Patrick, I feel no need to do any research for you. Already stated that I have no "first person knowledge", only that they are bringing their politics with them. Do your own research if you're that interested.
So you're now admitting that you had no idea what you were talking about when you made the following statement. That's exactly what I thought.
But, look at how Colorado and several other states have changed since the Great Migration of Californians to other states began. It sure looks like they are bringing their politics with them.
But, look at how Colorado and several other states have changed since the Great Migration of Californians to other states began. It sure looks like they are bringing their politics with them.
[/QUOTE]
Patrick, view it however you wish, I really don't care. But, I will give you a hint, look at the states mentioned about 20 years ago (politically speaking) and then compare that to now. If you can't figure that out, you're own your own. Special needs or not, you are not my responsibility to explain the world.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-06-2024).]
Patrick, view it however you wish, I really don't care. But, I will give you a hint, look at the states mentioned about 20 years ago (politically speaking) and then compare that to now. If you can't figure that out, you're own your own. Special needs or not, you are not my responsibility to explain the world.
Another totally vapid response that makes no sense whatsoever. When asked a simple question regarding a statement of yours, you are seemingly incapable of providing an intelligent answer.
Another totally vapid response that makes no sense whatsoever. When asked a simple question regarding a statement of yours, you are seemingly incapable of providing an intelligent answer.
I've been considering this since last night, when it was pretty clear what the result was going to be. My take so far is that Harris lost for two primary reasons:
1) Voters were apathetic to Harris due to not getting to know her through a typical primary season. She then decided to use the short amount of time she had to not rock the boat - she wanted to keep her Democratic coalition while gaining moderates and middling Republicans by not being specific on policy. I think apathy came with a lack of a clearly defined alternative to Trump. If she had either gone through a typical primary or had she been more specific in answering questions in her few very public media interviews, I think she could have avoided the bleeding of her base and likely won.
2) Democrats have been using "men" as a catch-all enemy for the past few election cycles (possibly decades though my memory is a bit fuzzy on how long it has been happening). They've pushed men away and blamed them for just about everything under the sun. As men were disenfranchised from the Democratic Party, they were re-enfranchised to the Right through alternative social channels and podcasts (Democrats even make fun of these, calling them "dude bro pods"). While Republicans energized new voters in new channels, Democrats used those same channels to... continue pushing men away. I think this is a huge contributor, though I don't really see many people talking about it.
They had 4 years to know her, just on the federal level as a VP. Remember tho, she ran for president herself beginning in 2019 tho she had been considered a 'rising star' for the left since 2016 until she ran out of $$ in late 2019 or very early 2020.
Until the left finally admits to having and deals with lack of a platform that mid America wants to support they will have a difficult time and all the oddball excuses in the world aren't going to fix things. Here, is a start:
quote
Donald Trump has once again won the presidency—and has done so convincingly.
In the coming days and weeks, commentators will spill considerable ink trying to make sense of this result. Mainstream media figures must grapple with the fact that a seemingly disgraced, twice-impeached, convicted felon—one frequently derided as a fascist and a racist—was reelected president. Moreover, he made major inroads with minority communities, vastly improved his totals in various states, and is currently projected to win the popular vote. Make no mistake: This is a significant win for someone deemed not merely unelectable but wholly evil by every elite media institution in existence.
Pundits trying to understand how Trump could have possibly achieved this unthinkable comeback will focus on his message, his issues, and his campaign strategies. They will investigate the aspects of Trump that make him so appealing to throngs of Americans. But they might overlook the single most important contributing factor in Trump's victory: not an affirmative vote for the candidate, but rather a negative endorsement of his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris.
Simply put, Harris was a disastrous candidate. Admittedly, she had a tough job, given that she replaced the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee—President Joe Biden—in the eleventh hour. But keep in mind that Biden was historically unpopular. He bottomed out at a 38 percent approval rating, which made him the least popular president in 70 years. Some of that disapproval was due to his advanced age and obvious cognitive decline, and in that respect, Harris was an automatic improvement.
