Reasons Harris Lost (Page 8/9)
Doug85GT NOV 09, 12:05 PM
Add to the list of reasons why Harris lost is the persecution of the Amish. The Democrats threatened their way of life with forced vaccines and prosecutions over how the Amish farm. There are Amish communities all across the Midwest. They normally do not vote or get involved in politics. They realized that they had to get involved or the government would destroy their community. The story of Amos Miller is now well known among the Amish. They know that what is happening to Amos can happen to any of them.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/n...s-source/ar-AA1tzZdJ
blackrams NOV 09, 12:07 PM

quote
Originally posted by Patrick:

I was shocked when Biden announced he was going to run for another term. After that debate fiasco, he stepped (or was forced) down... but it was probably too late to properly select a new Democratic candidate for POTUS. In retrospect, it was a total disaster for the Democratic party. Here's a short article which reflects how I feel about Biden and Harris.




While I do agree that President Biden's decision to run again was a huge pile of barnyard waste he stepped into and led his party through, the other big mistake was him basically appointing his VP to replace him. More of the same that had already made him one of the most disliked Presidents. My last memory of his popularity rating was 37% approval of the way he was leading the US. Harris only offered more of the same regardless of what her campaign promises were in the later parts or the cycle. That 37% was widely made up of Trump haters. Just my opinion.

I really do agree that had Biden not tried again and the Dems had actually had a Primary to select their candidate, a more competitive candidate could have been selected. But, blaming the Dem loss of Harris on anything but her failure to recognize that the Biden connection is just not realistic. Just more of the same. Based on what I've been reading, there were a huge number of "Split Votes" during this election, most voting for DJT but, then switching over and voting for Dem candidates for Congress and the Senate. That should send a strong message to the Dem leadership.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-09-2024).]

Cliff Pennock NOV 13, 07:46 AM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

Cliff,
Seriously not trying to offensive here but, I do have a question. I do understand why Europeans would be concerned about President Elect Trump's win but, I have to ask. How should the US approach the issue of other NATO countries not paying the agreed share of the cost of NATO? The US has been paying the bills and defending other countries for far too long and to be frank, we're tired of carrying other countries share of the load.

Interested to learn your suggestions because I'm pretty sure, this subject will come up again during President Elect Trump's administration.




Yes, it’s true that the U.S. spends a larger share of its GDP on defense than any other NATO country, and many Americans feel it’s unfair to carry that substantial financial load. But there’s another side to this that’s often overlooked. While the U.S. does invest heavily in NATO defense, a lot of that spending actually supports American economic interests rather than purely covering costs for European allies.

First, the U.S. has the largest and most advanced arms industry in the world, and most of the defense spending it commits is invested back into American companies, jobs, and technologies. So, while the dollar amount is high, much of this money is flowing back into the U.S. economy. Moreover, when other NATO countries increase their defense budgets, they often turn to American-made weapons, aircraft, and technology. So, in many ways, Europe’s increased defense spending also boosts U.S. economic interests, because they’re buying American equipment.

Furthermore, the U.S. benefits from being the dominant provider of NATO’s defense technology, giving it a strategic advantage and allowing for greater influence within NATO operations. This interoperability strengthens U.S. leadership within NATO and helps maintain global stability, which is also in America’s interest.

So while the U.S. does spend the most on defense, it also sees substantial returns - both economically and strategically - from this investment. More than any other NATO member. We all want a fair system where every NATO member contributes responsibly to our shared security, but it’s worth recognizing that the current setup also brings significant benefits back to the U.S.
82-T/A [At Work] NOV 13, 08:18 AM

quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock:
Yes, it’s true that the U.S. spends a larger share of its GDP on defense than any other NATO country, and many Americans feel it’s unfair to carry that substantial financial load. But there’s another side to this that’s often overlooked. While the U.S. does invest heavily in NATO defense, a lot of that spending actually supports American economic interests rather than purely covering costs for European allies.

First, the U.S. has the largest and most advanced arms industry in the world, and most of the defense spending it commits is invested back into American companies, jobs, and technologies. So, while the dollar amount is high, much of this money is flowing back into the U.S. economy. Moreover, when other NATO countries increase their defense budgets, they often turn to American-made weapons, aircraft, and technology. So, in many ways, Europe’s increased defense spending also boosts U.S. economic interests, because they’re buying American equipment.

Furthermore, the U.S. benefits from being the dominant provider of NATO’s defense technology, giving it a strategic advantage and allowing for greater influence within NATO operations. This interoperability strengthens U.S. leadership within NATO and helps maintain global stability, which is also in America’s interest.

