Board 8 > Chris' political topic 2: Huh, didn't expect to be making another casual topic.

(+) Yeah! (+)

and c) I was making my post before suprak's 2nd
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

global defense at the expense of American dollars.

You know what this is a deal I'm pretty okay with as an American, even in the scenario where Trump isn't being misleading or dishonest about how he's presenting this. (And my guess would be that he is because well it's Trump, but this isn't an issue I know much about)
---

Now it costs money to have bases there and troops there. But.

THOSE ARE OUR TROOPS. Those bases give us strategic advantage. For us. USA. No one else.
---

Yep

All of the alliances and systems that Trump is trying so hard to destroy disproportionately benefit the US (not by accident; we see the ones who spearheaded the western alliance after WW2). The only one who benefits from it being torn down is Putin.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Now it costs money to have bases there and troops there. But.

THOSE ARE OUR TROOPS. Those bases give us strategic advantage. For us. USA. No one else.

yeah as a Canadian that has also lived abroad (Japan), it completely blows my mind that any americans would complain about this being unfair to them, it's straight-up global power that US controls

I mean if you guys don't wanna be a world leader that's cool I'd love it if a European country stepped up in your place
---

I know this may be hard for certain people to understand, so how about this ELI5 version:

Your mommy tells you and your siblings you each need to go out and gather some carrots for dinner. You are the biggest so you have to gather 5 carrots for the family, while younger kids only need to get 2 or 3. This is for the whole family. Everyone does this so everyone can eat. No one is deficient in the number of carrots they need to get.

BUT your mommy also says you should probably get some carrots just for yourself, in case you get hungry. These are just carrots for you! You don't need to share these carrots with your brothers so you're free to get as many or as little as you want. She recommends at least 2 to hold yourself over.

You are so hungry that you get 4 carrots for yourself! But your brother only gets one. He wasn't hungry. So you go over to him and say "Great! Now we're all going to starve! I did all this work getting four carrots you slacker!" Except those carrots are just for you and you don't have to share. Your brother tries to correct you, but you throw everyones carrots on the floor, run out of the room, and go hug the bear that is outside in the woods.

That's sort of what's happening here.
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

yeah as a Canadian that has also lived abroad (Japan), it completely blows my mind that any americans would complain about this being unfair to them, it's straight-up global power that US controls

I mean if you guys don't wanna be a world leader that's cool I'd love it if a European country stepped up in your place

lmfao, and which country would that be? There will be no world leaders, whether you like it or not. We are already in a multipolar world with power balance that guarantees peace as long as the power balance is maintained.

The era of US unilaterally invading and destroying countries because there was no-one to stand against them and/or their proxies is over.
---

The era of US unilaterally invading and destroying countries because there was no-one to stand against them and/or their proxies is over.

Hey, whoa, another thing that Vlado and I agree upon!

The thing is, a strong and unified NATO helps prevent things like this. If NATO was more empowered, maybe Russia just doesn't up and annex Crimea. Maybe they don't use Syria to stage a proxy war. These are Obama's failings - not Trump, but it is a reason why we want a strong international community. Globalism is good in the sense that it keeps the UK and Germany and France and all of Europe breaking out into huge wars since we started forming these international coalitions.

I think you and I are in agreement that we don't want the US engaging in building nation states, right? The disagreement then comes from what is the best way to prevent it.

GuessMyUserName posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Now it costs money to have bases there and troops there. But.

THOSE ARE OUR TROOPS. Those bases give us strategic advantage. For us. USA. No one else.

yeah as a Canadian that has also lived abroad (Japan), it completely blows my mind that any americans would complain about this being unfair to them, it's straight-up global power that US controls

I mean if you guys don't wanna be a world leader that's cool I'd love it if a European country stepped up in your place

There is no European power like that, and there won't be unless Europe unifies entirely. The next global power when one surpasses the US is going to be China, and there isn't one close (India maybe? But India has its own problems although not on the scale as China). If you don't like the US, China is worse in just about every regard.

Also, if you're looking for a "good" leader to step up, I'm not sure Europe is really where you want to look based on their history. Canada is probably the "best" I can think of if you're looking for progressive, liberal leadership but they simply do not have the influence, GDP, or power for any of that sadly.
---

hey I didn't say that there is anyone who can step up, only that it would be an awesome dream. America being overtaken would be lovely, but sadly as you say the next guys are a whole other kind of monster

the statement is that anybody else would LOVE to have the influence that the US does
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Maybe they don't use Syria to stage a proxy war.

