|
Replies: 51
| visibility 651
|
All-In [27152]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15706
Joined: 1/26/22
|
Military families are a joke.
17
17
Feb 12, 2024, 8:56 AM
|
|
Like what losers volunteer to have dad shipped away leaving mom and kids at home. Get a real job and stop being a deadbeat, right?
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [26514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 20654
Joined: 9/2/02
|
A swing and a miss ...***
2
1
Feb 12, 2024, 9:05 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56152
Joined: 9/13/04
|
When do the "mean tweets" get too reprehensible for some
5
5
Feb 12, 2024, 9:07 AM
|
|
trump voters?
When he mocks singles mothers? Makes fun of those with special needs children?
I don't think the loudmouth yankee has a boundary--nor do some of his followers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27152]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15706
Joined: 1/26/22
|
WWII dead are losers. POWs are losers. Deployed military spouses are deadbeats.
3
Feb 12, 2024, 9:12 AM
|
|
But at least he won't make our soldiers gay!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65843
Joined: 5/6/13
|
I think its abhorrent and inexcusable.
1
Feb 12, 2024, 9:19 AM
|
|
If you respect and honor those who served though, here’s the choice as I see it:
A) the d-bag who has repeatedly insulted those who served, many who made the ultimate sacrifice, while at the same time engaging our military in the least amount of interventionism in my lifetime.
Or
B) the guy who says the right things and has us on the cusp of multiple new wars, and got multiple service members killed with a horribly thought out and executed military withdrawal?
I don’t see an awesome choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Well, there's a choice C, but apparently she's a "communist lib" or something***
3
Feb 12, 2024, 9:21 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65843
Joined: 5/6/13
|
I can explain many things, and for those I cant,
3
Feb 12, 2024, 9:30 AM
|
|
I’m usually good at bluffing.
For how Trump is the runaway favorite for the GOP nomination, I got nothing. I really don’t. I know plenty of people who will be happy to vote for him in Nov, but even among that group almost all preferred Desantis.
I feel like all state primaries should be on the same day. It’s bizarre that a random state like Iowa immediately begins making or breaking candidates. We should all vote on the same day so we ultimately don’t GAF about who Farmer Sam in Podunk Falls voted for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I can explain many things, and for those I cant,
1
Feb 12, 2024, 9:36 AM
|
|
I feel like all state primaries should be on the same day. It’s bizarre that a random state like Iowa immediately begins making or breaking candidates. We should all vote on the same day so we ultimately don’t GAF about who Farmer Sam in Podunk Falls voted for.
Agreed, and also implement a ranked voting system for primaries. This is the sole reason we're getting such #### candidates on both sides. The trash rises out of the primaries because the trash of their parties bands together to vote for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24119]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12224
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: I can explain many things, and for those I cant,
1
Feb 12, 2024, 9:48 AM
|
|
We really need more parties. I would love to see 4 parties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27152]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15706
Joined: 1/26/22
|
Federal ballot access requirements with low thresholds.
1
Feb 12, 2024, 9:51 AM
|
|
Rank choice voting.
Give us two things, and our elections will radically improve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65843
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Re: Federal ballot access requirements with low thresholds.
2
Feb 12, 2024, 9:56 AM
|
|
Term limits too while we are dreaming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27152]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15706
Joined: 1/26/22
|
RCV may kill the need for term limits, which would also give the good guys
Feb 12, 2024, 10:08 AM
|
|
an opportunity to stay in office...
...but also yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12256]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5399
Joined: 9/12/04
|
I just can't buy into ranked choice voting and don't think it is the solution...
1
Feb 12, 2024, 10:51 AM
[ in reply to Federal ballot access requirements with low thresholds. ] |
|
The longer it takes to determine an election result plus the more times ballots are handled and counted - the more I distrust the election results. Ranked choice voting all but guarantees greatly extended time periods for determining election results with numerous rounds of counting the same ballots.
