Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Draco-Onis]

Merrick Garland has made it very clear that he'll do the wrong thing if it'll fend off any accusations of him being partisan, particularly when it comes to going after Trump or his administration. Merrick Garland seems like he'd much rather be seen as a fool and a doormat instead of partisan.

Or he is just a corporate / rich people shill like the previous democratic administration who coined the term too big to jail.

[Kellhound]

I understand your idea perfectly, oh it will be just like Germany or Japan. However I am talking about reality, those countries are not Germany or Japan. The national community would not be involved. We've never been able to nation build Solo, we are awful at getting the locals behind us due to our tactics and reputation. Last due to all above reasons the government we establish are corrupt and cannot stand without our guns.

Your hypotheses are based on wishful thinking and "faith".

Nope, this shows you are clueless about what I am talking about. One size does not fit all.

- - - Updated - - -

Imagine being wrong as much as this poster is and being this smug about it.

Except, I am not wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Rules for thee but not for mee, sayeth the people who bought your government wholesale decades back.

The entire American system is set up to benefit the wealthy at the expense of literally everyone else. Systemically, legally, etc. It's not an accident. Your political parties were sold to the highest bidders.

Yes, both of 'em. Often to the same damn bidders. Which is why they might vary wildly on some issues, but neither's willing to buck the absofuckingludicrous military-industrial complex. Can't pay for universal healthcare, need to buy hundreds more tanks the Army doesn't need or want because tank manufacturers need their bribes.

The US has one tank plant, owned by the US government. It is staffed by people with skills that are not as easy to replace as they were. I uses a supply base that is not easily replaced. The US has already lost a significant amount of its ability to produce military hardware compared to 30 years ago. We have little ability to recover from a significant near-peer conflict. The only reason the Army didn't want the tanks is because they couldn't afford them, not that they didn't want them.

[Elegiac]

The US has one tank plant, owned by the US government. It is staffed by people with skills that are not as easy to replace as they were. I uses a supply base that is not easily replaced. The US has already lost a significant amount of its ability to produce military hardware compared to 30 years ago. We have little ability to recover from a significant near-peer conflict. The only reason the Army didn't want the tanks is because they couldn't afford them, not that they didn't want them.

Called it. Lol:

Inb4 "but we need to keep production lines opening just in case we go to war with Russia or China and need to ramp it up" or some War is Peace nonsense.

What an irony that the leader of the capitalist world is the prime example of why capitalism can suck big fat ones.

[Kellhound]

Called it. Lol:

Oh, you called the truth! Wow! Actually, no you didn't call it, as I didn't say anything about ramping up, just maintaining what we have.

Funny thing is, military contractors provide a large number of living wage jobs that would disappear if you had your way.

[Endus]

The US has one tank plant, owned by the US government. It is staffed by people with skills that are not as easy to replace as they were. I uses a supply base that is not easily replaced. The US has already lost a significant amount of its ability to produce military hardware compared to 30 years ago. We have little ability to recover from a significant near-peer conflict. The only reason the Army didn't want the tanks is because they couldn't afford them, not that they didn't want them.

That's a lot of argument for why maintaining a tank production plant is a really, monumentally stupid and fiscally irresponsible decision.

Plus, you're pretty much just wrong. I'll trust the heads of the US military over some rando on the Internet;

https://www.businessinsider.com/cong...-tanks-2012-10
https://www.military.com/daily-news/...esnt-want.html
https://www.military.com/daily-news/...esnt-need.html

And no, those aren't links to the same issue. They're all from separate budget years.

- - - Updated - - -

Funny thing is, military contractors provide a large number of living wage jobs that would disappear if you had your way.

And?

If we're concerned about the public welfare, that budget would be far more effectively spent just being distributed directly to those workers as a basic income.

Your position only makes sense if you've internalized the idea that people who aren't working should suffer. I reject that premise entirely. Fix the real problem rather than shitting money down the drain in the stupidest and most wasteful manner thinkable.

[Elegiac]

Oh, you called the truth! Wow! Actually, no you didn't call it, as I didn't say anything about ramping up

Which is such an important distinction when it comes to setting piles of money on fire for fun and profit. /s

Funny thing is, military contractors provide a large number of living wage jobs that would disappear if you had your way.

Considering my way is to take the money and labor the military is wasting on its eternal dick flex quest and put it towards constructive purposes like infrastructure or public assistance; this is a feature, not a bug.

I literally do not care how many impoverished people the military inveigles into consigning themselves to helping grease the imperialism machine and call it a living wage job for the same reason I don't give a shit about how many people cigarette companies employ beyond "how many people need to be rescued from these industries".

[Kellhound]

That's a lot of argument for why maintaining a tank production plant is a really, monumentally stupid and fiscally irresponsible decision.

