Democrats, liberals, and progressives have become some of the biggest hawks in Washington.

[Prince.Skeletor]

Drawing down the military industrial complex and its costs must be a prerequisite for a progressive campaign.

This is true for many reasons

1) It is tremendously immmoral, and for the time it has lasted it is immoral beyond any computable level, immeasurably immoral.
2) It's illegal, none of these wars pass lawmakers
3) For progressives to care about universal healthcare so much and even many liberals think it's a pipe dream the question is where does the money come from? Look at military budget, there's you money. Why be pro-free healthcare without being anti-war FIRST?

So why are people like this?
In my opinion it is because of the media. The media barely spoke about how many weapons Obama sold to Saudi Arabia. Then the Saudis used those weapons on Syria, then people flee. And democrats cried about letting syrian refugees come to the U.S. and greatly demonized the right when they opposed letting syrian refugees here.
That's being angry to not let syrian refugees here but completely ignore the bombing of their country in the first place.
So why is it like this? Because the media didn't tell them to be angry about the bombings, only about refugees the bombing created.
There is no anti-war movement on the left, it's barely an election issue, but they fought vigorously against the muslim ban, protested at airports etc.. it's okay to bomb them, but when we destroy their homes we gotta let them come here or and you disagree you are a horrible human being.

If you saw Elon Musk on the Joe Rogan show, it made so many rounds around the media that Elon smoked weed. Even his stock went down, for other reasons too bu also that, all that negative press.

Then I watched the entire video, in the whole video he spoke about things to make our planet a better place. But the media didn't mention that.
So I waiting for the weed part, Joe rogan takes a blunt out and asks Elon if he wanted to take a puff, Elon took one just to try it and that was it, no more!!
I was mad angry, that was it????????? I was shocked, i'm sure most people think he was smoking weed with multiple puffs,but that's the power of the media.

 

[Savvir]

This is true for many reasons

1) It is tremendously immmoral, and for the time it has lasted it is immoral beyond any computable level, immeasurably immoral.
2) It's illegal, none of these wars pass lawmakers
3) For progressives to care about universal healthcare so much and even many liberals think it's a pipe dream the question is where does the money come from? Look at military budget, there's you money. Why be pro-free healthcare without being anti-war FIRST?

1. who decided that the military budget is the pinnacle of a progressive movement...?
immorality has nothing to do with this being a "prerequisite" for a movement that should be domestically focused in the first place.

2. the military budget is not illegal.

3. The money is not going to magically be "free" if it not in the military budget.
The idea that we have to reduce the military budget before a progressive movement or socially progressive programs can begin is a great way for opposition to hijack and stonewall the efforts to enact progressive measures.

This is akin to saying:
We can't have healthcare until a gun ban is in place.
We can't have judicial reform until all drugs are legalized

I see the underpinning element of obstructionism hidden in the suggested progressive idealism.
Having unnecessary prerequisites to stonewall progressive movement.
The prereqs help further segment the progressive movement itself.

Trying to divide the progressive movement by claiming the movement isn't truly progressive because they don't do "A"

and we can't have B, C, D, E, or F until we get A first of course.

Coincidentally, A is one of the primary concerns for the opposition and will lead to a harder fight to even get the rest done...not to mention the segmenting of the progressive party itself by those who claim A must come first and those in the party who disagree or see that as a secondary issues.

recipe for failure

 

[King Kreole]

1. What's the speculated reduction in military spending for the proposed drawdown?
Looking at the current trends, the defense budget has dropped by 100billion in the last 7 years.
How much faster would you suggest it drop and what information is is that suggestion based on?

I think pre-War on Terror levels should be a start?? There is no active war the US is justified in prosecuting right now, so there is no reason for military spending to be at such levels. It's a result of being sold on this unending and amorphous "War on Terror". I'm glad it's dropped $100 billion from its totally gratuitous peak, i'll be happy when it drops another $100 billion, then another $100 billion, then another $100 billion. The drop should be precipitous and the information that suggestion is based on is the fact that there is no justification for spending to be at wartime levels when the United States isn't at war. Especially when much of that money is going towards propping up murderous and immoral regimes across the world that do nothing to advance the welfare or security of average American citizens.

2. A military drawdown is a prerequisite for a progressive campaign....???
You are basically saying that domestic issues are not the primary progressive concern.
I strongly disagree with the thought that a progressive movement is not valid without a decrease in defense spending.

I'm saying that you cannot divorce domestic issues from foreign issues. The military is cannibalizing the US budget, which means there are less funds for progressive policies. The number one pushback from liberal, centrist and conservative dipshyts, when confronted with a call for progressive policies, is "How can we afford this?!?!" The answer is glaringly obvious to anyone who isn't smoking that "PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN WHERE AT LEAST I KNOW I'M FREE!". Drawing down the fatally bloated military budget is both a moral and practical necessity to the enacting of the progressive project. I suggest you listen to that podcast I posted.

 

[DEAD7]

At least Rand is still doing something right...

 

[King Kreole]

1. who decided that the military budget is the pinnacle of a progressive movement...?
immorality has nothing to do with this being a "prerequisite" for a movement that should be domestically focused in the first place.

No one is saying it's "the pinnacle" of the progressive movement. It's a necessary component. Foreign and domestic are inextricably intertwined. You understand that the US government determines both domestic and foreign issues, right? You cannot run a government devoid of a foreign policy, and you're not a serious, comprehensive national-level progressive if you don't have a foreign policy plan.

2. the military budget is not illegal.

Many of the spendings are illegal.

