"Both sides are the same"... anybody who says this is a dumbass and should be slapped on sight

[Shogun]

Its May 2017.

And you're still a clown.

 

[el_oh_el]

This shyt needs to be broken before any real reform can happen. A vote for Hillary may have spared us a lot of bullshyt, but it lets a lot of shyt slide. I hope the rethugs really fukk this shyt up...that way it should be easier to expose they bytch asses down the line.
Hold on...we are in for a hell of a fukkin ride....

 

[Shogun]

Military spending decreased under Obama happy?


You're the one trying to push the apples to oranges comparison here

The cuts came from less deployed soldiers, and sequestration. The corporate lobbyists and defense contractors continued to get their cut...while the poor, and often disabled troops lost out.

Total spending for the modernization for major weapons systems actually has remained stable since Bush’s brother, President George W. Bush, left office in January 2009. The department’s “selected acquisition reports,” which detail past, current and future investments in dozens of weapons programs, show the value of the military services’ modernization portfolio in November 2008 was $1.64 trillion. The latest reports, from March 2015, show a value of $1.62 trillion.

The armed forces are undergoing a transformation, according to the Defense Department’s budget strategy. The military services will no longer be sized for large, prolonged operations — a reference to the lengthy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which involved massive reconstruction and humanitarian relief components. The focus now is on building a high-tech force that is nimble enough to defeat Islamic State militants and much more sophisticated adversaries.

For example, the Air Force is pushing ahead with the development and acquisition of an advanced bomber, known as Long-Range Strike, to replace the aging fleet of B-1 and B-52 bombers. The B-52s were first deployed when Dwight Eisenhower was president. The B-1s, which were fielded in the 1980s, are no longer certified for nuclear missions.

The new bomber is a highly classified, $80 billion project designed to build an information-age aircraft that eventually may be capable of flying without a pilot aboard. The Air Force awarded Northrop Grumman Corp. the bomber contract in October. The contract is part of the Pentagon’s broader plan to modernize the entire nuclear force — missile-toting submarines, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range bombers.

The nagging question for any major weapons program is how to keep them from becoming budget busters. On Obama’s watch, the Joint Strike Fighter — the single most expensive military project ever — has experienced significant cost, schedule, and performance setbacks that have driven up the price tag. The Government Accountability Office estimated last year that nearly $400 billion will be needed to buy the planned 2,457 aircraft for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

Fact-checking GOP candidate claims on Obama's military spending


Knowledge is power.

 

[88m3]

The cuts came from less deployed soldiers, and sequestration. The corporate lobbyists and defense contractors continued to get their cut...while the poor, and often disabled troops lost out.


Fact-checking GOP candidate claims on Obama's military spending


Knowledge is power.

I'm still not sure if you've made a strong enough case for Trump.




That's fine

At the end of the day they're still not similar on domestic issues

 

[Shogun]

I'm still not sure if you've made a strong enough case for Trump.




That's fine

You're proving my point. In no way have I ever suggested that I'm defending Trump. In your hyper-partisan mind anyone who doesn't bow to Hillary Clinton is a racist Trump supporter. That mindset allowed both parties to turn into the disasters that they both have become. Your constituents never care to hold you accountable when they're obsessed with how much they hate the other party and its supporters. You and your boy Nap refuse to say a single negative thing about your side ever...no matter what.

 

[Black Nate Grey]

Yes you are.

Thats why you exert more energy into covering up for him and his supporters than you will in force them to be accountable.

http://www.thecoli.com/threads/laughing-stock-of-the-world.481192

It feels good seeing yourself set yourself up for an L.

This is quickly becoming pathetic from you.

:tylerscust:

• Black Nate Grey
• Feb 15, 2017

smh

 

[TTT]

I think people who think all parties are the same tend to have strong ideological views at both ends of the spectrum and feel that any broad agreement between the parties means they are the same. The presumptions seems to be the parties should differ on everything but that is not going to happen. Most mainstream parties ,for example, believe in a market based economy but differ on how to regulate the market. The college student who asked Pelosi about capitalism probably thought the Democrats should run as anti-capitalist which sounds fine based on his worldview but not practical in reality. The Labour party in the UK used to have what they called Clause 4 which essentially called for the nationalization of industries but was revised by Blair largely because the party had failed to gain power in 18 years. A lot of the Democrats that are deemed conservative are only conservative in the mind of a leftist, to an actual conservative they are not anyway near what they believe to be a conservative. Some GOP conservatives believed that Romney and McCain were too moderate and yet if you ask people on the other side they would describe them as conservative.

Many people seemed to be surprised about the AHCA and yet if you listen and read conservative ideas it is not that much of a surprise given their ideas about personal responsibility and dislike of Federal government.

