it’s like you believe you can tariff them expecting they won’t do the same. Why do you believe the rest of the world is not going to retaliate and why do you believe America can prosper without the rest of the world?
What’s the point of having a military alliance with countries you puts tariffs on? That’s unfriendly to say the least.
Thought you meant “THE public” as in “the average joe”, soz. What I’m not sure about is what you have an issue with. The money invested into arms replenishment is a boost to US jobs/the economy. Why the complaint that it’s left the treasury? Because it could “go to something else”? Sure, anything could go to something else, but you’d have to prove that something else is actually more important/urgent. And I don’t think there’s anything more worthwhile currently than defeating Russia, the biggest antagonist to the West for decades.
Not to mention, the investment has been miniscule given the gravity of the situation, how much is “too much” for peace in Europe/World? There can be no prosperity without security.
Virtually every possible use of that money is “a boost to jobs/the economy.” If they spent more on education, teachers would have more money to spend which would create more jobs and stimulate the economy. If they spent the money building trains, it would create more jobs and stimulate the economy. If they spent the money paying people to dig ditches and then fill the ditches back in, it would create more jobs and stimulate the economy. This talking point is complete nonsense and either ignorant or disingenuous. The arms industry is not particularly good for creating jobs/economic stimulus compared to spending the money on other things like education, you’re trying to compare it to what, not spending it at all? That makes no sense.
That assumes that funding the conflict and building more bombs is necessary to bring about peace and security, which I personally disagree with, but my position on the matter is irrelevant, the original comment was just seeking to answer the question and describe what some people on the right believe. Regardless of whether it’s true or not that the military aid is necessary for peace, many people don’t agree with that assessment.
Sorry, made edits while you were responding. Covers some issues you have with it.
Well, I’m a leftist, so naturally I believe that using money on domestic spending to help people is preferable to spending money on bombs to kill people. That’s like, most of what it means to be a leftist. I would like to think that this is the natural, base assumption, and that the argument in favor of military spending is the thing that has to be proven.
If you’d like, I could go on about the many, many domestic crises we’re facing due to insufficient public funding, everything from healthcare to education to even basic infrastructure like bridges. Seems like a bit of a tangent though.
Ultimately, whichever position is “correct” doesn’t really matter. If you don’t address domestic problems then you’re probably going to lose the election and then you don’t get any say in what happens at all, which is, you know, what happened.
It’s been like 80 years of unjustified conflicts that have consistently made the world a worse place before you can find any conflict where US bombs were actually used to improve anyone’s life, including a twenty year long quagmire that we just got out of before this. Despite making things worse for everyone, pretty much every conflict whether it was Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc were entered into with widespread popular support and they all had the exact same justification: that the other side was just like Hitler and they would keep expanding forever unless we got involved. It’s a wonder to me that there’s anyone who still believes in “benevolent interventionism.”
That isn’t “what happened”. What happened was the public got played by domestic and foreign propaganda + some sprinkles of misogyny and racism.
Bidens admin was one of the best in a long time and was infinitely more productive than the orangutan could ever dream of being.
But because Biden was too stubborn to not go for a second term, Kamala was placed in a shit position with only 3 months to build a campaign/image, and despite her situation she still performed insanely well because she’s also infinitely more competent and intelligent than the orangutan currently in the white house.
Voters are so fucking dumb and uninformed, that the most googled thing in a bunch of states on election day was “did Biden drop out?” Then they decided to vote for the old orange criminal loser, who tried to steal the 2020 election and a few weeks before was ranting on TV like a senile grandpa about the Haitians “eating the cats and the dogs”.
Nonsense take. Biden dropped out because his brain was melting and it got to a point that nobody could reasonably pretend otherwise, he was also polling like shit, and both of those factors are why he dropped out. Three months is plenty of time to build a campaign, it’s comparable to election seasons in other countries, if anything, it was more advantageous to Kamala for her to be able to skip the primary, especially considering how badly she did in the 2020 primary.
Conditions declined under Biden, in part due to a global wave of inflation that caused incumbent parties to be unseated in many elections around the world. Kamala failed to distinguish herself from Biden’s economic policy despite the fact that purchasing power has declined, and followed his unpopular Israel policy as well.
Your narrative is heavily biased, it’s designed to absolve democratic candidates of any and all blame and shift it onto the voters rather than looking at what actually happened. If the democrats fail to learn from their mistakes, they will keep making them again and again.
