Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

You Know What I Hate MK I

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Oh, also, I hate that AG Garland is investigating the person who leaked billionaires' tax evasion to news sources, instead of the billionaires who evaded paying billions of dollars in taxes during a time when they made record-breaking quantities of wealth in the midst of one of the worst public health crises on the planet.

    ​And to think, this fucker was nominated to the Supreme Court.


    He/him

    Comment


    • Originally posted by TheCountAlucard View Post
      Oh, also, I hate that AG Garland is investigating the person who leaked billionaires' tax evasion to news sources, instead of the billionaires who evaded paying billions of dollars in taxes during a time when they made record-breaking quantities of wealth in the midst of one of the worst public health crises on the planet.

      ​And to think, this fucker was nominated to the Supreme Court.
      All of this occurs while the GOP in the senate continually block any hope of an infrastructure revision bill, and a call for investigation into their obvious corruption and support of the events of 1/6. It's obvious why they pushed so hard for an excuse to create a war with China; that's the only thing in their stone-age playbook they can use to distract people from their massive incompetence. And when they finally realize how much they've screwed everything up by doing that, it'll be WW3 and they'll blame it on someone else.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by TheCountAlucard View Post
        ​And to think, this fucker was nominated to the Supreme Court.
        He was nominated to the Supreme Court because he's "centrist" enough that he was literally the example of a "liberal" judge that even the majority of Republicans would vote to confirm anyway. That's why he didn't get a vote; he'd have gotten in easily if McConnell brought him up.

        The idea that bipartisanship is actually good for the US was clearly demonstrated to be non-sense well before that, but it's an excellent example of it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by TheCountAlucard View Post
          ​It's pretty transparently an attempt to manufacture consent for the war with China that the US is obviously gearing up for.
          Why would you think the US wants a war with China? A war that it can't meaningfully win (Yes, China would lose, but the costs to the US would be devastating).

          Comment


          • (Yes, China would lose, but the costs to the US would be devastating).
            You say that like the people in charge give a shit about terrifying human costs. I’m not convinced they do.

            See, if it was the sort of thing they cared about, they could’ve fixed our healthcare system.

            If it was the sort of thing they cared about, they would’ve not patted Israel on the fucking back for the genocides they’re doing over there.

            If it was the sort of thing they cared about, they would’ve closed the migrant camps here.

            Instead, they’re adding to Trump’s border wall, opening more migrant “facilities,” giving more money to racist cops, and wringing their hands over why the Republicans still won’t play ball with them.
            Last edited by TheCountAlucard; 06-13-2021, 06:15 AM.


            He/him

            Comment


            • Originally posted by TheCountAlucard View Post
              You say that like the people in charge give a shit about terrifying human costs. I’m not convinced they do.

              See, if it was the sort of thing they cared about, they could’ve fixed our healthcare system.

              If it was the sort of thing they cared about, they would’ve not patted Israel on the fucking back for the genocides they’re doing over there.

              If it was the sort of thing they cared about, they would’ve closed the migrant camps here.

              Instead, they’re adding to Trump’s border wall, opening more migrant “facilities,” giving more money to racist cops, and wringing their hands over why the Republicans still won’t play ball with them.
              Not just human costs, financial ones too.

              What kind of scenario are you envisaging? If it came to nukes for example, the US would wipe China off the map leaving only Cockroaches, and even the Cockroaches would suffer heavy losses. China on the other hand can't even kill all Americans, just the 82% (269 Million) who live in urban areas, in the initial strike, the fallout would kill some more, the loss of infrastructure would shut down the mechanized farming industry (The Amish would be okay), leaving to mass starvation. With most ports being in urban areas import/exports are gone. The US is fulll-on post apocalyptic, and in a few decades the USA is northern Mexico and southern Canada. I imagine that kind of scenario would give even the GOP pause for thought. Mutually Assured Destruction tends to put people off war.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TheCountAlucard View Post
                You say that like the people in charge give a shit about terrifying human costs. I’m not convinced they do.

                See, if it was the sort of thing they cared about, they could’ve fixed our healthcare system.

                If it was the sort of thing they cared about, they would’ve not patted Israel on the fucking back for the genocides they’re doing over there.

                If it was the sort of thing they cared about, they would’ve closed the migrant camps here.

                Instead, they’re adding to Trump’s border wall, opening more migrant “facilities,” giving more money to racist cops, and wringing their hands over why the Republicans still won’t play ball with them.
                Of course they don't.

                But the people in charge use America like a piggy bank, and they can't do that if America breaks and the world economy goes to shit.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NineDaysDead View Post
                  Not just human costs, financial ones too.
                  The War on Terror has been ruinously expensive, and we still dove headfirst into it.