But the fundamental mistake of the Harris campaign—the one that assured Trump's reelection no matter how improbable it seemed to elite tastemakers—was assuming that a simple candidate swap would be sufficient. This was egregiously wrong. Biden was not merely unpopular because he was too old to serve as president. He was unpopular because the American voters dislike his policies. On the issues that mattered most to voters—the economy, inflation, and immigration—majorities of voters solidly preferred Trump over Biden, well before the June debate performance that doomed the incumbent president's candidacy. Voters remembered the Trump economy fondly and blamed Biden's policies for ever-worsening inflation.
Once Harris was installed as the candidate, she had the opportunity to engage in a reset. While she always faced the inherent difficulty of distancing herself from an administration in which she served, she had every opportunity to throw Biden under the bus and part ways with his policies. She could have criticized his economic setbacks, his foreign policy—which was especially unpopular in the must-win state of Michigan—and his border program.
Yet one month ago, when she appeared on The View, the hosts asked Harris if there was anything she would have done differently from Biden. Her answer? "There's not a thing that comes to mind."
Don, sorry about that, I just realize you posted the same thing but first. But, I'm still of the impression Harris did better than Biden would have done against DJT.
So, I guess this means Obama was right, if it can be messed up, Ole Joe can do it. Picking his VP to replace him was another Biden error. ------------------ Rams Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. . You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-06-2024).]
I was shocked when Biden announced he was going to run for another term. After that debate fiasco, he stepped (or was forced) down... but it was probably too late to properly select a new Democratic candidate for POTUS. In retrospect, it was a total disaster for the Democratic party. Here's a short article which reflects how I feel about Biden and Harris.
President Joe Biden is not too old to know what he has done.
No matter how dimmed he may be by age, he has to know that he should have just stepped down after one good term.
The Democrats then could have then selected somebody the usual way, with primaries.
Maybe Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania’s governor, would have been a candidate.
Maybe it would have been Gretchen Whitmer, Michigan’s governor. The result could have actually been the first woman president.
Whoever it was, he or she would have been the party’s choice.
And the duly chosen candidate would have been in a better position than Vice President Kamala Harris was to call Donald Trump a threat to democracy.
The candidate also would have been obliged to defend whatever Biden had and had not done, particularly in terms of the southern border.
One thing Trump was right about was that Harris had become the Democratic candidate without a single vote.
Too much else of what Trump said was dangerously false.
But he is going to the White House nonetheless.
He will again be our commander-in-chief, and he now regains the mantle having spoken of using the military to secure the southern border, quell domestic protests, and fight crime in our cities.
Thanks to Biden, we will now have a commander-in-chief who talks about sending troops against what he calls the enemy within. And Biden is 81.
That does not absolve him.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 11-07-2024).]
He will again be our commander-in-chief, and he now regains the mantle having spoken of using the military to secure the southern border, quell domestic protests, and fight crime in our cities.
He would not even be close to the 1st president to talk of those things....and wouldn't be the 1st to actually do so either.
If, I was still a Registered Democrat, I would suggest Senator Mark Kelly would have made a much more competitive campaign in this election. I suspect he'll be a more prominent Dem in the future. That doesn't mean I'd vote for him but, I can see him becoming more popular among the Dems. He's obviously smart, knows and understands the military. supports most of the Dem's agenda and seems very well liked among the Dem general population. But he's got a problem, he's male and white, the last thing the Dem leadership want to promote. Yeah, it's a shame his gender and race will hold him back.
------------------ Rams Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. . You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: A strong unified NATO is the best way to continue peace. However, with Trump back in the Oval Office, his past criticisms and skeptical stance on NATO could indicate a quiet but deliberate unraveling of the United States' role in the alliance. Throughout his previous term, Trump consistently criticized NATO allies for not meeting their financial obligations and suggested that the U.S. might not defend countries that don't "pay their fair share".
Cliff, it should be noted that the United States defended Europe in WW I and WW II, before the formation of NATO.