No idea why you’re commenting on why Biden did/didn’t drop out as I didn’t even give a take on that. Fighting a ghost for no reason, but ok. For Kamala personally it was better that she didn’t have to go through primaries, but it’s worse for the Dems. Obviously.
Yes inflation was the #1 cause, which wasn’t Bidens fault. US also recovered from the pandemic better than peer economies and earned the title of “economic envy of the world”, thanks to his administration.
People got brainwashed regardless into blaming him for inflation. My argument still stands.
You’re always injecting this stuff. I already said it was global inflation that caused other incumbent parties to lose. You’re constantly trying to reaffirm your beliefs and it gets in the way of critical thinking and rational discussion. The goal is to see the world as it is, not stan your favorite politician.
People didn’t get “brainwashed,” jfc. Not everyone is an economic expert following global trends. People saw prices go up, so they got upset because the prices were higher. Not everything that happens is because of Russian propaganda.
And your argument does not still stand. As I said, Kamala failed to distinguish herself from Biden’s unpopular policies.
Oh wow, yes my argument does indeed fall just because Kamala failed to “distinguish” herself in a rushed 3-month campaign from Bidens objectively successful administration. Makes sense 👍
No shit they’re not economic experts, that’s why they blamed Bidens admin, with the help of propagandists.
Your arguments will require more nuance than “I’m leftist who thinks guns and killing is bad”.
You don’t think the world was better off after US intervention in WWII? Don’t you think more lives would’ve been saved if the allies had been stronger sooner?
The defense of Ukraine is the most justified use of armament in a very long time.
As I said, that is the one, singular time in the last 80 years of war that military intervention benefitted anyone in any way. Every conflict is “the most justified use of armament in a very long time.” Y’all just think you’re special because you’re living in the present and think everyone in the past was just dumb, it’s hubris. Bush went into Afghanistan with like a 90% approval rating. There was near-universal agreement that the conflict was justified. 20 years later and millions dead, we have nothing whatsoever to show for it.
I was alive when that war started, and I was part of that 10% who never approved of Bush, and people accused me of being a terrorist sympathizer when I said I thought we should turn the other cheek. The same sort of people now call me a Russian bot or Putin shill for advocating diplomatic solutions now. But I was completely vindicated and they were all dead wrong.
It’s funny that you can’t help but turn to the WWII example even after I preempted it. It’s because it’s an easy, go to justification that you can just plop on to any war ever. If that’s all it takes to get you to support a war, you would’ve supported Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Vietnam, and Korea. The historical record of “wars justified by pointing to WWII” is absolutely abysmal.
But sure, I’ll grant that there are times when the use of force is justified, when you can make a clear argument as to how the average person will materially benefit from it. You can’t do that with this war, except by plugging in the generic WWII line, which is bullshit now just as it always is. The reality is that quality of life is not very different between Ukraine and Russia, it’s just a question of which group of capitalists gets to exploit people.
Again, I want to make the point that regardless of whether you agree or disagree, there are a lot of people who have soured on the idea of “benevolent interventionism” and on this conflict specifically. I’d also mention that I predicted Americans would eventually lost interest in the conflict and move on, as is happening now. We never had a real material stake in the conflict, Russia doesn’t pose an existential threat, and Americans are easily excitable but have goldfish memories. Enthusiasm was always going to wane so unless the conflict was resolved quickly it was always going to result in a loss, and the only question was how long the meat grinder would have to keep running before people could accept it.
I’m impressed with how much you need to type to say absolutely nothing of substance. The comparison to WWII is there because it’s the most apt, Putin even copy/pasted the same excuses Hitler used to invade Czechoslovakia. So if you have a problem with the completely adequate comparison to WWII go complain to him or maybe just inform yourself on both conflicts. Otherwise your insinuation that this is no different from anyone else who was incorrect about their reasoning for war just ends up being empty garbage.
Americans at least had to get hit with 9/11 to go mad enough to start an unjustified war in Iraq, what’s Russia’s excuse?
“It’s not an existential threat”, do things need to become existential before you tend to them? What kind of brainlet argument is that?
Americans are losing interest in the defense of Ukraine because Russian propaganda is working its way through the smooth brains in the states. Nobody is surprised.
I never realized that Czechoslovakia had a coup which banned opposition parties, leading to rebels to seize control of the Sudetenland who then requested aid from Germany in the ensuing civil war.
Hubris. “Everyone else in the past 80 years who said the things I’m saying now has been wrong, but I’m obviously correct, because This Time It’s Different.”