Secondly - it really doesn't solve the major problem of two political Party's running roughshod over just about all other candidates with incumbency win rates well over 90% - they will continue to excel at a high rate in any ranked choice voting scheme.
IMO the solution to our elections isn't more gaming of the ballot casting/counting mechanisms that just builds more distrust into a system where mistrust is already growing. We require real Constitutional additions that directly address our political system. In general terms - we need to amend our Constitution to:
1. End the ability of people to make a career of Politics and continue in the political system after having served in office. This includes draconian term limits to elected office and the ability to bounce between Government appointments and corporate/private policy positions whose duties include Government "outreach".
2. Kill the non-tax dollar money apparatus currently funding our Party's, candidates, and elections. Everything from campaign donations to the amount of advertising that can be used towards a candidate - including those of unaffiliated but supporting PACs. We have simply gotten to a point where the main focus of the Political Party's and candidates is raising donor money and catering to those donors. This has ultimately resulted in a concentration of political power among ever smaller numbers of the wealthy electorate with the majority of people being cast as "irrelevant" when it comes to having their voices heard.
3. Kill the election interference of individuals, non-profits, and other NGOs that include such activities as voter registration drives, ballot dissemination/collection, and voter "education" programs.
There are probably more that need to be addressed but those are the big three for starters - particularly #1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58445]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46333
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I have a lot of friends who love Trump because
1
Feb 12, 2024, 1:09 PM
[ in reply to I can explain many things, and for those I cant, ] |
|
A. "Trump tells it like it is. He's not worried about offending everybody and he doesn't cave to woke nonsense."
B. "The economy was booming under Trump".
C. "Trump puts the U.S. first."
D. "Trump keeps us out of wars because our enemies know good and well he will respond swiftly and decisively if they mess with us.
E. "Trump tells off stupid liberals and insults them to their face. I love it!"
F. "He's the only one who will stand up to the wacko left".
That's what I'm getting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Yep. Just constant regurgitation
Feb 12, 2024, 2:11 PM
|
|
And if you try to refute one of those points, they'll "But Biden!" you to death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58445]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46333
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Not a defense of Trump, but there's a lot of truth in it.
Feb 12, 2024, 2:40 PM
|
|
It's at least in part a matter of whether or not you think that's a good thing or not, or whether those things make him a good/better president. Both sides definitely have talking points and generally agreed upon opinions they regurgitate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27152]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15706
Joined: 1/26/22
|
I'd take issue with the assumption there is truth in any of those statements.
Feb 12, 2024, 2:42 PM
|
|
It's true he seems to do/be all those things. It's not true that he actually does/is those things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
A lot of truth in those points?
1
Feb 12, 2024, 2:44 PM
[ in reply to Not a defense of Trump, but there's a lot of truth in it. ] |
|
Maybe I'm not reading you correctly here, but if you're saying there's a lot of truth in these points, I can easily refute those. If that's not what you meant, my bad.
A. Much of his "telling it like it is" are just lies and acts to fool his base.
B. Yeah, but he didn't create that. It was already on the uptick. He did some things to put in the bad situation we are now.
C. Trump puts himself and only himself first. Maybe his kids.
D. No evidence of that at all. Haley deserves most of that credit.
E. He tells off everyone who doesn't kiss his ###, political ideology be ######. Because he's an idiot ### hole.
F. See point E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58445]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46333
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Re: A lot of truth in those points?
Feb 12, 2024, 6:00 PM
|
|
A. "He's not worried about offending everybody and he doesn't cave to woke nonsense."
100% true.
B. "The economy was booming under Trump".
Yep (you agreed). I never claimed he created it; that's a separate point. So that statement is true.
C. "Trump puts the U.S. first."
There is no disputing that Trump is a narcissist of the highest order. Still, he put the interest of
the U.S. ahead of other nations more than once, at least in the minds of many.
D. "Trump keeps us out of wars because our enemies know good and well he will respond swiftly and
decisively if they mess with us".
