Shitty Rambo Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 7 minutes ago, daegor said: Doesn't change that it's depressing. Word up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harryq Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 2 hours ago, Shitty Rambo said: If you want taxes to focus more on quality of life opposed to death and destruction then you can start by not voting for Hillary who wants to keep fighting a civil war we have no business being involved in. Depends on if you think removing dictators can (eventually) lead to better quality of life. Presumably Jews in 1930s Europe would have preferred regime change to some extra cash in their pockets, regardless of whose "business" it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daegor Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 38 minutes ago, harryq said: Depends on if you think removing dictators can (eventually) lead to better quality of life. Presumably Jews in 1930s Europe would have preferred regime change to some extra cash in their pockets, regardless of whose "business" it was. I would back this statement if the US actually had any sort of positive track record in these sorts of situations. Shitty Rambo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 its a lose-lose situation. if you go in and remove a dictator, you more than likely destabilize the country/region and the people suffer, but if you sit back and remove yourself from the world and allow a dictator who is at the level of requiring intervention to remain in power, the people suffer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 the idea that Donald Trump, Jill Stein or Gary Johnson would actually remove (or prevent) the US from being involved in international conflict is something... This world is no longer a place for isolationism, and no matter how hard they campaign that they would not intervene in international issues, they would. 110% without a doubt. I am not saying that I support intervention, but I think the smoke-screen being thrown out there that it can be avoided is so misleading. Especially with candidates who have zero track record. daegor and stl_ben 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 (edited) Double post Edited August 15, 2016 by ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shitty Rambo Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 17 hours ago, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ said: the idea that Donald Trump, Jill Stein or Gary Johnson would actually remove (or prevent) the US from being involved in international conflict is something... This world is no longer a place for isolationism, and no matter how hard they campaign that they would not intervene in international issues, they would. 110% without a doubt. I am not saying that I support intervention, but I think the smoke-screen being thrown out there that it can be avoided is so misleading. Especially with candidates who have zero track record. Cool. How many non-interventionist presidencies have you lived under in your lifetime? Cause I've had zero. I won't speak matter-of-factly on the matter because I have no idea what that could be like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.