Plus, you're pretty much just wrong. I'll trust the heads of the US military over some rando on the Internet;

https://www.businessinsider.com/cong...-tanks-2012-10
https://www.military.com/daily-news/...esnt-want.html
https://www.military.com/daily-news/...esnt-need.html

And no, those aren't links to the same issue. They're all from separate budget years.

- - - Updated - - -



And?

If we're concerned about the public welfare, that budget would be far more effectively spent just being distributed directly to those workers as a basic income.

Your position only makes sense if you've internalized the idea that people who aren't working should suffer. I reject that premise entirely. Fix the real problem rather than shitting money down the drain in the stupidest and most wasteful manner thinkable.

And if you read them fully, you would see what I said is what the articles said, the tanks were not wanted from a financial standpoint.

Yes, we should make the US a welfare state that generates money out of thin air....

[Elegiac]

Yes, we should make the US a welfare state that generates money out of thin air....

Because as we all know people on public assistance don't consume goods or services and thus generate no demand. /s

Please take that supply-side bullshit elswhere.

[Kellhound]

Which is such an important distinction when it comes to setting piles of money on fire for fun and profit. /s



Considering my way is to take the money and labor the military is wasting on its eternal dick flex quest and put it towards constructive purposes like infrastructure or public assistance; this is a feature, not a bug.

I literally do not care how many impoverished people the military inveigles into consigning themselves to helping grease the imperialism machine and call it a living wage job for the same reason I don't give a shit about how many people cigarette companies employ beyond "how many people need to be rescued from these industries".

Money that goes into the US economy, and not China's.

- - - Updated - - -

Because as we all know people on public assistance don't consume goods or services and thus generate no demand. /s

Please take that supply-side bullshit elswhere.

Oh they consume things, imported things.

[Elegiac]

Money that goes into the US economy, and not China's.

Trade is not a zero sum game.

Oh they consume things, imported things.

And? This is only an issue if you've structured your economy in such a way that non-manufacturing jobs aren't livable (see: the present US).

They sure as fuck aren't consuming an endless stream of unused tanks, that's for sure.

[Endus]

And if you read them fully, you would see what I said is what the articles said, the tanks were not wanted from a financial standpoint.

And the complete lack of any use to put those tanks to.

I did read the articles, y'see.

Yes, we should make the US a welfare state that generates money out of thin air....

Not "out of thin air".

Out of increased consumer spending. Y'know, how consumer-based economies work.

Edit: And before you come back with "but China" nonsense like above, that's just whining that a communist nation is outcompeting capitalist USA at the USA's own economic game.

[Elegiac]

Edit: And before you come back with "but China" nonsense like above, that's just whining that a communist nation is outcompeting capitalist USA at the USA's own economic game.

The irony is people have been saying this shit about China since even before the US achieved global hegemony.

Which is itself just a manifestation of our old friend Eco's point number 8: "Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will."

Funny how pretty much everything about the military-industrial complex and its philosophical justifications is just an Ur-Fascist Clip Show.

[Kellhound]

Trade is not a zero sum game.



And? This is only an issue if you've structured your economy in such a way that non-manufacturing jobs aren't livable (see: the present US).

They sure as fuck aren't consuming an endless stream of unused tanks, that's for sure.

Not it isn't, but the importer gets the short end of the stick more often then not.

True, you can base your economy on printing money.

No, but a lot of people earn a good living making those tanks, and the parts for them, and supporting those functions. The service sector has few good jobs, and technology is just going to eat away more of them.

[Elegiac]

Not it isn't, but the importer gets the short end of the stick more often then not.

Again: This is only an issue if you've structured your economy in such a way that non-manufacturing jobs aren't livable.

True, you can base your economy on printing money.

Hate to tell you this bruh but money is an abstract instrument. It's all made up, regardless of what system you use.

The service sector has few good jobs

Here's a fun fact: neither does manufacturing. Just look at the textile industry.

The only reason those jobs are lauded as "good jobs" is because they were made good jobs as a result of government regulation and collective bargaining. Nothing about being a steel worker guarantees a livable wage, or healthcare, or paid leave anymore than being a service worker.

This just reeks of ignorance about how industrialism actually looked prior to the New Deal.

[Kellhound]

And the complete lack of any use to put those tanks to.

I did read the articles, y'see.



Not "out of thin air".

Out of increased consumer spending. Y'know, how consumer-based economies work.

Edit: And before you come back with "but China" nonsense like above, that's just whining that a communist nation is outcompeting capitalist USA at the USA's own economic game.

Because the size of the tank force has been slashed.

Yes, the US service based economy works so well.

Its easy to outcompete the US when you don't have to worry about things like pollution, worker's pay, industrial espionage, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

Again: This is only an issue if you've structured your economy in such a way that non-manufacturing jobs aren't livable.



