Let's talk Sanders.

[Metazoa Zeke]

(14-01-2016 09:32 AM)yakherder Wrote:  There are pros and cons to their reliance on us for defense.

Though the cons out weigh the pros, and the pros aren't needed.

(14-01-2016 09:32 AM)yakherder Wrote:  Money is not one of the cons.

Then I guess they don't need to cut funds like. Wait........

(14-01-2016 09:32 AM)yakherder Wrote:  The opportunity they've had over the last half century to almost completely ignore their defense has allowed them an unprecedented level of economic growth, though it didn't last forever.

Though I do agree they should not completely ignore its defense, the lack of growth is thanks to their dumbass prime minister. You know about his three arrows? None of them hit. If we had to put it in a literal sense, he couldn't hit the broadside of a barn, while standing in front of it.

(14-01-2016 09:32 AM)yakherder Wrote:  And allies, in this world, is more than having a quick reaction force half a world away.

There is a ocean right there bro.

(14-01-2016 09:32 AM)yakherder Wrote:  The NSA facility we've got in Misawa, for example, has been critical in staying on top of, or at least on par with, prospective adversaries like China and North Korea, and it isn't just the U.S. that takes advantage of the information gained there.

China and Japan have problems because again, japan's dumbass leaders. Japan is run with people who sit and lie about nanking and then expect everyone to agree that it didn't happen by paying them. A comparison is Germany in this aspect. Germany did some terrible shit, but it apologized, and taught people about their horrible shit of the past. Japan does not, and will spit in the face of those who survived. Granted, it is fixing things up with korea, but not china. However instead of sucking up its pride and realizing its wrong, japan's government would rather fear monger over something it can fix.

And about north korea, I give credit where credit is do.

[Black Eagle]

Every candidate for president, on both sides of the aisle, are losers except for Sanders. It is probably equivalent to throwing away money but my wife and I just made a hefty donation to Bernie's campaign. I hope that a year from now, we are all calling him, "Mr. President," but I don't think that's going to happen. I will say this, if he's not on the ballot for Prez, and I doubt he will be, I'm not going to vote.

[BryanS]

(13-01-2016 09:10 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  So, what are the realistic chances that this guy will become your president?
I think if he can beat Hillary he will be President by the years end.

BUT will he beat Hillary? I mean she has boobs and he's an old white man. Bush ruined the old white man thing and the Demo's are on a streak with this whole non-old-white-men thing they got going on. Plus Demo's for some odd reason do like Bill, even though he's a fucking twat.

I really hope Sanders get's the nomination and than goes on to become your president. You guys NEED someone like Sanders to catch you up with the rest of the western world because this whole conservative Christian fuck the commies shit you've had going on since the end of doubleyou-doubleyou two ain't working out for you so good, especially you lot on this forum.

What a ride if he does win though. From the worst candidates in US history with the likes of Trump and Carson, to what could possibly be your best president yet (at least best in my life time so far. JFK and your old ones like Abe were alright.).

The only thing I can say about this election cycle is that it is unlike any other in the past few decades. Trump should not be the leading candidate for the GOP. He has no 'social conservative' credibility. Sanders should not have a snowball's chance for the Democratic nod. Socialism is a dirty word in the US.

I really cannot predict who would win a Trump v Sanders election. Just months ago, I would have guessed that either one ending up as the nominee would doom their respective party to a certain loss. Trump v Sanders would make for an interesting election.

[DerFish]

(14-01-2016 03:54 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  I think Colonel Sanders has a better chance....

But did his chicken cross the road and why?

[DerFish]

(14-01-2016 01:31 PM)Black Eagle Wrote:  Every candidate for president, on both sides of the aisle, are losers except for Sanders. It is probably equivalent to throwing away money but my wife and I just made a hefty donation to Bernie's campaign. I hope that a year from now, we are all calling him, "Mr. President," but I don't think that's going to happen. I will say this, if he's not on the ballot for Prez, and I doubt he will be, I'm not going to vote.