No evidence of that at all. Haley deserves most of that credit.
Entirely a matter of opinion. I won't debate it.
E. "Trump tells off stupid liberals and insults them to their face. I love it!"
He tells off everyone who doesn't kiss his ###, political ideology be ######. Because he's an
idiot ### hole. This much is indisputable: Trump tells off liberals and insults them. So that
much is true.
F. "He's the only one who will stand up to the wacko left".
Meh, he's not the only one, but he does it more colorfully and stridently than just about anyone
else. So that much is true.
So yes, a lot of that was true.
Again, I won't vote for Trump and I am not defending him. I disagree with people who can't see that he's a total narcissist who simply could not accept that he lost the election (which of course, he did). So, I don't totally disagree with you about Trump, I just understand why people fall for it, even if I don't, or don't agree with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: A lot of truth in those points?
Feb 13, 2024, 4:09 PM
|
|
A. Yeah, he doesn't care about offending anyone, but he's also a big baby who is easily offended. He doesn't know what "woke" means.
B. Fair.
C. I argue that "putting America first" was a façade to get support and serve himself, but I see your point.
D. Fair. I'll add that I think Trump just got lucky with not having to deal with any conflicts at the time.
E. Ok.
F. But again, I got back to point E. He just tells off anyone he doesn't like; his supporters mistakenly think he's standing up to the left.
Again, I won't vote for Trump and I am not defending him. I disagree with people who can't see that he's a total narcissist who simply could not accept that he lost the election (which of course, he did). So, I don't totally disagree with you about Trump, I just understand why people fall for it, even if I don't, or don't agree with them.
You're right; I think those people who fall for it also 1. lack the critical thinking skills to see through his BS. 2. Shut out factual information that shows what Trump really is. 3. Have already fully committed to the hero syndrome, and they know they must argue his infallibility lest they get taken to task on supporting him. To them, it's a pride thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9109]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5296
Joined: 9/3/03
|
Re: Well, there's a choice C, but apparently she's a "communist lib" or something***
1
Feb 12, 2024, 2:28 PM
[ in reply to Well, there's a choice C, but apparently she's a "communist lib" or something*** ] |
|
No, she's a "warmonger." A warmonger whose husband is in the military and could well be called up to serve in any action that would take place under her administration.
No military spouse wants war. But a real leader understands that sometimes it's necessary to prevent greater harm. That's why our military exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27152]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15706
Joined: 1/26/22
|
My posturing against Trump is not that Biden is much better.
4
Feb 12, 2024, 9:46 AM
[ in reply to I think its abhorrent and inexcusable. ] |
|
Personally, I believe he's better, but mostly because I'd take the guy asleep at the wheel as opposed to the one who just hoovered a few rails of PCP and threw me in the front seat with him. But, at the end of the day, I'd agree it is a really, really crappy flip of the coin.
My beef is that the GOP knew there was and is a virtually unlimited pool of better options than Trump, and we're still stuck with him through the fecklessness of the GOP leaders, and the "Give us Barabbas" attitude of MAGA supporters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24119]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12224
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: My posturing against Trump is not that Biden is much better.
2
Feb 12, 2024, 10:48 AM
|
|
A sociopath or a guy who clearly has the lights out (with a VP who's never had the lights on). We're in bad shape when RFK jr seems comparatively sane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7159]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9716
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: I think its abhorrent and inexcusable.
1
Feb 12, 2024, 10:00 AM
[ in reply to I think its abhorrent and inexcusable. ] |
|
Let’s see.
Option A: A choice between a loudmouth who can be expected to say something stupid weekly … including insulting comments about military members … but one who does well in keeping the USA out of irrelevant foreign wars, thereby avoiding needless injuries and fatalities to our servicem3n.
Vs.