Yes. A strong unified NATO is the best way to continue peace. However, with Trump back in the Oval Office, his past criticisms and skeptical stance on NATO could indicate a quiet but deliberate unraveling of the United States' role in the alliance. Throughout his previous term, Trump consistently criticized NATO allies for not meeting their financial obligations and suggested that the U.S. might not defend countries that don't "pay their fair share".
Cliff, Seriously not trying to offensive here but, I do have a question. I do understand why Europeans would be concerned about President Elect Trump's win but, I have to ask. How should the US approach the issue of other NATO countries not paying the agreed share of the cost of NATO? The US has been paying the bills and defending other countries for far too long and to be frank, we're tired of carrying other countries share of the load.
Interested to learn your suggestions because I'm pretty sure, this subject will come up again during President Elect Trump's administration.
------------------ Rams Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. . You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-07-2024).]
We've got enough to go around. Plus, these players get to help spread Canadian ideals to other countries far and wide. It's all part of a covert plan for Canadian world domination... damn, I've said too much!
75% of our 2023 Cup team is from Canada. That's the kind of world domination I can get behind
I've been considering this since last night, when it was pretty clear what the result was going to be. My take so far is that Harris lost for two primary reasons:
1) Voters were apathetic to Harris due to not getting to know her through a typical primary season. She then decided to use the short amount of time she had to not rock the boat - she wanted to keep her Democratic coalition while gaining moderates and middling Republicans by not being specific on policy. I think apathy came with a lack of a clearly defined alternative to Trump. If she had either gone through a typical primary or had she been more specific in answering questions in her few very public media interviews, I think she could have avoided the bleeding of her base and likely won.
2) Democrats have been using "men" as a catch-all enemy for the past few election cycles (possibly decades though my memory is a bit fuzzy on how long it has been happening). They've pushed men away and blamed them for just about everything under the sun. As men were disenfranchised from the Democratic Party, they were re-enfranchised to the Right through alternative social channels and podcasts (Democrats even make fun of these, calling them "dude bro pods"). While Republicans energized new voters in new channels, Democrats used those same channels to... continue pushing men away. I think this is a huge contributor, though I don't really see many people talking about it.
What you're saying is what the left-leaning pundits are saying... that it was a "communications problem."
I disagree completely... she flat-out had a policy problem.
- The vast majority of the country does not agree with illegal immigration. Spin it however you want, Biden has been allowing illegals to flood the country, and is desperately trying to expedite it as well. - The vast majority of the country does not agree with a "woke ideology" which constantly pushes fringe ideologies into main stream, and forces everyone to deal with it. Like men in women's sports, or the whole pronouns thing, or pushing DEI into every facet of our lives. - There are two wars going on which we are funding. - The vast majority of the country realizes that we're now paying 2 to 3x more for everything than they did 4 years ago.
And when you listen to the news, they never address any of these concerns, but focus entirely on "Trump." Most people know that when Trump was president, the economy was better, and there was less chaos in the world. Democrats, including yourself, will need to eventually accept that it's a policy problem. Your party's ideas are just bad... they don't make sense.
What you're saying is what the left-leaning pundits are saying... that it was a "communications problem."
I disagree completely... she flat-out had a policy problem.
- The vast majority of the country does not agree with illegal immigration. Spin it however you want, Biden has been allowing illegals to flood the country, and is desperately trying to expedite it as well. - The vast majority of the country does not agree with a "woke ideology" which constantly pushes fringe ideologies into main stream, and forces everyone to deal with it. Like men in women's sports, or the whole pronouns thing, or pushing DEI into every facet of our lives. - There are two wars going on which we are funding. - The vast majority of the country realizes that we're now paying 2 to 3x more for everything than they did 4 years ago.
And when you listen to the news, they never address any of these concerns, but focus entirely on "Trump." Most people know that when Trump was president, the economy was better, and there was less chaos in the world. Democrats, including yourself, will need to eventually accept that it's a policy problem. Your party's ideas are just bad... they don't make sense.