Wait, Russia is to blame for the Syrian war?

Suprak the Stud posted...

There is no European power like that, and there won't be unless Europe unifies entirely.

That's not happening. And even if it did, not even then. EU is a paper tiger. It was created and run by CIA. Now that America First people are gradually taking CIA over, it's in free fall.

Suprak the Stud posted...

If you don't like the US, China is worse in just about every regard.

Such as? China are not pushing "democracy" (as long as the CIA assets win, of course, if a conservative like Orban wins the people's vote instead, it's an "attack on democracy"), "multiculturalism" and other humanity-destroying agendas on other countries.

Suprak the Stud posted...

Canada is probably the "best" I can think of if you're looking for progressive, liberal leadership but they simply do not have the influence, GDP, or power for any of that sadly.

Canada is a total joke with their feminine PM that the rest of the world constantly laughs at, and suicidal policies.
---

Putin and Trump meet soon.
---

I am sure it is just a friendly meeting between world leaders.
---

So like, have they said at all what they're meeting about? All I remember seeing was Trump insisting that part of the meeting would have no other Americans in the room, not even an American translator.
---

metroid composite posted...

So like, have they said at all what they're meeting about? All I remember seeing was Trump insisting that part of the meeting would have no other Americans in the room, not even an American translator.

Not only is there no published agenda....there's no agenda AT ALL.

Other than the infamous July 4 meeting there has been no prep for this.

Jon Huntsman, aka the US Ambassador to Russia, just went on Meet The Press to say the meeting was to be "more of a conversation" and that he hoped it would be one about finding areas of common interest

So I guess no one really knows.
---

Vlado posted...

Canada is a total joke with their feminine PM that the rest of the world constantly laughs at, and suicidal policies.

Whats wrong with a feminine leader?
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I am sure it is just a friendly meeting between world leaders.

I honestly cant tell if this is sarcasm or not lol
---

Jakyl25 posted...

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I am sure it is just a friendly meeting between world leaders.

I honestly cant tell if this is sarcasm or not lol

Why would it be sarcasm
---

Why wouldn't it be sarcasm.
---

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I am sure it is just a friendly meeting between world leaders.

I honestly cant tell if this is sarcasm or not lol

Why would it be sarcasm

I honestly cant tell if this is sarcasm or not.
---

Also Im not entirely sure Vlado is well suited to a casual conversation on politics
---

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/15/massachusetts-police-officer-in-critical-condition-after-being-shot-reports-say.html

This is why you take the shot if you feel the situation could justify it. Cop lost his life and an innocent bystander because the shot wasn't taken.
---

Corrik posted...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/15/massachusetts-police-officer-in-critical-condition-after-being-shot-reports-say.html

This is why you take the shot if you feel the situation could justify it. Cop lost his life and an innocent bystander because the shot wasn't taken.

I could post a dozen articles about instances where innocent citizens were killed by trigger-happy cops.

It sucks, but its a risk Cops literally get paid for.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/15/massachusetts-police-officer-in-critical-condition-after-being-shot-reports-say.html

This is why you take the shot if you feel the situation could justify it. Cop lost his life and an innocent bystander because the shot wasn't taken.

I could post a dozen articles about instances where innocent citizens were killed by trigger-happy cops.

It sucks, but its a risk Cops literally get paid for.

This literally has nothing to do with the article. Thanks for trying to justify a cop and an innocent woman should have died because this is a risk "they literally get paid for".

*Rolls eyes*. So glad this is just the casual topic.
---

Calm down.

Corrik posted...

This is why you take the shot if you feel the situation could justify it.

Im responding to this part of your post and not the article, and Im not justifying anything, merely explaining that its a literally unavoidable thing that sucks.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Calm down.

Corrik posted...

This is why you take the shot if you feel the situation could justify it.

Im responding to this part of your post and not the article, and Im not justifying anything, merely explaining that its a literally unavoidable thing that sucks.

It was avoidable. He should have taken the shot.

Anyways.
---

But sometimes when they DO take the shot, THEY kill innocent people, because they were mistaken about the threat actually posed

There is no universal right answer
---

Jakyl25 posted...

