Sam Harris Would Vote For Ben Carson Over Noam Chomsky, Also Agrees With Ted Cruz

[BocaRear]

geez...everyone is going overboard

It's really not overboard, Harris has a childish world view. He fails to take into account all the factors and different variables and simply deems it as "us vs them"

 

[The War Report]

If I was sonned by someone as hard as Chomsky sonned this dude, I would also vote for anyone else over that person

Show me the receipts.

 

[theworldismine13]

Anyone with more than one brain cell?

only a deluded person would vote for chomsky, the only thing a chomsky type presidency would do is bring about the exponential growth of chinese, russian and iranian global power as they take up the vacuum left by the us

but anybody that thinks that will create a more moral and fairer world is plain stupid

 

[tmonster]

only a deluded person would vote for chomsky, the only thing a chomsky type presidency would do is bring about the exponential growth of chinese, russian and iranian global power as they take up the vacuum left by the us

but anybody that thinks that will create a more moral and fairer world is plain stupid

Can you explain how?

 

[theworldismine13]

Can you explain how?

There is a prime example going on right now in the South China Sea and asian countries

There is no country that is willing to challenge China's absurd claims that some artificial island is their territory except for the us

So if the us stopped being "imperialistic" countries in the area would simply fall under Chinese domination, there is no logical or historical reason to think that the Chinese are more moral or fairer than Americans

And the list goes on and on, Chomsky's entire anti imperialism premise is pure bullshyt that if implemented will actually cause more wars and make the world more chaotic

So yeah, in the end Carson over Chomsky is a no brainier

 

[tmonster]

There is a prime example going on right now in the South China Sea and asian countries

There is no country that is willing to challenge China's absurd claims that some artificial island is their territory except for the us

So if the us stopped being "imperialistic" countries in the area would simply fall under Chinese domination, there is no logical or historical reason to think that the Chinese are more moral or fairer than Americans

And the list goes on and on, Chomsky's entire anti imperialism premise is pure bullshyt that if implemented will actually cause more wars and make the world more chaotic

So yeah, in the end Carson over Chomsky is a no brainier

in order to stop bullies or hegemonic overtures by other countries the US has to be imperialistic?

What would happen if the US did not challenge China over the island?

So you have presented an example of power fighting power presumably to prevent...well I am not sure what...but is that the usual reason the US expresses imperial prerogative?

 

[CHL]

in order to stop bullies or hegemonic overtures by other countries the US has to be imperialistic?

Your sig sums up twisms view of global politics

 

[theworldismine13]

in order to stop bullies or hegemonic overtures by other countries the US has to be imperialistic?

What would happen if the US did not challenge China over the island?

So you have presented an example of power fighting power presumably to prevent...well I am not sure what...but is that the usual reason the US expresses imperial prerogative?

Yeah in order to stop bullies and other local powers from being hegemonic the us has to be imperialistic

I just said what would happen if the us did not challenge China, the other Asian countries would fall under Chinese domination

The other scenario is that other countries like Japan would arm themselves increasing the chances of war

So the us withdrawing its navy and bases from Asia would simply increase Chinese power and increase the chances of war and there is no logical or historical reason to think the lives of ordinary people would improve under the increase in war and chaos

I never said us imperialism had altruistic motives, what I am saying is I prefer us imperialism over Russian, Iranian, Chinese etc imperialism, so to me it's a no brainier to choose Carson over Chomsky

 

[Oville]

Yeah in order to stop bullies and other local powers from being hegemonic the us has to be imperialistic

I just said what would happen if the us did not challenge China, the other Asian countries would fall under Chinese domination

The other scenario is that other countries like Japan would arm themselves increasing the chances of war

So the us withdrawing its navy and bases from Asia would simply increase Chinese power and increase the chances of war and there is no logical or historical reason to think the lives of ordinary people would improve under the increase in war and chaos

I never said us imperialism had altruistic motives, what I am saying is I prefer us imperialism over Russian, Iranian, Chinese etc imperialism, so to me it's a no brainier to choose Carson over Chomsky

I think what Chompsky would argue is for a multi lateral approach to foreign policy and one that makes every country including this one susceptible to international law.

 

[theworldismine13]

I think what Chompsky would argue is for a multi lateral approach to foreign policy and one that makes every country including this one susceptible to international law.