While there were other issues, you pretty much nailed it. Her unwillingness to separate herself from President Biden (a very unpopular politician) was a major problem. She co-sponsored or did everything possible to further the Progressive/WOKE agenda regardless of her false promises and lies during the later part of her campaign. This was not a failure to communicate, it was a failure in policies by a very Progressive politician. Don't get me wrong, DJT has a very strong a loyal base but, the voters that did not support him when he ran against Biden realized their mistake, they didn't want Biden II.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-09-2024).]
Couldn't cheat effectively this time, something to do with the fraud votes Biden_Joe stole, felonies, an organized conspiracy to falsify election ballots. Plainly obvious today, needs to be pursued, prosecuted, starting with Jack Smith, lol.
Everyone at this table is a Democrat except Shermichael, and wanted Harris to win. The guy on the left of the table is representative of the most extreme left. He may feel like he's doing God's work (metaphorically speaking since he's an Atheist), but in reality, he's pushing a cancel-culture narrative that absolutely does not resonate with the American public.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 11-09-2024).]
Everyone at this table is a Democrat except Shermichael, and wanted Harris to win. The guy on the left of the table is representative of the most extreme left. He may feel like he's doing God's work (metaphorically speaking since he's an Atheist), but in reality, he's pushing a cancel-culture narrative that absolutely does not resonate with the American public.
While I may be alone in this opinion, this election was not decided on based on racism, gender, homophobia or anything other than that Harris was only offering more of the same (illegal immigration, inflation and social change American voters did not support), that we got from the Biden/Harris Administration the last four years. She claimed that she could not think of anything that she would have done differently and in fact had had a role in many of the decisions that administration made.
Why folks can't accept the fact that while DJT may not be everything they want in a President, we all know what his administration was able to accomplish with a counterculture of Dems controlling the other branches of our government and how things changed with the Biden/Harris Administration. The majority of the US voters had had enough of the WOKE agenda and spoke out with their votes. I am not a personal fan of DJT but, thought highly of the policies he put in place. Do I support everything he has stated during the campaign, hell no but, he offered more of what the US citizens wanted.
Edited: BTW, anyone heard from RayB lately?
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-09-2024).]
While I may be alone in this opinion, this election was not decided on based on racism, gender, homophobia or anything other than that Harris was only offering more of the same (illegal immigration, inflation and social change American voters did not support), that we got from the Biden/Harris Administration the last four years. She claimed that she could not think of anything that she would have done differently and in fact had had a role in many of the decisions that administration made.
Why folks can't accept the fact that while DJT may not be everything they want in a President, we all know what his administration was able to accomplish with a counterculture of Dems controlling the other branches of our government and how things changed with the Biden/Harris Administration. The majority of the US voters had had enough of the WOKE agenda and spoke out with their votes. I am not a personal fan of DJT but, thought highly of the policies he put in place. Do I support everything he has stated during the campaign, hell no but, he offered more of what the US citizens wanted.
Edited: BTW, anyone heard from RayB lately?
Rams
You're not alone, I agree with you completely.
As for RayB, I'm hoping / assuming he's just upset and doesn't want to deal with **** on here. He only ever comes on Pennocks to talk in the politics forum, and occasionally the O/T. I am not sure if he still has a Fiero. So he may be taking some time away. Hopefully he's OK...
Add to the list of reasons why Harris lost is the persecution of the Amish. The Democrats threatened their way of life with forced vaccines and prosecutions over how the Amish farm. There are Amish communities all across the Midwest. They normally do not vote or get involved in politics. They realized that they had to get involved or the government would destroy their community. The story of Amos Miller is now well known among the Amish. They know that what is happening to Amos can happen to any of them.
I was shocked when Biden announced he was going to run for another term. After that debate fiasco, he stepped (or was forced) down... but it was probably too late to properly select a new Democratic candidate for POTUS. In retrospect, it was a total disaster for the Democratic party. Here's a short article which reflects how I feel about Biden and Harris.
