Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2016 - 06:04am PT
|
So, basically, Bernie Sanders was that jobless friend who hangs around coffee shops where he cons you into buying his drink, only to talk your ear off about how amazing Che Guevara was....
Thanks for that. Made me laugh.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2016 - 06:35am PT
|
Yeah it looks that way HealyJ, but one can "KEEP HOPE ALIVE", these things are not over until they are over and this isn't over.
High Fructose said: "China's grabbing land, building islands actually, in the south china sea. Are you all right with that? I wonder how Bernie would deal with that over the next eight years? Appeasement? Would that be the right course of action."
Some things to discuss. It seems to me that you didn't read Freemans diatribe in my previous post as he specifically and intelligently addressed that very thing. The answer is we use our f*&ing brains. We discuss. We negotiate. I guess if all a country has is a hammer everything will look like you need to smack it. Once you're done smacking what is the price you are going to pay? Keep one thing in mind High F, we don't have the money for the military we have built. We are borrowing and going deeper into debt for it, so what is your endgame with that kind of thinking you exhibit in the quote?
Lastly, depending on the count, we have @ 13 carrier groups. Please look up how much one of those costs to run (hint: the Ford was $12.8 billion, that is only for the carrier, the battle group is shitloads more). There are @ 6000 + men per group depending on who you ask, I got that number from a Navy guy who was on one, you can find higher numbers if you look. Now look up "chinese carrier killer missile". Once you've done that math on how much they are spending for that, lets talk national defense OK? If your answer to that is we should sail them down there instead of negotiating a treaty via the UN, that you would prefer to see 2 carrier groups down in Davey Jones locker with @ 8000 - 12,000 dead US sailors at the cost to the Chinese of a couple million bucks for a few "Long Dongs" (I just made that up), then we don't have anything to discuss.
I don't consider myself a coward. I've always stepped up. I served, my father served (ww2), and my grandfather served (WW1). Had both sides North and South covered by ancestors in the civil war and I just recently found a copy of his enlistment card and so I'm currently reading of a great great who was in the civil war with the Penn Bucktails and survived (barely). I've always wondered why Eisenhower backed out of the Suez canal war in 1956, but he certainly knew what the costs were back then, and they were much lower than now and with much higher assurance of a win with much bigger prizes at the end. There are costs to every war, those costs are never accurately seen in advance. Never yet. They are always higher. Both sides in the civil war were thinking it would be an easy couple week outing to go kick some ass and head on back home. Nope, not the way it works out. Then or now. Iraq, still going. Afghanistan, still going. Much much more $.
I recognize I'm in an extreme minority on this issue. Rand Paul has that forigon policy view and he only got 2 % of the republican vote, so that confirms that. But going the other direction and staying on the path we are on is looking for an expensive tragedy to occur for our country sooner or later.
Couple links I'd think are helpful to have per this discussion:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-growing-military-power-may-make-us-aircraft-carriers-obsolete-2015-10
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424870/navy-aircraft-carrier-spending-budget-defense
So again, what's our endgame with a proactive militaristic policy?
Once you are done thinking we will kick Chinese ass over a few shitty shoals, consider that the Russians have figured out how to knock all of our faunted high tech electronics that we believe show our superiority: right out. They turn the F$$#ing lights right out, they just did it to us up above the Bosporus straits. They turned off, via remote control, the most high tech defense system the US Navy possesses, the Aegis combat systems. Just fu*ing with us to demo a point. You want to close your eyes and start running after that kind of thing while blindly swinging? Our Navy better brush up on their swimming stokes. Consider this SU-24 flying right over the USS Donald Cook just yesterday:
http://news.usni.org/2016/04/13/video-russian-fighters-buzz-uss-donald-cook-in-baltic-sea
Oh yeah, we're not so darn tough. And we're broke, can't afford this stuff. Time to pull our horns in a bit in my view.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2016 - 07:04am PT
|
rj posted Bernie went from being a shitty carpenter ( plenty of those around ) to a congressman..Proving that there's hope for the American Dream...And the rest of the politicians were born with a silver spoon in their ass and can relate to the working class...good point Katz...
Hillary Clinton is the daughter of a middle class small businessman and a mother who had to work her way through high school. Bill Clinton grew up fairly poor with an abusive, alcoholic stepfather and a mother who put herself through nursing school after his biologic father died.
It should be noted that both Clintons and Sanders grew up during a time when social mobility in America was far more fluid than it currently is. They would have a lot more trouble achieving the American Dream under current conditions.
couch posted I recognize I'm in an extreme minority on this issue. Rand Paul has that forigon policy view and he only got 2 % of the republican vote, so that confirms that. But going the other direction and staying on the path we are on is looking for an expensive tragedy to occur for our country sooner or later.