Me too it has been since Barry Goldwater was running since i made a contribution and now I am sending some of my Social Security check each month to Berine

[Imathinker]

Sanders vs. Trump would be a hella interesting election. I think if Trump does get the nomination, the specifically anti-Trump crowd will be out in force to prevent that dumbass getting elected. But the anti-socialism contingent might give Sanders a hard time as well...if the Dems just had a run of the mill, likable candidate, they might be better off. This does seem to be one of the strangest election cycles.

[BryanS]

(14-01-2016 03:42 PM)Imathinker Wrote:  Sanders vs. Trump would be a hella interesting election. I think if Trump does get the nomination, the specifically anti-Trump crowd will be out in force to prevent that dumbass getting elected. But the anti-socialism contingent might give Sanders a hard time as well...if the Dems just had a run of the mill, likable candidate, they might be better off. This does seem to be one of the strangest election cycles.

There's also the possibility of a third party candidate jumping into the ring if both Trump and Sanders are the two nominees for the major parties. Too many Americans find both Trump and Sanders unacceptable, and a third party challenge might find it possible to gain traction in that environment.

In a year of strange politics, we might find that for the first time in centuries, we will have an election that is not determined by the vote, but by the House of Representatives for the President, and by the Senate for the Vice President. An even more bizarre outcome would be if the Senate flips from GOP to Democratic control--we'd end up with a GOP president and Democratic Vice President. An even more bizarre outcome than that would be a 50/50 Senate, in which case Vice President Biden would end up casting the deciding vote and select his own successor to his office.

[Banjo]

(14-01-2016 09:10 AM)yakherder Wrote:  

(14-01-2016 08:47 AM)Banjo Wrote:  History repeats, Still are you justifying you violent policies of the past and present?

Whether I justify it or not, I see nothing beyond wishful thinking to suggest the world is anything other than an inherently violent place. I merely learned to dance in the rain, so to speak. Tell me this, does it make sense to despise the violent nature of the world without any data to suggest that it will ever be anything else? A lot of people would say I should have more faith in the idea that a better world can exist. Religious people tell me the same thing about heaven when I say I'm agnostic. I'm not interested in wishful thinking. I'm merely reacting to the world as I perceive it.

We're just a bunch of monkeys fighting over a limited supply of banana trees, and I'm not keen to be on the begging end of the equation if I can help it.

Like the infallible personality test says, as an ENTJ I am characterized by an often ruthless level of rationality, and it is probably best I make up less than 3% of the population

While I agree, this also means that the allies could have lost WWII to no bad effect. Since WWII it has been the US and for a time Russia playing the bullies.

Russia fell. As will the US, Pretty soon from what I can tell when I compare it to my knowledge of history. America must expect and not complain about future terrorism. They have brought it upon themselves. "This is the essence of blowback"

[Banjo]

(14-01-2016 09:13 AM)yakherder Wrote:  

(14-01-2016 08:50 AM)morondog Wrote:  Yes, but... so being in debt doesn't really matter right? So why do people even talk about it? Is there any intention to ever pay it back or...?

I'm not that well-versed in economics

We're paying it back like most people pay off credit cards. Just enough to keep from being in default.

But no. The debt in and of itself, like money, is symbolic and is merely a representation of the leverage and resources one has control of. Pay off the debt and lose the leverage in the process, and your new found excess of cash lying around becomes useless.

Does this mean I am rich? Oh hang on, I don't owe any money. In fact my last bill was in credit. "$10.00 DO NOT PAY". Great bill to receive.

So I must simply be poor. I'd better get a credit card, spent 10 grand and become rich!

[Banjo]

(14-01-2016 09:26 AM)yakherder Wrote:  

(14-01-2016 09:23 AM)Worom Wrote:  I'm not sure, I would like to see the world become a much less violent place than it is now. Whether or not that is realistic or possible is not a question I really don't know how to answer. I guess my great hope is us reaching a technological level where the resources of our solar system can easily be used to help reduce scarcity here. However I can see this just moving the conflicts of the world into space.

I've theorized that once automated drone technology becomes smart enough to allow for absolute consistency of international enforcement of American policy, we may see some big changes. But we're almost as far away from that as we are from mining Mars. I don't expect things to change in my lifetime

Fixed.