And he also wants to feed all the hungry children of the world and bring world peace

I'm not questioning his glorious goals I'm dismissing the notion that those goals would be brought about by the us withdrawing

The notion that China for example would be convinced to stop claiming the South China Sea as its territory through a multi lateral approach is delusional

The only way to create a "multilateral approach" and enforce international law would be by arming countries like phillipines and Japan to the teeth.....by the us

There is no question that the us withdrawing would create regional powers, the issue is whether these regional powers are more likely to create a freer and better world, I would say the answer is no, I think the rise of countries like Russia, Iran and China in there present form are a threat to human progress

 

[theworldismine13]

Your sig sums up twisms view of global politics

Yep it does, I think at the end of the day the us has more pressure to be moral and to promote human rights than countries like Russia, Iran or China

In no way am I disputing the us's sordid history, but I do not think the grass is greener on the other side, these regional powers represent something worse than American imperialism

I think American imperialism with all its faults is something that can be built upon and used as a tool to promote a freer world

 

[Oville]

And he also wants to feed all the hungry children of the world and bring world peace

I'm not questioning his glorious goals I'm dismissing the notion that those goals would be brought about by the us withdrawing

The notion that China for example would be convinced to stop claiming the South China Sea as its territory through a multi lateral approach is delusional

The only way to create a "multilateral approach" and enforce international law would be by arming countries like phillipines and Japan to the teeth.....by the us

There is no question that the us withdrawing would create regional powers, the issue is whether these regional powers are more likely to create a freer and better world, I would say the answer is resounding no, I think the rise of countries like Russia, Iran and China in there present form are a threat to human progress

Its not just about U.S. withdrawing, I think his message is that everyone who breaks international law should be held accountable and respect international sovereignty of nations. International bodies like the U.N. have done a shytty job of spreading accountablity to violations in international law because the of the leverage that the 5 permanent members have on the world. Your worries about the power the unchecked power that those three countries might have is seen through the lens in which the current international system of governance works. I mean your worried about Iran's influence but said nothing about the influence of a country like Saudi Arabia who we fund and are the biggest destabilizing force in the region. Why not worry about them? Because we have a relationship with them? Israel is breaking international laws with regards to their indefinite occupation of the west bank and annexation of West Bank territory. The current world order is already fukked up.

 

[theworldismine13]

Its not just about U.S. withdrawing, I think his message is that everyone who breaks international law should be held accountable and respect international sovereignty of nations. International bodies like the U.N. have done a shytty job of spreading accountablity to violations in international law because the of the leverage that the 5 permanent members have on the world. Your worries about the power the unchecked power that those three countries might have is seen through the lens in which the current international system of governance works. I mean your worried about Iran's influence but said nothing about the influence of a country like Saudi Arabia who we fund and are the biggest destabilizing force in the region. Why not worry about them? Because we have a relationship with them? Israel is breaking international laws with regards to their indefinite occupation of the west bank and annexation of West Bank territory. The current world order is already fukked up.

I'm not disputing the high minded goals, I'm disputing the notion that the us is standing in the way of that and I'm disputing the notion that the regional powers are more likely to follow those stated goals

The us is under more pressure and more likely to follow and enforce international laws than China, Russia or Iran

Saudi Arabia is an enemy of the United States and an enemy of the progress of human civilization, Israel should stop occupying territories

But again the us withdrawing from those situations would not make the situation better and the regional actors are not more likely to follow Chomsky's lofty agenda

The un does a shytty job of enforcing international law because the un does not have a military to enforce international law, it has nothing to do with how many members sit in the security council

 

[tmonster]

Yeah in order to stop bullies and other local powers from being hegemonic the us has to be imperialistic

I just said what would happen if the us did not challenge China, the other Asian countries would fall under Chinese domination

The other scenario is that other countries like Japan would arm themselves increasing the chances of war

So the us withdrawing its navy and bases from Asia would simply increase Chinese power and increase the chances of war and there is no logical or historical reason to think the lives of ordinary people would improve under the increase in war and chaos

I never said us imperialism had altruistic motives, what I am saying is I prefer us imperialism over Russian, Iranian, Chinese etc imperialism, so to me it's a no brainier to choose Carson over Chomsky

ok thank you for sharing your opinion

 

[theworldismine13]

ok thank you for sharing your opinion

You're welcome