I agree that bombing everything is not a good strategy, however the isolationism that the Paul's support leave a vacuum that will be filled by powers and cultural values that we do not support. Engagement is necessary.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2016 - 07:06am PT
|
HDDJ, thanks for the reminder.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2016 - 07:17am PT
|
Bernie Sanders is beloved by a lot of people who live in their parents' basement and work part time to pay the bare minimum on the student loans they collected in pursuit of their Gender Studies degrees.
BwaHaHaHa! My niece to a T! In fact she's just off for a gender studies masters.
Hmmm, it just occurred to me that Dad just remodeled his basement and the school she will
attend is just up the road a piece. HaHaHaHa!
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Where in the hell is Major Kong?
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2016 - 07:29am PT
|
So, you want to go to war over the South China Sea? Are you f*#king nuts?
"Mr. Chinese ambassador, here is our declaration of war. And here's an order for 50,000 tons of steel so we can build some tanks. Oh, and Lockheed Martin needs some spare fighter parts pronto."
|
|
John Duffield
Mountain climber
New York
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2016 - 07:46am PT
|
It seems obvious to me now, the bigs of both parties, have decided HRC, is the least bad option. It's always about them, it's never about us.
A Clinton Administration, will be the same old stuff, a Government, that we grossly overpay for the services rendered. She's a known quantity and can be bought. Sanders and Trump, can not be bought, the machine finds that the most dangerous attribute.
It's well possible, she will be the most despised President in history, a sad outcome, for our first female President.
http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/?p=9247
Domestic
An adult president is going to have to tell the American people that a mandated equality-of-result economy is fossilized, entitlements are insolvent, the debt is unsustainable, interest rates are going up, the medical system is pure chaos, and people have to get over expecting to live off government, not because it is unethical, but because it is untenable.
Foreign
Prepare for the same hysteria in 2017. The Pentagon, to remain the world’s most powerful and respected military and to help to keep the world order relatively calm, quietly accepts that it will have to demonstrate soon to America’s enemies that it is quite a dangerous thing for any nation to shoot a missile near a 5,000-person, $5-billion American Nimitz-class carrier; or to hijack an American naval craft, humiliate the crew to the point of tears, and then video the embarrassment; or to attack a U.S. consulate. Yet it will not be so easy for our military to reestablish credibility in 2017. And over the next 10 months we may see some scary things not witnessed since the annus horribilis of 1980.
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2016 - 08:23am PT
|
Bernie Sanders is beloved by a lot of people who live in their parents' basement and work part time to pay the bare minimum on the student loans they collected in pursuit of their Gender Studies degrees.
Bernie is also beloved by me, my family and almost all of my friends - nuclear scientists, physicians, military personnel, teachers, etc.
Am I am a part of the 1%.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2016 - 09:20am PT
|
"Katz" wrote:
Bernie Sanders is beloved by a lot of people who live in their parents' basement and work part time to pay the bare minimum on the student loans they collected in pursuit of their Gender Studies degrees. Ostensibly, this is because your typical Millennial ne'er do well is fascinated by the idea of receiving things for free from the government in return for maintaining their citizenship, or because they heard about Bernie Sanders in their subversive knitting group or picked up a campaign flier at Urban Outfitters.
Tioga is back!
How was your exile?
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2016 - 09:28am PT
|
John D., are you psychic?
I suspect not. Your gloomy outlook exists only in your mind. It has no basis in fact or reality. Was she the most despised Senator in NY history? No. She is a hard worker and dedicated public servant.
I do, however, know the identity of the most despised member currently in the Senate. The likely GOP nominee, Ted Cruz.
Frankly, you Bernieites are getting on my nerves. You act like you're the most principled people on the planet. I'm supposed to hold my fire while you trash Hillary because I want you to come around when she's nominated. Hold you nose, whatever. Meanwhile, stay calm while Bernie's campaign grows more desperate by the day..."she's not qualified!" Hogwash.
Where's this revolution coming from? Are you all running for congress? State senate? Is your leftwing cousin or neighbor? Where's the fuel for this rebellion? I'll take pragmatic over revolution every day. You think the giant ship know as the US is getting a mid-ocean 180-degree turnaround? Dream on. A course correction is hard enough.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2016 - 10:48am PT
|
It should be noted that both Clintons and Sanders grew up during a time when social mobility in America was far more fluid than it currently is. They would have a lot more trouble achieving the American Dream under current conditions.
