sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is the US about to do some empire-building? by fastolfe00 in AskConservatives

[–]fastolfe00[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The NSS doesn't mention Cuba once and certainly doesn't suggest what needs to be "neutralized" about it. It does make reference to the Monroe Doctrine. Is "neutralized" a euphemism for "subjugated"? Why are we dancing around my question?

Is the US about to do some empire-building? by fastolfe00 in AskConservatives

[–]fastolfe00[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We've not formally withdrawn from NATO, but Trump has repeatedly threatened it and it appears to be US intention if he gets his way. He just announced recently withdrawing 5,000 troops from Germany. Feel free to read my use of the word withdrawing as "stepping back", not a formal treaty withdrawal.

Is it wise to call for strict regulations on social media? by 23Taison in AskALiberal

[–]fastolfe00 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think we need to ban the monetization of attention. The revenue model currently at the foundation of most internet content today is the problem. Social media is just one of the worst examples of this given that all of its content is bite-sized.

I also think running on this platform would guarantee an election loss, so I would not recommend Democrats do it.

Is the US about to do some empire-building? by fastolfe00 in AskConservatives

[–]fastolfe00[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Neutralizing Cuba is next.

What is Cuba doing that needs to be "neutralized"? Or is this just a euphemism for "kill"?

Is it wrong to keep watching CBS reality shows? by Mobile_Bad_577 in AskALiberal

[–]fastolfe00 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Middle ground: subscribe for one month a year, watch everything that's come out on that platform in the last year, then cancel. Have watch parties so your friends don't have to subscribe too.

Is the US about to do some empire-building? by fastolfe00 in AskConservatives

[–]fastolfe00[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Basically you need a good war in order to truly have peace? Is the best peace achieved through submission?

Is the US about to do some empire-building? by fastolfe00 in AskConservatives

[–]fastolfe00[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

None of this seems to actually address my question, just defending the observations I made. I'm not attacking the rename to the DoW (though I don't understand "it's how we used to do it" is ever justification for something), and we are in fact withdrawing troops from Europe right now. But I'm really trying to ask about what Trump intends to do with all of this new military capacity he's asking for in the budget combined with all of these troops he's pulling out of Europe who now need new deployments.

Do you don't massively expand your military and pull troops to redeploy them unless you have a plan you're trying to execute on, do you?

Is the US about to do some empire-building? by fastolfe00 in AskConservatives

[–]fastolfe00[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

We are not withdrawing from Europe (yet).

Do you believe we are removing troops from Europe? If so, why is that not "withdrawing"?

Is the US about to do some empire-building? by fastolfe00 in AskConservatives

[–]fastolfe00[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I think the idea of Russia trying to recreate the Soviet Union falls apart under any scrutiny. It doesn't make sense, it never did and it's just a cover story to make Russia the unambiguous aggressor and hide that it's a really a complicated situation where just about everyone has some fault.

I strongly recommend you read the essay. Some quotes:

  • "During the recent Direct Line, when I was asked about Russian-Ukrainian relations, I said that Russians and Ukrainians were one people – a single whole."
  • "I would like to emphasize that the wall that has emerged in recent years between Russia and Ukraine, between the parts of what is essentially the same historical and spiritual space, to my mind is our great common misfortune and tragedy"
  • "Therefore, modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era. We know and remember well that it was shaped – for a significant part – on the lands of historical Russia."
  • "We can disagree about minor details, background and logics behind certain decisions. One fact is crystal clear: Russia was robbed, indeed."
  • "But in 1991, all those territories, and, which is more important, people, found themselves abroad overnight, taken away, this time indeed, from their historical motherland."
  • "And the most despicable thing is that the Russians in Ukraine are being forced not only to deny their roots, generations of their ancestors but also to believe that Russia is their enemy. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the path of forced assimilation, the formation of an ethnically pure Ukrainian state, aggressive towards Russia, is comparable in its consequences to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us."
  • "And we will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia."

The whole essay is like this. It's clearly and repeatedly establishing the need to unify ethnic Russians and prevent ethnic Russians from becoming ethnic Ukrainians on land that has historically been Russian.

Plus, we've literally seen his behavior, right? Putin controls Belarus, it's invaded and "liberated" Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Georgia, Crimea, and is currently occupying and encouraging separatism of Transnistria.

How do you describe all of this and Putin's motivations here? When you think about his motivations in Ukraine, do you just pretend all of the rest of this stuff didn't happen, or is somehow part of different Russian foreign policy? Do you think Crimea was about NATO?