It should at the very least give you significant pause, especially considering that the people responsible for lying the public into Iraq and Afghanistan not only faced no consequences for it whatsoever, but, in many cases, are the exact same people drumming up support for Ukraine. Fool me
once twice three times four times five timessix times, shame on me.Missing the point. The point is, since it’s not an existential threat, Americans aren’t going to remain invested in the long term. And the war could go on indefinitely. In the face of that kind of stalemate, it’s inevitable that Americans will lose interest and throw in the towel. So, we shouldn’t get involved in what could be another 20 year long commitment like Afghanistan if we’re not prepared to follow through, instead we should persue diplomatic solutions. The justification of the conflict is irrelevant, it’s better to not fight a justified conflict at all than to fight a justified conflict for a little bit and then give up after a bunch of people have died. Or to put it a different way, a war cannot be justified unless it’s possible to win.
Blah blah magic Russian propaganda. We have our own propaganda, there’s no reason to think Russian propaganda would be so much more effective than our own, it’s just a talking point and not a serious explanation.
You say this as if it justifies invading a country and they didn’t go on to take the whole thing.
“People have been wrong in the past, therefore you’re wrong now” You’re the one failing to prove why Ukraine’s defense isn’t actually justified.
Call it magic all you want, the facts say otherwise. Look at my other comment for links with examples. If you can’t see any reason our propaganda wouldn’t be as effective against an authoritarian state that blocks sites like YouTube/Wikipedia then go read more or something idk.
I don’t care that “many people don’t agree with that statement”. Who? Republicucks? Right wing grifters/Russian puppets on YouTube? The morons who listen to them?
The consensus is that the military defeat of Russia is paramount to the West. Especially among those who are most qualified to opine on the matter.
Roughly 50% of all Americans. I’m not sure who determines “the consensus” if polls are devided and the side that disagrees just won an election.
Right wing opinion has been highjacked by the Russians, it’s a compromised crowd. Hell, the government is compromised nevermind the idiot followers.
Conflating the election result with support for Ukraine is also disingenuous, given that most americans actually support sending aid.
That’s the narrowest margin I’ve ever seen described as “a majority” lmao.
If Russia has the ability to brainwash half the country using a handful of bot farms, then I can only imagine what our own, much more powerful and well funded intelligence agencies are capable of.
This whole, “they disagree with me therefore they’ve been brainwashed by Russia” but is tiresome. Sure, Russia has made some attempts to influence public opinion but it’s not nearly as broad as you suggest. Even if it were, that raises the question of why they were so receptive to Russia’s techniques and why your side can’t employ similar ones to persuade them. Honestly, when people say stuff like this, I have to wonder if they really believe it themselves, or if they’re just saying it to discredit the other side or to resolve the psychological discomfort of other people disagreeing about something.
I think you just lack the information, here are just a few examples off the top of my head:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Tenet_Media_investigation
The West can’t engage in the same disgusting tactics even if it wanted to because unlike the authoritian state of Russia, we don’t control our internet to the point of blocking YouTube/Wikipedia. This can’t possibly be news to you.
Yes, I’m aware that Russia makes attempts to influence American public opinion. But you’re vastly overstating the scope and effectiveness of these efforts.
You can’t be serious with this. First of all, the US did recently move to ban TikTok because it had too much pro-Palestine content, when it was unbanned, it sent out a message praising the Trump administration, clearly having come to an understanding with the government. Twitter was bought out by Musk who censors left-wing content and is deeply involved in the government. Zuckerberg suddenly unveiled a bunch of anti-woke policies as soon as Trump was taking office. So, censorship of platforms is an issue in the US.
But secondly, and much more importantly, you’re talking about Russia propagandizing Americans, who have access to YouTube and Wikipedia! If the reason that Russian propaganda is so effective is that they censor those platforms, then how can it be that it’s still so effective when people have access to them? It’s complete nonsense.
Again, you’re doing that thing of getting distracted reaffirming that Russia is bad and losing sight of reality.
First, TikTok isn’t banned and the push for it wasn’t because of “pro-palestinian” content. There’s no lack of that on every platform available.
Second, Musk and Zuckerberg aren’t foreign states, try to stay on topic.
None of this made any sense. What don’t you understand? Westerners see the charlatan grifters that Russians fund on YouTube/Rumble etc because it isn’t blocked, meanwhile the Russian population has no access to Wikipedia and wouldn’t be able to see “western propaganda” on YouTube because it is blocked. Duh