                  Originally posted by NineDaysDead View Post
                  What kind of scenario are you envisaging? If it came to nukes for example…
                  I don’t think it would come to nukes, because, as you say, both sides would be annihilated.

                  Mutually Assured Destruction tends to put people off war.
                  And yet the number of years the U.S. hasn’t taken part in some war, since developing the atomic bomb, would not add up to the age where a person can learn to drive a car.


                  He/him

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by TheCountAlucard View Post
                    The War on Terror has been ruinously expensive, and we still dove headfirst into it.
                    The War on Terror isn't comparable; the US is the champion, but China is actually in it's weight class.

                    Population of Afghanistan around 39 million (About 21 million in 2001) https://www.worldometers.info/world-...an-population/
                    Population of Iraq around 41 million (About 24 million in 2001) https://www.worldometers.info/world-...aq-population/


                    Current Total about 80 million

                    Area of Afghanistan 652,860 km²
                    Area of Iraq 438,317 km²

                    Total 1,091,177 km²

                    Population of USA 332 Million (About 284 million in 2001) https://www.worldometers.info/world-...us-population/
                    Area of USA 9.834 million km²

                    In 2001 the US had 6 times the population of the combined population of Afghanistan and Iraq and has about 10 times the area.


                    Population of China around 1,444 Million; about 4.3 times the population of the US
                    Area of China 9.597 million km² comparable size to US.




                    Originally posted by TheCountAlucard View Post
                    I don’t think it would come to nukes, because, as you say, both sides would be annihilated.
                    Without nukes:

                    China has a bigger military https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tary_personnel

                    China USA
                    Active Military 2,035,000 1,388,100
                    Reserve Military 510,000 844,950
                    Paramilitary 500,000
                    Total 3,045,000 2,233,050

                    And US can't bring it's entire military to China, because that would risk leaving it open and defenceless at home.

                    China has home ground advantages, in logistics and morale and motivation; It's supply chains aren't stretched, its troops are "fight or die" whereas the US troops are "fight or go home".

                    China doesn't have the capacity to invade the US, and it dare not initiate a nuclear strike, but it can grind any troops the US sends there to paste. Until the US is too weak to continue and is no longer the number one world power. Oh yeah, and both countries economies are totally f**ked at this point.

                    In 1965 the US had about 5 times the population of Vietnam, and Vietnam is only 331,212 km² (China is 28 times the size) and that didn't turn out very well at all.

                    Originally posted by TheCountAlucard View Post
                    And yet the number of years the U.S. hasn’t taken part in some war, since developing the atomic bomb, would not add up to the age where a person can learn to drive a car.
                    Since developing the atomic bomb how many times has the US gotten into a war with someone in it's own weight class?
                    Last edited by NineDaysDead; 06-13-2021, 11:35 AM.

                    Comment


                    • I think there's a middle situation here.

                      I don't think any serious US political force is gearing up for a hot war with China.

                      I do think the traditional US political forces are gearing up for a neo-Cold War with China (because we're already basically in one anyway). I think there's a lot of political influence that wants to use China to create a new Pacific equivalent to NATO that formalizes the current web of alliances between the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, India, and maybe a few others, to create a much more unified block to China's current international efforts (and to an extent North Korea's threat as well). This, of course, means expanding US military bases in allied countries, further justifying increased military spending, linking US humanitarian aid to the military for security reasons, and further entrenchment and enrichment of the military-industrial complex.

                      It doesn't really look like this is Bolton's crude joke about bombing Iran. It looks like using the threat of war for other ends.

                      Comment


                      • Yeah that checks out. It's basically reviving the cold war status that let certain classes of politico climb to power back when we were at odds with the USSR. It makes sense they'd want to revert this country back to what they're familiar with, even if the whole world moves on without them...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Darksol-aeternium View Post
                          ...even if the whole world moves on without them...
                          Especially if the whole world moves on without them.


                          He/him

                          Comment


                          • Some watchdog group counted the number of times FOX mentioned Critical Race Theory as over like 1500 times.
                            But as much as actually teaching Americas's youth about the myriad abuses of this nation offends the right, it's just the
                            surface issue of what they're really afraid of; creating a nation where people are no longer conditioned to let them slide
                            with past misdeeds. It's the same issue behind doing whatever they can to prevent an investigation into 1/6/21, dodging any
                            responsibility for their own screw-ups. If the country starts leaning towards accountability, it'll be far less inclined to
                            sit idly while infrastructure gets sidelined for warmongering, the rich get away with tax evasion, and a host of other abuses.

                            It's sickening how few people see this for what it is.

                            Comment


                            • The media failing to cover another coup.


                              He/him

                              Comment


                              • A megacorporation trying to copyright a deity worshipped hundreds of years before the company existed.


                                He/him

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X