 

[JahFocus CS]

I think people who think all parties are the same tend to have strong ideological views at both ends of the spectrum and feel that any broad agreement between the parties means they are the same. The presumptions seems to be the parties should differ on everything but that is not going to happen. Most mainstream parties ,for example, believe in a market based economy but differ on how to regulate the market. The college student who asked Pelosi about capitalism probably thought the Democrats should run as anti-capitalist which sounds fine based on his worldview but not practical in reality. The Labour party in the UK used to have what they called Clause 4 which essentially called for the nationalization of industries but was revised by Blair largely because the party had failed to gain power in 18 years. A lot of the Democrats that are deemed conservative are only conservative in the mind of a leftist, to an actual conservative they are not anyway near what they believe to be a conservative. Some GOP conservatives believed that Romney and McCain were too moderate and yet if you ask people on the other side they would describe them as conservative.

Many people seemed to be surprised about the AHCA and yet if you listen and read conservative ideas it is not that much of a surprise given their ideas about personal responsibility and dislike of Federal government.

And that's why things don't change for the vast majority of people in a real, fundamental way regardless of which party is in power, because both parties have broad agreement on how this society and system are structured and run on slightly divergent visions on how to manage (not transform) the society and system.

So people complain and complain, but they're not even coming close to the root causes of anything they're complaining about.

 

[wire28]

The entire supreme court is about to be far right and the country is going up in flames for decades thanks to the republicans but atleast my conscious is clear

 

[wire28]

• Hillary would not have nominated Gorsuch to the Supreme Court (a decision with decades-long consequences...)

• Hillary would not have supported the repeal of the ACA.

• Hillary would not have proposed a budget that reduced EPA funding by 30%

• Hillary would not have appointed racist ass Sessions as Attorney General

• Hillary would not have nominated unqualified ass DeVos as Secretary of Education.

I can go on...

These are clear differences that have a direct effect on us as citizens.

FOH to anyone that says that "there's no difference" or "voting doesn't matter". fukk off. Instant ignore. It's not up for debate.

Butter emails

 

[88m3]

You're proving my point. In no way have I ever suggested that I'm defending Trump. In your hyper-partisan mind anyone who doesn't bow to Hillary Clinton is a racist Trump supporter. That mindset allowed both parties to turn into the disasters that they both have become. Your constituents never care to hold you accountable when they're obsessed with how much they hate the other party and its supporters. You and your boy Nap refuse to say a single negative thing about your side ever...no matter what.

You're clearly just angry at this point. I told you to look at Trump's budget and you didn't like that so you posted some article that said Hillary/Bern were favored by the Defense Industry. I then pointed out all we have to go on at that point are hypotheticals for Hillary and Bernie.
Prior to contrary belief I'm not some die hard Hillary supporter and I've said that numerous times.




There were two presidential candidates. I'm not supposed to point out at that Trump is president? I'm supposed to pat you on the back and say sure buddy they're the same.




Joust those windmills though

 

[TTT]

And that's why things don't change for the vast majority of people in a real, fundamental way regardless of which party is in power, because both parties have broad agreement on how this society and system are structured and run on slightly divergent visions on how to manage (not transform) the society and system.

So people complain and complain, but they're not even coming close to the root causes of anything they're complaining about.

Well in a country of 300million plus it's hard to have any ideology that everyone will agree with, many people argue that the system of governance was designed to produce such a slow incremental changes. The impetus to change usually comes from huge exogenous shocks i.e. Great Depression, world war 2, assassination of MLK etc.It's hard to argue your way to big policy shifts just like how people engage in arguments online and fail to convince the other party. Political parties by design have to build coalitions before facing the electorate and people know what they are getting going in. The other option would be European style coalition politics where parties can be defined through a strict and narrow ideological lens like a socialist party, green party , however in many cases they still look like American style politics because no one party is big enough to govern without going into coalition which then goes back to centrist style politics. The British established the NHS soon after WW2, i think if they waited and went through a similar process to the US they might not have got it off the ground, now it's an established institution that even the Conservatives tolerate.

 

[Shogun]

You're clearly just angry at this point. I told you to look at Trump's budget and you didn't like that so you posted some article that said Hillary/Bern were favored by the Defense Industry. I then pointed out all we have to go on at that point are hypotheticals for Hillary and Bernie.
Prior to contrary belief I'm not some die hard Hillary supporter and I've said that numerous times.




There were two presidential candidates. I'm not supposed to point out at that Trump is president? I'm supposed to pat you on the back and say sure buddy they're the same.




Joust those windmills though

Okay, breh.

 

[thekingsmen]

Okay, breh.

Don't bother ...He's with HER.

 

[ineedsleep212]

Some folks on Twitter are ridiculous. Folks really out here saying TYT shilled for Hillary and then a conversation ended with some broad saying Trump is preferable to Hillary. I just can't. Throwing around the word sellout left and right like clowns.