Option B: A man whose ideas of military preparedness includes appointing a Secretary of Defense that doesn’t bother to inform him when he is out of action because of a medical issue. AND that same man being unaware that his SoD is even out of contact. AND a man who blindly follows the advice of self-interested military industrial complex crony capitalists that ends up getting our military service members into action which kills & maims them.
Hmmm … is Option A or Option B better for our military servicemen? Tough call.
(As for Nikki Nebukadnezer and war, she makes Biden look like a Bernie Sanders-esque dove.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
List the wars Nikki Haley started or helped cause.
Feb 12, 2024, 10:03 AM
|
|
Thanks. I'll hang up and listen to your answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27152]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15706
Joined: 1/26/22
|
Haley's diplomacy as ambassador is what kept Trump out of wars.***
Feb 12, 2024, 10:09 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24814]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42569
Joined: 7/31/10
|
Be careful how far you stretch that rubber band. It might pop you.***
Feb 13, 2024, 11:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4021]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 8048
Joined: 12/9/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65843
Joined: 5/6/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37202
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Except he added his own stupidity about Haley...
4
Feb 12, 2024, 11:32 AM
|
|
I can't follow the train of thought that has Trump as resistant to more foreign entanglement, but his UN Ambassador is a foaming-at-the-mouth war-hawk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27152]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15706
Joined: 1/26/22
|
The 'Trump didn't get us into war' runs head on into 'other countries didn't
3
Feb 12, 2024, 11:48 AM
|
|
start anything with Trump because they were scared' argument, given the latter assumes Trump had no problem going to war. But these are not people for whom logic is really used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65843
Joined: 5/6/13
|
I think both conditions can coexist.
2
Feb 12, 2024, 12:14 PM
|
|
I think Trump didn’t want to get in a war because he’s a populist and wars aren’t popular.
I think many foes behaved themselves more than normal simply because they thought he might be nuts and their best intelligence analysts couldn’t predict how he would react in any given situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27152]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15706
Joined: 1/26/22
|
tmmlol.
Feb 12, 2024, 12:32 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
They don't. Not for the die hards.
5
5
Feb 12, 2024, 9:13 AM
[ in reply to When do the "mean tweets" get too reprehensible for some ] |
|
Because they're terrible people too and they think this finally makes it okay for them to be terrible. They're finally embracing that they can be themselves and treat people poorly because they think Trump makes it okay.
Not one of the usual suspects on this board will speak out against it. You won't see Keowee, or McMurphy (who used to get major butthurt 20 years ago if you weren't worshipping all things military), Crash, RememberTheDanny, NC_Tiger, SOLOs, etc. speak up and denounce Trump's comments.
But I challenge them to prove me wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24814]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42569
Joined: 7/31/10
|
I've derided T-Rump for years... the Narcissist-in-Chief and A-hole #1 at times.
Feb 12, 2024, 10:46 AM
|
|
That's not debatable. However, my reasoning is based on Obed's point regarding "the evil you know versus the evil you don't" (sic)...
With T-Rump as President, my lifestyle/ finances/ etc. was much better. With the current Biden regime, who knows what's next?
I can't think of anything positive to posit. It's not a matter of wanting T-Rump, it's a matter of getting rid of a clueless Puppet.
As to Haley or DeSantis or someone else... ain't happnin'. Given a binary choice, I have to go with a foul-mouthed T-Rump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17300]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14243
Joined: 12/14/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47799]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44519
Joined: 9/5/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13160]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14155
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Just sayin'
2
Feb 12, 2024, 9:57 AM
|
|
"He revitalized our defense industrial base, secured the largest pay raise for our troops in a decade, and created the sixth branch of our Armed Forces: the United States Space Force. President Trump also became the first American leader since Ronald Reagan not to start a war."
Anyway, it was a bad joke about Nikki's insufferable-ness that the Trump team failed to do their homework on.