While I do agree that President Biden's decision to run again was a huge pile of barnyard waste he stepped into and led his party through, the other big mistake was him basically appointing his VP to replace him. More of the same that had already made him one of the most disliked Presidents. My last memory of his popularity rating was 37% approval of the way he was leading the US. Harris only offered more of the same regardless of what her campaign promises were in the later parts or the cycle. That 37% was widely made up of Trump haters. Just my opinion.
I really do agree that had Biden not tried again and the Dems had actually had a Primary to select their candidate, a more competitive candidate could have been selected. But, blaming the Dem loss of Harris on anything but her failure to recognize that the Biden connection is just not realistic. Just more of the same. Based on what I've been reading, there were a huge number of "Split Votes" during this election, most voting for DJT but, then switching over and voting for Dem candidates for Congress and the Senate. That should send a strong message to the Dem leadership.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-09-2024).]
Cliff, Seriously not trying to offensive here but, I do have a question. I do understand why Europeans would be concerned about President Elect Trump's win but, I have to ask. How should the US approach the issue of other NATO countries not paying the agreed share of the cost of NATO? The US has been paying the bills and defending other countries for far too long and to be frank, we're tired of carrying other countries share of the load.
Interested to learn your suggestions because I'm pretty sure, this subject will come up again during President Elect Trump's administration.
Yes, it’s true that the U.S. spends a larger share of its GDP on defense than any other NATO country, and many Americans feel it’s unfair to carry that substantial financial load. But there’s another side to this that’s often overlooked. While the U.S. does invest heavily in NATO defense, a lot of that spending actually supports American economic interests rather than purely covering costs for European allies.
First, the U.S. has the largest and most advanced arms industry in the world, and most of the defense spending it commits is invested back into American companies, jobs, and technologies. So, while the dollar amount is high, much of this money is flowing back into the U.S. economy. Moreover, when other NATO countries increase their defense budgets, they often turn to American-made weapons, aircraft, and technology. So, in many ways, Europe’s increased defense spending also boosts U.S. economic interests, because they’re buying American equipment.
Furthermore, the U.S. benefits from being the dominant provider of NATO’s defense technology, giving it a strategic advantage and allowing for greater influence within NATO operations. This interoperability strengthens U.S. leadership within NATO and helps maintain global stability, which is also in America’s interest.
So while the U.S. does spend the most on defense, it also sees substantial returns - both economically and strategically - from this investment. More than any other NATO member. We all want a fair system where every NATO member contributes responsibly to our shared security, but it’s worth recognizing that the current setup also brings significant benefits back to the U.S.
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: Yes, it’s true that the U.S. spends a larger share of its GDP on defense than any other NATO country, and many Americans feel it’s unfair to carry that substantial financial load. But there’s another side to this that’s often overlooked. While the U.S. does invest heavily in NATO defense, a lot of that spending actually supports American economic interests rather than purely covering costs for European allies.
First, the U.S. has the largest and most advanced arms industry in the world, and most of the defense spending it commits is invested back into American companies, jobs, and technologies. So, while the dollar amount is high, much of this money is flowing back into the U.S. economy. Moreover, when other NATO countries increase their defense budgets, they often turn to American-made weapons, aircraft, and technology. So, in many ways, Europe’s increased defense spending also boosts U.S. economic interests, because they’re buying American equipment.
Furthermore, the U.S. benefits from being the dominant provider of NATO’s defense technology, giving it a strategic advantage and allowing for greater influence within NATO operations. This interoperability strengthens U.S. leadership within NATO and helps maintain global stability, which is also in America’s interest.
So while the U.S. does spend the most on defense, it also sees substantial returns - both economically and strategically - from this investment. More than any other NATO member. We all want a fair system where every NATO member contributes responsibly to our shared security, but it’s worth recognizing that the current setup also brings significant benefits back to the U.S.
I concur on this, but it's also part of the problem.
I realize, as I'm sure you do, that bad people are going to do bad things. Sometimes... the decisions that the U.S. makes are not always the right decisions either, which I won't get into... but we tend to foster uprisings and upheavals that just make the world stage a bit more chaotic. I think the world needs a strong country, or a strong alliance of countries to ensure bad doesn't prevail, and is kept at bay. At the same time, I fear that with many of the things that go on in the United States, special interests cause certain events that lead to a payday for large industries.