3. The money is not going to magically be "free" if it not in the military budget.
The idea that we have to reduce the military budget before a progressive movement or socially progressive programs can begin is a great way for opposition to hijack and stonewall the efforts to enact progressive measures.

lol it's not "magically", it's called budget policy...you're acting as though military spending eating up such ridiculous portions of the budget is a foregone conclusion and we need to just live with it and work around it...that's nonsense propaganda

This is akin to saying:
We can't have healthcare until a gun ban is in place.
We can't have judicial reform until all drugs are legalized

No, it's akin to saying:

We can't have progressive healthcare reform until private insurers and hospitals and their costs are brought to heel.
(it's actually even easier than this because all that's being asked is to return to pre-war spending levels because the US has no reason to be at war)

What you're saying is:

We can't have healthcare reform because insurers are too big and their lobbyists will obstruct.
We can't have economic reform because the banks are too big and their lobbyists will obstruct.

Sucker shyt.

 

[Savvir]

1. I'm saying that you cannot divorce domestic issues from foreign issues.

2. The military is cannibalizing the US budget, which means there are less funds for progressive policies.

3. The number one pushback from liberal, centrist and conservative dipshyts, when confronted with a call for progressive policies, is "How can we afford this?!?!"

1. Yes you can. why is this even a topic of discussion.

2. The military is not cannibalizing the budget. If you understood how the military budget works you would know that money they "don't have" beforehand becomes available whenever the military deems it necessary. The military doesn't rely on cutbacks on other programs to use for itself. The military says what's needed and the government makes it so. The real issue isn't the military cannibalizing this imaginary set number of dollars available, it's making those in government decide that money needs to be allocated to progressive programs by becoming magically "available" like they do for wars.

3. that "how can we afford this" argument is a fake stance in the first place. Nobody asked how we could afford Iraq and Afghanistan, the government just made it so.
If you really wanna get into the "how can we afford this" argument why don't you go through the koch study that shows a singlepayer system actually SAVES the country money.... then come back to discuss.

 

[Savvir]

1. No one is saying it's "the pinnacle" of the progressive movement. It's a necessary component. Foreign and domestic are inextricably intertwined. You understand that the US government determines both domestic and foreign issues, right? You cannot run a government devoid of a foreign policy, and you're not a serious, comprehensive national-level progressive if you don't have a foreign policy plan.


2. Many of the spendings are illegal.


3. lol it's not "magically", it's called budget policy...you're acting as though military spending eating up such ridiculous portions of the budget is a foregone conclusion and we need to just live with it and work around it...that's nonsense propaganda


4.
No, it's akin to saying:

We can't have progressive healthcare reform until private insurers and hospitals and their costs are brought to heel.
(it's actually even easier than this because all that's being asked is to return to pre-war spending levels because the US has no reason to be at war)

What you're saying is:

We can't have healthcare reform because insurers are too big and their lobbyists will obstruct.
We can't have economic reform because the banks are too big and their lobbyists will obstruct.

Sucker shyt.

1.

a. who said anything about not having a foreign policy?
b. a progressive movement can have a foreign policy perspective without that end all be all (ie. prerequisite) of the ENTIRE movement
c. it's possible to have a progressive movement with a hawkish foreign policy... isn't that the complaint this thread is based on?

2.
......ok....

3. The military doesn't eat up the budget. The military decides by how much they will increase the budget itself to meet its needs... it's not subtracting money from a set number. If you study budget you would know that.

4. military spending needing to be cut has nothing to do with healthcare or judicial system reform.... the examples you gave are issues that deal directly with the cause it affects.
Saying military cuts are a prerequisite to a progressive movement is using separate progressive issues as roadblocks to each other instead of trying to get through whatever is possible with the amount of power the movement holds.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

There is no anti-war movement on the left

look at this complete bullshyt, brehs

 

[Savvir]

The whole narrative in this thread is to divide and delegitimize the progressive/left/liberal movement by trying to sway people away from it by pointing out supposed "flaws" in the movement.....

 

[ORDER_66]

But in congress wasn't the republicans the ones to basically downplay that vote to STOP future election interference?!? how is it the "left's" fault when the right wing republicans sold you out?!? Always blaming others for your teams damned faults fukk outta here!!!

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

The whole narrative in this thread is to divide and delegitimize the progressive/left/liberal movement by trying to sway people away from it by pointing out supposed "flaws" in the movement.....

The whole narrative of America's current social construct is to divide the people & let elites conquer.
Kids are growing up in a society at a national level where they are expected to hate half the country.
With the left focusing on useless social topics like SJW shyt or a woman should be president. ya'll so distracted that you cannot achieve any of your more positive & more important ideals.

You are a distracted people, & just like the right you have much blood on your hands.

 

[N.J.stan]

The whole narrative of America's current social construct is to divide the people & let elites conquer.
Kids are growing up in a society at a national level where they are expected to hate half the country.
With the left focusing on useless social topics like SJW shyt or a woman should be president. ya'll so distracted that you cannot achieve any of your more positive & more important ideals.

You are a distracted people, & just like the right you have much blood on your hands.

Didn't you move to Canada? Why don't you focus on your own country's issues you fukking clown, instead of spewing blatant both sides bullshyt in HL

Also, negged

 

[the next guy]

The whole narrative in this thread is to divide and delegitimize the progressive/left/liberal movement by trying to sway people away from it by pointing out supposed "flaws" in the movement.....

The way to counter that is by separating legitimate and warranted criticism of the Putin regime from the Russian people and country itself. This article isn't so much about you or me but the people echoing Frum, Rubin, McMullin, CIA Hawks etc elsewhere.

Putin should go, and preferably right now, but who replaces him? Is my question

 

[Savvir]

Why are you even talking about Putin "going" anywhere

The US should just take action to contain and respond to Russian aggression .

 

[Savvir]

Brownskin intellect sounds like a trump voter