Read the rest:
COLOSSAL REBUILDING OF THE MILITARY
Rebuilt the military and created the Sixth Branch, the United States Space Force
Completely rebuilt the United States military with over $2.2 trillion in defense spending, including $738 billion for 2020
Secured three pay raises for our service members and their families, including the largest raise in a decade
Established the Space Force, the first new branch of the United States Armed Forces since 1947
Modernized and recapitalized our nuclear forces and missile defenses to ensure they continue to serve as a strong deterrent
Upgraded our cyber defenses by elevating the Cyber Command into a major warfighting command and reducing burdensome procedural restrictions on cyber operations
Vetoed the FY21 National Defense Authorization Act, which failed to protect our national security, disrespected the history of our veterans and military, and contradicted our efforts to put America first
Defeated terrorists, held leaders accountable for malign actions, and bolstered peace around the world
Defeated 100 percent of ISIS’ territorial caliphate in Iraq and Syria
Freed nearly 8 million civilians from ISIS’ bloodthirsty control, and liberated Mosul, Raqqa, and the final ISIS foothold of Baghuz
Killed the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and eliminated the world’s top terrorist, Qasem Soleimani
Created the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center (TFTC) in partnership between the United States and its Gulf partners to combat extremist ideology and threats, and target terrorist financial networks, including over 60 terrorist individuals and entities spanning the globe
Twice took decisive military action against the Assad regime in Syria for the barbaric use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians, including a successful 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles strike
Authorized sanctions against bad actors tied to Syria’s chemical weapons program
Negotiated an extended ceasefire with Turkey in northeast Syria
Addressed gaps in American’s defense-industrial base, providing much-needed updates to improve the safety of our country
Protected America’s defense-industrial base, directing the first whole-of-government assessment of our manufacturing and defense supply chains since the 1950s
Took decisive steps to secure our information and communications technology and services supply chain, including unsafe mobile applications
Completed several multi-year nuclear material removal campaigns, securing over 1,000 kilograms of highly enriched uranium and significantly reducing global nuclear threats
Signed an executive order directing Federal agencies to work together to diminish the capability of foreign adversaries to target our critical electric infrastructure
Established a whole-of-government strategy addressing the threat posed by China’s malign efforts targeting the United States taxpayer-funded research and development ecosystem
Advanced missile defense capabilities and regional alliances
Bolstered the ability of our allies and partners to defend themselves through the sale of military equipment
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7159]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9716
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: Just sayin'
1
Feb 12, 2024, 10:03 AM
|
|
Yeah, but Trump reliably says something stupid once a week.
No one cares about Trump’s accomplishments. His mean Tweets, however, must be stopped at all costs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Yeah, like saying...
Feb 12, 2024, 10:07 AM
|
|
That he'd turn Russia on NATO countries that don't give what he wants. Because that was the purpose of NATO. Give us what we want, or else!
But hey. It's just words. What could it all hurt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9109]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5296
Joined: 9/3/03
|
All past tense
Feb 12, 2024, 2:30 PM
[ in reply to Just sayin' ] |
|
Few of us will argue that he did good things during his one term. But those of us who are aware and willing to look at present reality see that he's not the same man he was in 2016 or even 2020. He's lost it, and losing it more every day. He's not a leader. He's a loudmouth. He only wants to win now because he felt like he should've won in 2020 and is still bitter about that. He's a poor loser. And an even worse leader. Actually, he's not a leader at all anymore. Just a loudmouth jerk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10901]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15072
Joined: 8/6/10
|
Agree, don't serve the people who want to destroy your way of life.***
Feb 12, 2024, 11:20 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56152
Joined: 9/13/04
|
You agree military families are losers?***
Feb 12, 2024, 11:40 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [441]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 370
Joined: 8/25/18
|
Re: You agree military families are losers?***
3
Feb 12, 2024, 6:58 PM
|
|