So while the U.S. does spend the most on defense, it also sees substantial returns - both economically and strategically - from this investment. More than any other NATO member. We all want a fair system where every NATO member contributes responsibly to our shared security, but it’s worth recognizing that the current setup also brings significant benefits back to the U.S.




I concur on this, but it's also part of the problem.

I realize, as I'm sure you do, that bad people are going to do bad things. Sometimes... the decisions that the U.S. makes are not always the right decisions either, which I won't get into... but we tend to foster uprisings and upheavals that just make the world stage a bit more chaotic. I think the world needs a strong country, or a strong alliance of countries to ensure bad doesn't prevail, and is kept at bay. At the same time, I fear that with many of the things that go on in the United States, special interests cause certain events that lead to a payday for large industries.

I never really thought much about it until I was personally involved, but Eisenhower (as Ray B would agree with me) warned us about the military industrial complex. I lean more towards Reagan, a strong military is a deterrent. But there's unfortunately also the aspect that many defense contractors would like to see war since it generates massive revenue. It's easy for many of these corporate leaders to push for this... having never been there, and never experienced what results from it. It's easy for humans to simply say, a bad guy is a bad guy and the world is better off when they're all dead. It's much different for the people on the battlefield that have to be the one to pull that trigger to kill said bad-guy. Some people are just insane, and some people are evil, and the world is better off without them. I'm definitely not trying to suggest we need to be Neville Chamberlin about it, I'm far more on the Winston Churchill perspective... but I just get tired of this. There has to be a better way.

People fear Trump because they literally think he's crazy and will do anything... like sending a drone strike to kill a senior leader in another country, without giving a damn about what the rest of the world thinks. Hypocritically, I love this. Why lead to the death of innocent civilians and soldiers (on both sides) when we can simply take-out the people pulling the strings. The world knows this... and they are on notice. It's why everyone has started saying they want peace all of a sudden. Hamas wants an immediate cease-fire, the Taliban leader says he would like to work with Trump to finish the Doha agreement that they violated, Russia says they want to begin negotiations...
blackrams NOV 13, 09:12 AM

quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock:


Yes, it’s true that the U.S. spends a larger share of its GDP on defense than any other NATO country, and many Americans feel it’s unfair to carry that substantial financial load. But there’s another side to this that’s often overlooked. While the U.S. does invest heavily in NATO defense, a lot of that spending actually supports American economic interests rather than purely covering costs for European allies.

First, the U.S. has the largest and most advanced arms industry in the world, and most of the defense spending it commits is invested back into American companies, jobs, and technologies. So, while the dollar amount is high, much of this money is flowing back into the U.S. economy. Moreover, when other NATO countries increase their defense budgets, they often turn to American-made weapons, aircraft, and technology. So, in many ways, Europe’s increased defense spending also boosts U.S. economic interests, because they’re buying American equipment.

Furthermore, the U.S. benefits from being the dominant provider of NATO’s defense technology, giving it a strategic advantage and allowing for greater influence within NATO operations. This interoperability strengthens U.S. leadership within NATO and helps maintain global stability, which is also in America’s interest.

So while the U.S. does spend the most on defense, it also sees substantial returns - both economically and strategically - from this investment. More than any other NATO member. We all want a fair system where every NATO member contributes responsibly to our shared security, but it’s worth recognizing that the current setup also brings significant benefits back to the U.S.



While I do agree with you Cliff, your response does not answer my question. Being a US Taxpayer and the father two of my offspring who have both served (with one still serving), I'm tired of helping to carry the rest of the NATO's load. The US needs a strong defense but, if our rivals were to join in a collective/united union in a real war, it's questionable the US could win with the other nations unprepared and what appears to be uncommitted financially to carry their share of the NATO load.

Such a war would no doubt lead to a nuclear showdown and could be the end of civilization as we know it. No nation will ever be able to invade the US (as divided as we may appear to be, that just won't happen without a nuclear holocaust) but, that doesn't mean that a lot of Europe and the rest of the world could not fall under such regimes. With the current leadership of Russian, China, N. Korea, Iran and some other middle east countries, it could become a dire situation. All I'm asking is for the rest of the NATO countries to pay up to their commitments.

Rams


quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:


I lean more towards Reagan, a strong military is a deterrent. But there's unfortunately also the aspect that many defense contractors would like to see war since it generates massive revenue.


Russia says they want to begin negotiations...