Hate to tell you this bruh but money is an abstract instrument. It's all made up, regardless of what system you use.



Here's a fun fact: neither does manufacturing.

The only reason those jobs are lauded as "good jobs" is because they were made good jobs as a result of government regulation and collective bargaining.

Money is a controlled barter system, you have to have something to barter with.

I have never seen a dearth of good manufacturing sector jobs outside of the Great Recession any place I have lived. Even a Neandertal can get a manufacturing job around here that pays $18+ an hour for mediocre performance.

[Elegiac]

Money is a controlled barter system

It is not, actually. "Barter systems" are not really a thing that ever existed on a wide scale. What precedes money are forms of social credit and gift economies - basically, all economic activity ever is just a function of trust.

If it were a matter of inherent value then, again, the textile industry would not look like it does and has done historically.

I have never seen a dearth of good manufacturing sector jobs outside of the Great Recession any place I have lived.

Because you have only ever lived in a country that benefited significantly from aforementioned New Deal reforms but then chose not to extend those reforms to different sectors of the economy.

This speaks to your lack of experience, not any objective economic fact.

[Kellhound]

It is not, actually. "Barter systems" are not really a thing that ever existed on a wide scale. What precedes money are forms of social credit and gift economies - basically, all economic activity ever is just a function of trust.

If it were a matter of inherent value then, again, the textile industry would not look like it does and has done historically.



Because you have only ever lived in a country that benefited significantly from aforementioned New Deal reforms but then chose not to extend those reforms to different sectors of the economy.

This speaks to your lack of experience, not any objective economic fact.

It is a barter system, just with an agreed upon exchange rate for everything and a greatly reduced risk in the transaction.

So you are saying that extending those "reforms" to other sectors would destroy the good manufacturing jobs as well? Seems like a lose-lose proposition to me, unless your goal is to make everyone poor so that no one is.... Ah yes, that is why you like it.

[Draco-Onis]

Funny thing is, military contractors provide a large number of living wage jobs that would disappear if you had your way.

ROFLMAO, this pretty much solidifies my suspicion that you are part of a PMC because that's one heck of a way to describe mercenaries and at their rate it's not just a "living wage" since they are you know mercenaries.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, this shows you are clueless about what I am talking about. One size does not fit all.

Well maybe you should work that out with this clueless guy.

You win wars by destroying nation states' ability to function as a cohesive opposition followed by removing the levers that insurgents can use to manipulate the population into supporting their fight. We are great at the first part, we suck at the second part post WWII. We do not like the idea of "nation building" to the extent needed. We do not have the stomach for high casualties. And to answer which wars we should have spent more money on: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.

I do not think you would find the majority of the populations of Germany and Japan would agree they were occupied in 1990.

You forgot to add the entire county...

There was no insurgency because we rebuilt them before pulling massive occupation forces.

Oh we could have rebuilt those countries, we just failed to.

Just like we colonized Japan and Germany in 1945....

If done properly you get countries that are stable and lack overall aggressive feelings against those that rebuilt them.

Don't fight too hard with the mirror now.

[beanman12345]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...-found-he-gave

Yo AG Garland, what the fuckin fuck, yo? Why are we not prosecuting a fake billionaire who fuckin lied to Congress on at least two occasions, under oath?

This is horse shit. Very non-plussed.

At this point I'm curious what the point of having an inspector general even is anymore for any of these departments. I'm curious why anyone would even want the job when 5 years straight every inspector general in every department who's brought stuff to the DoJ has just gotten their work used as toilet paper.

edit- Oh NVM reading again, it was Trump's DOJ that decided not to prosecute. Though I don't understand why the current one won't, perjury statute of limitation under federal law is 5 years. This happened 3 years ago...

[Endus]

It is a barter system, just with an agreed upon exchange rate for everything and a greatly reduced risk in the transaction.

"It's exactly like a barter system when you remove all the actual hallmarks of a barter system" is just not an argument at all.

So you are saying that extending those "reforms" to other sectors would destroy the good manufacturing jobs as well? Seems like a lose-lose proposition to me, unless your goal is to make everyone poor so that no one is.... Ah yes, that is why you like it.

Your $18/hour jobs are shit pay for shit work, y'know. Wherever did you get the idea that $18/hour is a lot of money? That's just $37,500/year or so. Working class income. They ARE "poor".

The big difference is that some of us don't think applying duress to force potential workers into the labor force is a reasonable or humane option, in the first place. And that people should be able to live with a basic modicum of comfort without being expected to sell their labor in exchange. That isn't about "making everyone poor", it's about raising the floor, to eliminate the worst levels of poverty. The only people who'd "pay the price", so to speak, are the wealthy. Who'd just end up a little less wealthy.