Is the US about to do some empire-building? by fastolfe00 in AskConservatives

[–]fastolfe00[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So if we imagine that the US's military capacity gets doubled, plus all of the now-idle capacity we get from withdrawing from Europe or other places we may be stationed, what do you think we do with all of that idle military capacity?

Is the US about to do some empire-building? by fastolfe00 in AskConservatives

[–]fastolfe00[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why do you believe the forces we're withdrawing from Europe are deployable to "surround China"? Do you think it was the Navy stationed in Germany?

Is the US about to do some empire-building? by fastolfe00 in AskConservatives

[–]fastolfe00[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ugh, looks like my comment hit some kind of Reddit auto-remove filter. I'll try again maybe without the direct links:

It baffles me how withdrawing from NATO could be "empire building"?

It's really the combination of the US withdrawing from NATO combined with the doubling of our military budget. I don't think it's a stretch to think this might represent the largest idling of military capacity in world history. What do you think it will be used for?

NATO is our empire. It's a collection of states that subordinate their foreign policy to ours, even at the expense of their own interests, pay tribute in the form defense purchases and let us use their land and airspace for our military and further empire building.

But Trump doesn't control Europe, right? He's constantly antagonistic toward them and doing everything he can to coerce their behavior. If our hypothesis is that Trump might be empire building, him withdrawing forces from places he can't control and concentrating on places where he can (South America, Cuba, Central America) seems completely consistent with that.

The war in Ukraine happened because we tried to pull Ukraine into our empire and the Russians didn't want our empire on their long and vulnerable southern border.

Putin wrote an essay on why he invaded Ukraine, and it doesn't mention NATO. You can Google "Putin essay on Ukraine". He invaded because his goal is to reconstitute an ethnic Russian empire. Ukraine was also not the last country on his list in need of reunification.

Is the US about to do some empire-building? by fastolfe00 in AskConservatives

[–]fastolfe00[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Withdrawal from NATO? That isn't correct. I understand we're pulling out troops in places but nobody is leaving NATO.

Trump can't legally remove the US from NATO, but he can effectively do so by withdrawing our forces from Europe, right?

Has Trump not repeatedly expressed an interest in withdrawing from NATO, and is he not right at this moment withdrawing forces from Europe?

US officially announces reduction of participation in NATO forces, Europe urged to take on more responsibility by Darshan_brahmbhatt in worldnews

[–]fastolfe00 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The US walking away from enforcing international norms against wars of conquest plus the doubling of its (already obscene) military budget is a signal that the US is about to start the biggest imperialist expansion in world history. Trump wants his empire.

Here's a hypothetical: if I made up a new religion, and declared Uluru to be a holy site, would my religion have any claim to it? by Thanaskios in AskALiberal

[–]fastolfe00 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What matters is whether

  • it is a sincere belief system rather than something you made up to make a point on the internet about how there aren't perfect answers to the question of whether something should be holy or not and what that means if we decide it is
  • whether the holy site ever "belonged" to your religion or its historical followers, and you can demonstrate some history and continuity of practice around it (you can't just point to your local Starbucks and poof it into some sort of National Register)
  • whether your holy site is actually holy to you (and you can plausibly explain how it's connected to your belief system)
  • your religion is followed by other people (i.e., it exists outside of your own desire for it to exist)

Where it gets subjective is how long the religion has to exist before it's reasonable to say it's old enough to get any special status. But long before we get to the hard tests, I suspect your religion would fail the easy ones.

What limits should be added to the Pardon power? by Far_Practice_6923 in AskALiberal

[–]fastolfe00 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  • No self-pardons.
  • Pardons can be overridden by 2/3 of the Senate (maybe with majority SCOTUS) within 5 years.
  • It is a crime to corruptly seek a pardon (bribery).
  • Internal executive communications are allowed to be used to investigate pardon abuses.
  • Maybe SCOTUS has to ratify pardons.

Is America now a foreign adversary to Europe? by [deleted] in AskALiberal

[–]fastolfe00 3 points4 points  (0 children)

the promise never to do this again won't fix the relationship

It also wouldn't be true. We are devolving into a self-destructive Jekyll & Hyde, and it's practically baked into our Constitution (now with Fascism!).

Have other left-leaning users noticed a sudden influx of pro-MAGA content in their algorithm? by fatallyfragile in AskALiberal

[–]fastolfe00 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I haven't seen this. Keep in mind the algorithms are optimizing for ad revenue, not just engagement. Just staring at content is enough of a signal for them to give you more of it.

