. The US has been applying sanctions to Iran since 1979, but has only cited its nuclear programs as grounds since 2005.

 

[Birdjaguar]

That's right, this is the attempt to look at the context of history to glean why things are now with the hope that maybe we can understand what options are available in shaping the future.

The way things are with Iran right now is shaped in the light of how we acted with Libya. What we did there is written. Iran faces a similar decision to what Gaddafi did. To develop and possess its own nuclear arsenal, or not. The world's interest is in fewer players having them, as more players having them increases likelihood of use, either through intent or losing control of them, so says the doctrine of non-proliferation. Iran will have to act in what it perceives to be Iran's interest. Gaddafi negotiated a cessation in his attempts. Whether or not he would/could have gotten them is almost besides the point. It was an agreement. We waited until enough time had passed that most people didn't bother remembering that anymore and when faced with a tough decision allowed the Europeans to convince us to hold him down with a non-declared conventional war while other people killed him. So let's look forward:

We have a situation where Iran agreed to a deal with major European powers that slowed, but did not stop their nuclear development. Wise, they watched what European powers did. The US never ratified a treaty with Iran, since we can't get verifiable indefinite military nuclear cessation out of them. Wise, they watched what we did at Europe's behest. So what's that leave as an option? The basic model of the only success we've had at non-proliferation has been the one the Canadians/Germans/Australians/South Africans use. A major nuclear power promises alliance and total devastation to any overpowering aggressor, particularly one that might use nuclear weapons on them. So Europe and the US are off the table. Russia had its moment with the Ukraine. It's off the table. That leaves... China? Whatever China controls, China has always controlled. Of all options, it's the hungriest for expanded reach vs status quo upcoming. So maybe, but I doubt it. It's theoretically possible. That leaves North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel. I don't think they're going to work. So now we're to the situation everyone just seems to be figuring out. Iran appears to be willing to endure economic punishment for weapons development. That leaves two options. A nuclear armed Iran capable of obliterating (at least parts of) Europe in the short term and the US in the intermediate term, or a big nasty hot war now. Them's the breaks. The window on NK already passed. It's in the missile refinement stage to extend reach. Non-proliferation is either dead or a new era of war is upon us. Those, at least to me, seem to be the options to try and learn to address.

Edit; Just to lighten the mood a bit -

Great clip!

So, If our choices are only a hot war now or a nuclear Iran and a nuclear NK sooner, you would choose the hot wars? Would you send your kids to fight in them? Would you go? If war is the best choice regarding Iran, then the obvious target should step up and engage. That being Israel. I see little point in Americans dying for Israel. Now,we know the only way for Israel to win such a war is to use nukes. MAD rears its ugly head. The NK problem can be solved much more easily since it resides in a single person.

Oh, has any else read about this weapons improvement:

Spoiler :

The U.S. military and the CIA reportedly have a new tool in their arsenal: a bomb that doesn't explode, but deploys sword-like blades to kill or maim its human targets.

The R9X Hellfire Missile, which The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday has been used at least twice—once by the Pentagon and once by the CIA—is a new weapon that is intended to reduce civilian casualties. The missile does not have an explosive warhead, but rather uses its weight and "a halo of six long blades" that deploy before impact to shred through whatever is in its path.

"To the targeted person, it is as if a speeding anvil fell from the sky," said the newspaper, citing an official familiar with the missile.

Nick Waters, an award-winning journalist and researcher, noted that while previous suspected drone strikes by U.S. forces overseas had produced mysterious results, perhaps the R9X—"a Hellfire missile with fudging swords attached to it," he said—provided a possible explanation.

 

[Tristan_C]

the Pentagon couldn't audit itself for decades and when it did it flopped. On the other hand Medicare is actually ran pretty well. It negotiates rates down and only sucks up about 3% of the tax money before passing the other 97% on to healthcare providers.

Different agencies, one is efficient the other exists to funnel money to defense contractors or just lose it somewhere in the desert. One will significantly reduce healthcare costs in the U.S. the other is sapping resources that could be better spent domestically.

Yeah, medicare is highly efficient at raising the cost of medicine, which is what happens when you flush the demand side with cash and remove consumers by multiple degrees from their normal agency in pricing the good. "Negotiating the prices down" as advertised doesn't even scratch the surface of the massive upward pressure these programs put on pricing. And the bureaucracy involved in handling medicare claims inflates within the supply side, not in the medicare building itself, which enables you to feel good about efficiency while there are now 16 plan administrators-and-rising for every doc.

It would make more sense to burn the money up in the desert then carry this perverse system on, but we're too entrenched in this pattern of wealth transfers now to consider repealing.