First, I don't really agree with the first sentence, I don't believe anyone wants to see a war but, I do think defense contractors like the threat of war. Obviously, they (defense contractors) benefit from greater sales. The second sentence just goes to prove that a strong national and NATO defense does affect how the rest of the world operates.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-13-2024).]

82-T/A [At Work] NOV 13, 11:10 AM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
First, I don't really agree with the first sentence, I don't believe anyone wants to see a war but, I do think defense contractors like the threat of war. Obviously, they (defense contractors) benefit from greater sales.

Rams




I didn't really explain what I was trying to convey very well. I'm not talking about defense contractors as in, the people doing the day to day work. I meant more the leadership that view it from a business perspective. What I was trying to emphasize is that it's easy to "go to war" when you're not really considering the circumstances of the people who end up losing their lives from it. Psychologically, humans tend to separate themselves mentally from inconvenient situations when they can focus on something else. We do this in our day to day lives with a lot of things... for example, doctors... a brain surgeon has to "separate him/herself" from the perspective that they're digging into a person's brain... that this person has a family, maybe kids, a parent, etc... they HAVE to detach themselves emotionally and view it as a task.

I hate to use WW2 as an example, but in NAZI Germany, many people, especially the civilians, convinced themselves that Jews (and others) were lesser people, and that allowed them to mentally justify the actions that were taking place within their own country. So put that into perspective of as Ray likes to call it, the industrial machine... war is good for business. Those appealing to war, and for some Generals hoping to get a nice job after their time and service, they may ignore the reality of what comes from war, only looking at the outcome and perhaps the financial incentive that results from it.

I'm not saying everyone is like this, just that it's a perspective that I think does happen... unfortunately.
maryjane NOV 13, 06:07 PM
A lot of this is just rationalization to justify Western Europe NOT paying more, or developing their own defense industries and defense infrastructure and products and sometimes when I read these kind of rationalizations I have to wonder if those countries don't deep down, think "They should be giving us their products, not making us pay for them".

Much of our own domestic defense infrastructure, troop levels here at home, munitions stored, and mobility costs are not to protect US, but to have assets available should Europe get into something they can't/won't handle on their own.
This, is above and beyond what our stated NATO costs are.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-13-2024).]

blackrams NOV 13, 10:40 PM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:

Much of our own domestic defense infrastructure, troop levels here at home, munitions stored, and mobility costs are not to protect US, but to have assets available should Europe get into something they can't/won't handle on their own.
This, is above and beyond what our stated NATO costs are.




Anyone not recognizing this is simply ignoring the obvious.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-13-2024).]

Patrick NOV 13, 10:46 PM

quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock:

While the U.S. does invest heavily in NATO defense, a lot of that spending actually supports American economic interests rather than purely covering costs for European allies.



"Economic interests" play a large role in who does what for whom. Is protection of offshore US economic interests not the responsibility of the US military? It stands to reason then that US military expenditures are very high, as US economic interests are vast and worldwide.
82-T/A [At Work] NOV 14, 12:33 PM

quote
Originally posted by Patrick:

"Economic interests" play a large role in who does what for whom. Is protection of offshore US economic interests not the responsibility of the US military? It stands to reason then that US military expenditures are very high, as US economic interests are vast and worldwide.




I think that's the "rub" as they say. The lines seem to get blurred between economic interests and our obligations... and then, how these things are portrayed to the taxpayer and voter. I'm not mentioning any war specifically... but it's considered patriotic to support a war... if you will, because we're doing a good thing. I like to think that for the most part, we are. And I'd be hard pressed to argue definitively that we aren't always attempting to do the right thing when we go to war. But is that because of economic interest, or... is that because we're being the world's watchdog?

... and then the next question is... who is deciding then what causes we fight for? Certainly the taxpayer isn't, and to a lesser extent... Congress isn't either. We're supposed to declare war, but it becomes a technicality when that whom we're going against is defined as a "group" ... and the country has fallen (think pirates, rebels, etc.). There's so much grey area here... because right now, Africa is basically falling apart. There have been numerous countries that have fallen to Islamic fundamentalist groups, entire nations who's government has collapsed. Openly, the only thing we've done is remove and abandoned one of our military bases. Why then do we focus on Israel and Ukraine, but ignore what's going on in Africa? Is it because they're white? I dunno... no one's suggested that, and I don't think that's the case. We have alliances with Ukraine and Israel, and I we technically have an agreement to defend Ukraine against attack... but that treaty has been violated by both Russia, Europe, and the United States a few times over.


Point I'm trying to make (I suppose)... it doesn't seem like our wars are always decided based on the reasoning that's portrayed by our government.