I believe the majority of Americans fail to realize how a powerful and engaged American presence across the globe helps keep the ENTIRE world on an even and stable footing. There's a reason US troops are still stationed in S. Korea, theres a reason US troops routinely are positioned in Poland, there are reasons why we keep permanent installations abroad in Germany, UK, Qatar, etc. A strong global US presence serves as a deterrent to those who seek to do evil. A strong US military is often the greatest dilpomatic negotiating tactic at our disposal. Illustrating a predtermined position to not remain involved, interject as necessary, or even stand with our strategic allies creates a power vacuum to be filled by our enemies. History has shown when we turn our back on European affairs the world is worse off for it. To be the worlds strongest nation you must also be the worlds strongest leader. You can not withdraw into your own borders and simultaneously expect your enemies to remain within theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31520]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10212
Joined: 1/28/15
|
Great post***
Feb 12, 2024, 7:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9795
Joined: 4/27/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [441]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 370
Joined: 8/25/18
|
Re: You agree military families are losers?***
Feb 12, 2024, 7:32 PM
|
|
Not sure I understand your question, but I'll answer it this way. In todays world of Great Power Competition (US, Russia, China) there is no answer nor lump sum of money that leads to total defeat. With all of these players being nuclear powers, war is no longer a means to achieve a definitive conclusion. A clear winner (Allies) and a clear loser (Axis) as the outcome of WW2 presented is no longer obtainable. Not when defeat, and by default survival, means not using the ultimate weapon at your disposal. So to answer your question there is no pure anount of money that will topple our enemies, not in modern times. Even the dissolution of the Soviet Union was not a permanent collapse of Russia as a world power. What we can do is leverage our alliances and position to project our values, guiding the direction of international politics in a manner most beneficial to American interests. This means not allowing those who oppose us to be the loudest voice nor the strongest positioned to determine the direction of history. Let us not forget, America became the worlds strongest power by engaging worldwide after WW2, not withdrawing. Viewing global security through the lens of a financial transaction is to miss the bigger picture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9795
Joined: 4/27/13
|
Re: You agree military families are losers?***
Feb 12, 2024, 7:38 PM
|
|
how much money ?
i say that you can give ukraine a trillion dollars and they still cant defeat russia
prolonging the war will just result in more deaths
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [441]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 370
Joined: 8/25/18
|
Re: You agree military families are losers?***
1
Feb 12, 2024, 7:53 PM
|
|
Fair answer...but I think we can take it a step further. If spending a trillion for Ukraine requires Russia to do same, or maybe more, is that a fair trade-off? The cold war was brought to an end by a crippled USSR economy that attempted, and failed, to keep up with US defense expenditures. Additionally, allowing Ukraine to be absorbed by Russia dissolves the buffer state between them and Nato countries. If peace between the two is desired, would a buffer state not be beneficial? Putin claimed NATO expansion threatened his borders, yet he was the one to launch an invasion...whats to stop Poland from being next? If Putin's history lessons are to be believed why should the former USSR territory not be viewed as Russian property as well? If we signal that we dont value our alliances why wouldnt he continue to march? History has a beautiful way of repeating the failed lessons of the past. Evil men need only the opportunity to do evil deeds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9795
Joined: 4/27/13
|
Re: You agree military families are losers?***
Feb 13, 2024, 3:22 PM
|
|
lol
"whats to stop Poland from being next?"
because he is struggling with ukraine, doesnt have the men or equipment to advance
you would give them a trillion dollars?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27152]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15706
Joined: 1/26/22
|
you are so close. SO CLOSE. And yet.
Feb 13, 2024, 3:27 PM
|
|
Will never get there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5694]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12169
Joined: 9/28/08
|
The decision is to get closer
Feb 13, 2024, 3:41 PM
|
|
to socialism, Marxism, communism (by voting democrat) or not.
The 'not' crowd are or will be Trump voters.
No one in the political arena today can marshal support to fix the gov't and current leftist 'hate America' and 'im a victim' culture. Maybe there will be someone someday, but for now Trump seems to be the only option to hold off the left.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 51
| visibility 651
|
|
|
50