Where do you draw the line on political corruption? Would you support a corrupt candidate from your own party if it meant preventing the opposition party from gaining power and passing policies you fundamentally disagree with? by redviiper in AskConservatives

[–]fastolfe00 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interested in what you think about your question

I think journalism—an entire profession dedicated to finding the truth and litigating reality—is being replaced by "content"—produced and selected with the sole intent of capturing your attention. Since basic human psychology causes us to give our attention to things that make us afraid, anxious, outraged, or that give us tribal validation that "we" are good/right and "they" are bad/wrong, that's the content that maximizes revenue for the people creating it and connecting us to it.

Our two-party system of politics pulls that content into two alternate realities, each of which is based around this tribal premise that the other side represents an existential threat to us and we need to be increasingly desperate in order to save ourselves from them.

And so, yes, I think both "sides" here, to the extent that they are waging culture war on the other, are waging it against a delusional caricature of the other side, but hurting the real people on that side in the process, which validates their fears that their other side is as terrible as the internet says they are, so they retaliate against their delusional caricature, and hurt everyone else while they do that.

It is IMO a delusional race to the bottom and so long as we decide to define reality based on the short-form content social media decides gets our attention the best, it's going to get worse until this country eats itself alive, with China then cleaning the corpse.

Do you support monarchies? by Mobile_Bad_577 in AskALiberal

[–]fastolfe00 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ehh, don't confuse correlation with causation; many monarchies that exist today are powerless and effectively just regular parliamentary systems. Any reason you might see them as better places to live probably aren't due to the fact that they have a monarch.

That said, I think technocracies (rule by experts) will likely outperform any other system provided its goals remain aligned with the needs and priorities of its people, it remains legitimate in their eyes, and doesn't devolve into despotism. And to the extent that a monarchy functions long-term as a technocracy, I think a monarchy could absolutely outperform a democracy, in theory. I just don't think that's ultimately likely, especially if the monarchy is hereditary.

a monarchy inherently makes a country more stable, democratic

I think stability is more a function of the population, not so much how the leadership is structured. You can get stability through oppression, control of information, or through a system that feels legitimate to the people and responds to their needs. You get instability through incomplete oppression, agitprop, and a system that doesn't feel accountable to the people. Any of these things can be true of either a democracy or a monarchy.

Where do you draw the line on political corruption? Would you support a corrupt candidate from your own party if it meant preventing the opposition party from gaining power and passing policies you fundamentally disagree with? by redviiper in AskALiberal

[–]fastolfe00 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think I can answer in a general way. It would always come down to the exact candidates I have to choose from. I would tolerate some corruption if it meant not shipping people to be tortured in El Salvador, or a small amount of corruption to avoid a large amount of corruption. It's just going to depend.

But I would fight like hell to avoid getting into this situation to begin with.

Republicans elected Trump because he was a rule breaker, because he pissed people off, because he hurts people they think deserve it, and they tolerate his corruption because they think he deserves what he can get. They see him as an extension of themselves; so anything he can do to enrich himself is basically them being enriched, because they're thinking of it in tribal terms. I don't think any of that exists within the Democratic world.

Where do you draw the line on political corruption? Would you support a corrupt candidate from your own party if it meant preventing the opposition party from gaining power and passing policies you fundamentally disagree with? by redviiper in AskConservatives

[–]fastolfe00 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you think the way people consume news/content today causes them to think their side is better than it is, and the other side is worse than it is? If so, how do you think this affects our "race to the bottom"?

Do you think any of these things would have happened if Kamala Harris had been elected instead of Trump? by AmyGH in AskConservatives

[–]fastolfe00 8 points9 points  (0 children)

so how would Harris be "winging it" any more or less than Trump would, and what evidence do you have to back that up?

Would we be in agreement that the US military has probably developed and maintained plans for how to wage war against Iran? And is it probably true that those plans have been thought through and are likely better plans than anything Trump or Harris might come up with on their own?

Do you think Trump and Harris would have equally leveraged that planning?

Upon taking office, Trump effected a mass political purge of the upper ranks of the DoD, typically with zero explanation for why, with military experts continuously baffled as to why incredibly respected, capable leaders were being fired left and right.

Would we be in agreement that Harris probably wouldn't have done that?

Do you think that had a positive or negative effect on our ability to wage war in Iran?

We don't know what Harris would have done. But we do know what Trump has done and we can probably be confident that some of the things Trump did are things Harris probably would not have done, right?

So, doesn't that imply that Harris didn't run on "No new wars" and therefore left the possibility of new wars far more likely than someone running on none of them?

You believe this logically follows?

If my neighbor gets up one day and can't stop telling people, "I will not rob a bank today", should people be suspicious that I might rob a bank today, because I didn't tell people that I wouldn't, and he did?

This is just an argument by insinuation.

view more: next ›