geekhack Community > Off Topic
dey'gon'git'Drumph'dis'tine'o'no?
tp4tissue:
Just finished watching the debate.
Well, same 'ol same 'ol.
Harris is not a fresh direction as much as a mouthpiece for the continuation of American imperialism. And THAT SOUNDS GOOD, only, we don't live in a world where America can actually win an all out war.
There was a very brief period, right after we first went atomic, that our imperialism could've prevailed. Von Neumann, probably historically the most intuitive super intellect in a single human being said, Use the damn things now, blow them all up, because give it a couple years, we won't be able to. They'll have their own.
And that's where we are, All the major countries have their own atomic doomsday triggers.
POLAND, just announced more atomic buildup, they say power plants, but everyone knows it's just the front for refining weapons material, AS ARE ALL nuclear power plants.
So, effectively, our world, under BIDEN has become more dangerous and closer to midnight.
Harris, clearly has no thought of her own, she's just maintaining the status-quo of Atlanticism which has stood for the last 70 years.
Insurance, Abortion, Jobs, These are just distractions, yes they're meaningful for the proletariat class, but Harris has said nothing about exploiting the workers less. The idea that capitalism will continue, and her stance on Growing the economy, it only means continuing the inequality and misery of existing workers.
Donald says he'll do that outright, Harris will too, she just frames it nicer.
As for Israel, well, they're a better ally w/ money vs the broke Palestinians. So, she's pretty decided on continuing sending them weapons. Regardless of the morality problem, this means, it will continue to be a flash point. Even if you don't care who dies, it doesn't solve the problem.
She says, she's all about addressing climate change, Under democrats, we are now the largest oil producer in the world. We haven't done a damn thing about solar, she said no fracking, Now she's all fracking ok.
So, really. You're looking at 2 Conservative candidates. One's a nutter, the other one's a follower.
In the end it doesn't even matter. The world is arranged how it is arranged, and humans are too stupid to save themselves.
3 Flash points, Palestine, Ukraine, Taiwan. Trump knows that they're hopeless causes. Harris doesn't seem to actually care either, she just wants to participate. She literally said in her closing statement, she wants to ensure we have the most - lethal fighting force in the world. Meaning, let's continue to solve problems with the threat of violence. Sounds good.
She says that, with no consideration of how hollow having such a force is. India can end the world without landing a single nuclear warhead on american soil. All it has to do, is detonate enough soot to create nuclear winter, and the whole world can suicide together. That's how trivial it is to end humanity.
Trump is bad for just about everything, but he's stood better and been more amicable regarding the Spheres of Influence.
Our America is not the same super power we used to be, and if we continue to disrespect the nuclear option of other nations, we will very quickly find out leukemia is NO FUN for anyone.
pixelpusher:
Disagree on most points. Your essay is mere opinion, but you present it as truths. This is my opinion as well. Equally valid to yours :cool:
I'm more interested in starting to fix the rot in our own country. This is top of my list. One candidate has a path in the right direction. She earns my vote
tp4tissue:
Is the lack of the following that's crippling America.
Abortion
Fracking
Military spending
War
Both candidates intends to increase all 4.
Trumps slightly less on war, Harris slightly more on war. But both war.
Neither party has done or intends to do anything about climate change.
pixelpusher:
--- Quote from: tp4tissue on Thu, 12 September 2024, 14:12:07 ---Is the lack of the following that's crippling America.
Abortion
Fracking
Military spending
War
Both candidates intends to increase all 4.
Trumps slightly less on war, Harris slightly more on war. But both war.
Neither party has done or intends to do anything about climate change.
--- End quote ---
I disagree. It's the lack of courtesy, compassion, understanding, professionalism, and personal responsibility on display by many of our leaders crippling America. We cannot solve any of the issues you have listed until we can come together to fight them. A president cannot fight climate change without the support of congress. Congress is currently unwilling to take any action that would allow the president to succeed. We need to fix this problem. Which candidate seems more likely to tackle that issue? Seems like a Harris win to me. The current political atmosphere being stagnated by a loud minority able to filibuster any action needs to be swept clean. I hope enough Democrats are elected this year to finally move forward.
fohat.digs:
--- Quote from: pixelpusher on Thu, 12 September 2024, 14:21:35 ---
It's the lack of courtesy, compassion, understanding, professionalism, and personal responsibility
--- End quote ---
And above and beyond that - putting the good of the country above all else.
It was not always that way. I grew up in a country that believed in moving forward.
Even Nixon, the Republican, for all of his failings, was responsible for establishing the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) !
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version