It might be worth asking that, if true, why is that?
John
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Where in the hell is Major Kong?
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2016 - 11:38am PT
|
An adult president is going to have to tell the American people that a mandated equality-of-result economy is fossilized, entitlements are insolvent, the debt is unsustainable, interest rates are going up, the medical system is pure chaos, and people have to get over expecting to live off government, not because it is unethical, but because it is untenable.
Of course, none of that will apply to the .01%. That's just for us plebeians. They will continue to live off of the rest of us.
It might be worth asking that, if true, why is that?
Because the New Deal has been squashed. The Clinton's having taken their part in the dismantling, of course.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2016 - 11:47am PT
|
Because the New Deal has been squashed. The Clinton's having taken their part in the dismantling, of course.
I'd be curious to know what parts of the New Deal you think were squashed, Gary, and how this led to less opportunity. I say this because there exist many more educational opportunities now than then, and a great many programs offering specific opportunities for just about every group perceived by the government to be disadvantaged, with the possible exception of poor white males.
My personal belief is that a strong economy is the best generator of upward mobility, and a weak one the best generator of inequality and economic stasis. If you add to the latter government policies that stifle economic change (e.g., protectionism), that only adds to the lack of economic mobility.
I think the left has a lot more soul-searching to do in explaining why economic inequality increased so greatly during the current administration.
John
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2016 - 11:52am PT
|
John posted
I'd be curious to know what parts of the New Deal you think were squashed, Gary, and how this led to less opportunity. I say this because there exist many more educational opportunities now than then, and a great many programs offering specific opportunities for just about every group perceived by the ogvernment to be disadvantages, with the possible exception of poor white males.
Which programs are those? The ones that give some non-white applicants a 1% advantage on a college application after having managed to achieve roughly equally in schools with often terrible resources and high levels of violence? And then when they get in they still can't go unless they can afford the massive tuition bills?
John posted My personal belief is that a strong economy is the best generator of upward mobility, and a weak one the best generator of inequality and economic stasis. If you add to the latter government policies that stifle economic change (e.g., protectionism), that only adds to the lack of economic mobility.
After the New Deal and WWII the gains of the economy where shared widely and the means to get ahead, mainly an education, were easily affordable. Getting a job meant you could be set for life. The virtuous cycle has been abandoned in favor of higher share prices. By all measures our economy is doing very well and yet our middle class is suffering. Has that made you reexamine your belief or have you just looked for reasons to justify holding it?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2016 - 11:53am PT
|
My personal belief is that a strong economy is the best generator of upward mobility...
No doubt, but I'd say at this point we've proven cutting taxes and trickle down economics don't work yet it is still remains the dominant zombie meme of the right.
|
|
John Duffield
Mountain climber
New York
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2016 - 12:01pm PT
|
I think the left has a lot more soul-searching to do in explaining why economic inequality increased so greatly during the current administration.
Nailed it.
Obama, was supposed to deliver the Lefts utopia, while the Right, had the Tea Party promising big things. Neither delivered. Why there is so much energy in this campaign.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2016 - 12:02pm PT
|
Well, i am conflicted as to how I feel about Bernie joining the striking Verizon union workers.
Yes, I get it that Verizon is reporting incredible profits and yes some of that could be used to pay their employees better - for making the shareholders lots of money.
But what bothers me is that Bernie is taking sides against the shareholders, yes I know he is a self professed Socialist and of course he will just about always favor workers over management/owners, and yes he has every right to tell all where he stands.
still.....
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2016 - 12:05pm PT
|
Remember that one time when Obama was going to print money to bail us out of the recession and he would destroy everything and cause massive inflation and it was going to be Jimmy Carter all over again and Republicans would finally be proven Factually Correct on Economics for Eternity?
Good times.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2016 - 12:10pm PT
|
I think the left has a lot more soul-searching to do in explaining why economic inequality increased so greatly during the current administration.
I disagree
while there certainly are many of the left who naively wanted economic equality to be decreased with Obama as President, i also believe that most of the left is not that dumb, that they know that since 2010 the Republicans have controlled the House, making any such legislation very impossible.
In addition, i don't recall President Obama "current administration" calling for or asking for any meaningful legislation to be passed by congress that lessens such inequality,
other than passing the Lilly Fair Pay Act for women quickly back before the Republicans got control of the House.
So how exactly was this failure or missed opportunity on the part of the President supposed to happen then?
Honestly, your statement smells more like an attempt to criticize the President and his administration, naively, rather then a legitimate question, something I personally believe I have witnessed many times over the years, given your obvious political bias.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!