I never really thought much about it until I was personally involved, but Eisenhower (as Ray B would agree with me) warned us about the military industrial complex. I lean more towards Reagan, a strong military is a deterrent. But there's unfortunately also the aspect that many defense contractors would like to see war since it generates massive revenue. It's easy for many of these corporate leaders to push for this... having never been there, and never experienced what results from it. It's easy for humans to simply say, a bad guy is a bad guy and the world is better off when they're all dead. It's much different for the people on the battlefield that have to be the one to pull that trigger to kill said bad-guy. Some people are just insane, and some people are evil, and the world is better off without them. I'm definitely not trying to suggest we need to be Neville Chamberlin about it, I'm far more on the Winston Churchill perspective... but I just get tired of this. There has to be a better way.
People fear Trump because they literally think he's crazy and will do anything... like sending a drone strike to kill a senior leader in another country, without giving a damn about what the rest of the world thinks. Hypocritically, I love this. Why lead to the death of innocent civilians and soldiers (on both sides) when we can simply take-out the people pulling the strings. The world knows this... and they are on notice. It's why everyone has started saying they want peace all of a sudden. Hamas wants an immediate cease-fire, the Taliban leader says he would like to work with Trump to finish the Doha agreement that they violated, Russia says they want to begin negotiations...
Yes, it’s true that the U.S. spends a larger share of its GDP on defense than any other NATO country, and many Americans feel it’s unfair to carry that substantial financial load. But there’s another side to this that’s often overlooked. While the U.S. does invest heavily in NATO defense, a lot of that spending actually supports American economic interests rather than purely covering costs for European allies.
First, the U.S. has the largest and most advanced arms industry in the world, and most of the defense spending it commits is invested back into American companies, jobs, and technologies. So, while the dollar amount is high, much of this money is flowing back into the U.S. economy. Moreover, when other NATO countries increase their defense budgets, they often turn to American-made weapons, aircraft, and technology. So, in many ways, Europe’s increased defense spending also boosts U.S. economic interests, because they’re buying American equipment.
Furthermore, the U.S. benefits from being the dominant provider of NATO’s defense technology, giving it a strategic advantage and allowing for greater influence within NATO operations. This interoperability strengthens U.S. leadership within NATO and helps maintain global stability, which is also in America’s interest.
So while the U.S. does spend the most on defense, it also sees substantial returns - both economically and strategically - from this investment. More than any other NATO member. We all want a fair system where every NATO member contributes responsibly to our shared security, but it’s worth recognizing that the current setup also brings significant benefits back to the U.S.
While I do agree with you Cliff, your response does not answer my question. Being a US Taxpayer and the father two of my offspring who have both served (with one still serving), I'm tired of helping to carry the rest of the NATO's load. The US needs a strong defense but, if our rivals were to join in a collective/united union in a real war, it's questionable the US could win with the other nations unprepared and what appears to be uncommitted financially to carry their share of the NATO load.
Such a war would no doubt lead to a nuclear showdown and could be the end of civilization as we know it. No nation will ever be able to invade the US (as divided as we may appear to be, that just won't happen without a nuclear holocaust) but, that doesn't mean that a lot of Europe and the rest of the world could not fall under such regimes. With the current leadership of Russian, China, N. Korea, Iran and some other middle east countries, it could become a dire situation. All I'm asking is for the rest of the NATO countries to pay up to their commitments.
Rams
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
I lean more towards Reagan, a strong military is a deterrent. But there's unfortunately also the aspect that many defense contractors would like to see war since it generates massive revenue.
Russia says they want to begin negotiations...
First, I don't really agree with the first sentence, I don't believe anyone wants to see a war but, I do think defense contractors like the threat of war. Obviously, they (defense contractors) benefit from greater sales. The second sentence just goes to prove that a strong national and NATO defense does affect how the rest of the world operates.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-13-2024).]