But sometimes when they DO take the shot, THEY kill innocent people, because they were mistaken about the threat actually posed

There is no universal right answer

Answer is to always take the shot if there is justifiable reasoning to do so. Justifiable being key.
---

There is no universal definition of justifiable though.

Youve seen that in our debates in the other topic.
---

But yes I would agree being attacked with a stone is probably justifiable, depending on the size of the stone (I assume it was a heavy one since it actually worked).
---

Damn was Trump right?

https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/16/news/economy/china-economy-q2-growth-trade/index.html
---

Trump right about what? That tariffs hurt economies?
---

China is also pursuing painful austerity at the moment trying to purge consumer debt which is also putting a weight on their economy in the short term for long term sustainability.

Regardless no one was arguing that a trade war wasn't going to hurt China - its just also going to hurt us (and already is, cue the dozens of Articles titles "<STATE THAT WENT FOR TRUMP>'s Farmer's feel betrayed by Trump tariffs")

Its literally a sinking tide lowering all ships.

This may as well be an advertisement for the benefits of free trade.
---

Something Ive been wondering about is whether or not theres anything that can be done to keep people convinced of the importance of things that are too successful at accomplishing their goals (like free trade in this case, but also things like the post WW2 western alliance, vaccines, etc). Vaccines are actually probably the clearest case of this; diseases like measles are totally wiped out so no one has a frame of reference for what theyre preventing which lets idiots convince themselves that some imaginary downside of vaccines outweighs the real benefit.

I hope were not just doomed to find out why these things are important every 70 years.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Vaccines are actually probably the clearest case of this; diseases like measles are totally wiped out so no one has a frame of reference for what theyre preventing which lets idiots convince themselves that some imaginary downside of vaccines outweighs the real benefit.

Well, sure, although interestingly there is an actual scientific argument to be made that Americans over-vaccinate. (There's no scientific debate about Measles vaccines, but there is debate about flu vaccines--in that Europe doesn't do flu vaccines, and there's arguments that America's yearly attempts at trying to make partial flu vaccines is actually just making flu strains more resistant to vaccines).
---

metroid composite posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Vaccines are actually probably the clearest case of this; diseases like measles are totally wiped out so no one has a frame of reference for what theyre preventing which lets idiots convince themselves that some imaginary downside of vaccines outweighs the real benefit.

Well, sure, although interestingly there is an actual scientific argument to be made that Americans over-vaccinate. (There's no scientific debate about Measles vaccines, but there is debate about flu vaccines--in that Europe doesn't do flu vaccines, and there's arguments that America's yearly attempts at trying to make partial flu vaccines is actually just making flu strains more resistant to vaccines).

This is inaccurate for a couple reasons:

1) Europe absolutely does flu vaccines. The difference is they recommend them to susceptible groups while the US recommends them to everyone. There are science (the flu isnt dangerous to the majority of the population BUT it could increase herd immunity and thus decrease the chances the elderly get it BUT herd immunity when the vaccine is only roughly 40-60% effective based on the year and only a fraction of the people get it anyway is probably not going to decrease the rates of illness significantly) and financial (more expensive to vaccinate everyone BUT the workers in the US are less likely to have paid time off for illness) reasons for this. But Europe does the exact same thing the US does (highly recommends but not requires) for targeted populations.

2) the flu isnt getting more vaccine resistant. That isnt the issue with the disease. The issue is there are multiple strains and scientists basically have to guess which ones will be the predominant strains in any given year well in advance of the disease hitting to have a chance at mass production. The flu strains are never the same year to year so this isnt a concern and vaccines arent something that you typically need to worry about a disease developing resistance to anyway. Antibiotics are a much bigger concern in that regard because the person has to have the disease and then selection can occur based on what survives the treatment. In vaccination that sort of selection doesnt occur because the person doesnt get the disease in the first place.
---

So it would be better to phrase it as while the flu vaccine is extremely important in minimizing the health care burden and mortality rates of the disease, there is no clear scientific consensus whether or not a targeted or general approach is a better solution to this problem.

And dont use the word over vaccinate as that is a favorite of anti-vaccine alarmists.

And due to the way the flu shot is made and the rate of mutation in the disease and the fact they always assess if a new one needs to be made on a year to year basis, vaccine immunity is not a cause for concern.
---