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.
You realise private workers are also civilians with lives aka members of the public. Wtf do you mean “in private hands rather than the public”?
“Public funds” refers to money held by the government, tax revenue. The amount of public funds is limited and there are a lot of valid, competing priorities for how the government spends it’s money. Every dollar of public funds spent on bombs is a dollar that’s not available for things like schools and infrastructure.
Private workers receive only some of the funds spent on manufacturing bombs. A significant portion of it goes to executives and shareholders in the military-industrial complex, as well as finding their way to politicians in the form of bribes. Private funds cannot be allocated to public services unless the individual chooses to donate them, or they are taxed back into being public.
I really shouldn’t have to explain this, the difference between public and private is extremely basic. Public in this context doesn’t mean “held by a member of the public” (that’s what private means) it means “held by the public collectively, as represented by the government.”
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.
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 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.
Same for every industry, executives, politicians and shareholders are Americans too.
This is such an inane point. Yes they are “Americans” but the goal of public policy shouldn’t be to just give money to whoever so long as they’re Americans. The same $100 means a lot more to a poor person than to a rich person, and they are also a lot more likely to spend the money, stimulating the economy and providing more tax revenue in a virtuous cycle.
Like the difference between public and private, this is extremely basic economics.
Same for every other industry with poor people and rich people working for them that you CARE about, they are Americans.
Who cares?