Originally posted by blackrams: First, I don't really agree with the first sentence, I don't believe anyone wants to see a war but, I do think defense contractors like the threat of war. Obviously, they (defense contractors) benefit from greater sales.
Rams
I didn't really explain what I was trying to convey very well. I'm not talking about defense contractors as in, the people doing the day to day work. I meant more the leadership that view it from a business perspective. What I was trying to emphasize is that it's easy to "go to war" when you're not really considering the circumstances of the people who end up losing their lives from it. Psychologically, humans tend to separate themselves mentally from inconvenient situations when they can focus on something else. We do this in our day to day lives with a lot of things... for example, doctors... a brain surgeon has to "separate him/herself" from the perspective that they're digging into a person's brain... that this person has a family, maybe kids, a parent, etc... they HAVE to detach themselves emotionally and view it as a task.
I hate to use WW2 as an example, but in NAZI Germany, many people, especially the civilians, convinced themselves that Jews (and others) were lesser people, and that allowed them to mentally justify the actions that were taking place within their own country. So put that into perspective of as Ray likes to call it, the industrial machine... war is good for business. Those appealing to war, and for some Generals hoping to get a nice job after their time and service, they may ignore the reality of what comes from war, only looking at the outcome and perhaps the financial incentive that results from it.
I'm not saying everyone is like this, just that it's a perspective that I think does happen... unfortunately.
A lot of this is just rationalization to justify Western Europe NOT paying more, or developing their own defense industries and defense infrastructure and products and sometimes when I read these kind of rationalizations I have to wonder if those countries don't deep down, think "They should be giving us their products, not making us pay for them".
Much of our own domestic defense infrastructure, troop levels here at home, munitions stored, and mobility costs are not to protect US, but to have assets available should Europe get into something they can't/won't handle on their own. This, is above and beyond what our stated NATO costs are.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-13-2024).]
Much of our own domestic defense infrastructure, troop levels here at home, munitions stored, and mobility costs are not to protect US, but to have assets available should Europe get into something they can't/won't handle on their own. This, is above and beyond what our stated NATO costs are.
Anyone not recognizing this is simply ignoring the obvious.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-13-2024).]
While the U.S. does invest heavily in NATO defense, a lot of that spending actually supports American economic interests rather than purely covering costs for European allies.
"Economic interests" play a large role in who does what for whom. Is protection of offshore US economic interests not the responsibility of the US military? It stands to reason then that US military expenditures are very high, as US economic interests are vast and worldwide.
"Economic interests" play a large role in who does what for whom. Is protection of offshore US economic interests not the responsibility of the US military? It stands to reason then that US military expenditures are very high, as US economic interests are vast and worldwide.
I think that's the "rub" as they say. The lines seem to get blurred between economic interests and our obligations... and then, how these things are portrayed to the taxpayer and voter. I'm not mentioning any war specifically... but it's considered patriotic to support a war... if you will, because we're doing a good thing. I like to think that for the most part, we are. And I'd be hard pressed to argue definitively that we aren't always attempting to do the right thing when we go to war. But is that because of economic interest, or... is that because we're being the world's watchdog?
... and then the next question is... who is deciding then what causes we fight for? Certainly the taxpayer isn't, and to a lesser extent... Congress isn't either. We're supposed to declare war, but it becomes a technicality when that whom we're going against is defined as a "group" ... and the country has fallen (think pirates, rebels, etc.). There's so much grey area here... because right now, Africa is basically falling apart. There have been numerous countries that have fallen to Islamic fundamentalist groups, entire nations who's government has collapsed. Openly, the only thing we've done is remove and abandoned one of our military bases. Why then do we focus on Israel and Ukraine, but ignore what's going on in Africa? Is it because they're white? I dunno... no one's suggested that, and I don't think that's the case. We have alliances with Ukraine and Israel, and I we technically have an agreement to defend Ukraine against attack... but that treaty has been violated by both Russia, Europe, and the United States a few times over.
Point I'm trying to make (I suppose)... it doesn't seem like our wars are always decided based on the reasoning that's portrayed by our government.
