One of them talked about a Marxist who will get rid of Israel within 2 years and wants to defund the police and give everyone healthcare and provide transgender operations to illegal immigrants, and the other talked about a person who hates the US military, admires China’s handling of COVID, and wants to defund the police and pull out of NATO, and I just wish I knew the names of either of those candidates because they’re both way better choices than what we’ve actually got.

I hate them.

Let me give you a scenario. What if balloons could sneeze? What then?!?

But you are clearly admiring Trump.

What on earth are you talking about? Fuck Trump.

You’re clearly a republican

Lol. If you like, I could cite some of Lenin’s work that’s relevant to the topic.

I’ll do you the same courtesy of simplifying it down to one point. Even if the war in Ukraine had all the justification in the world, we still can’t afford to fight it. The US is spread incredibly thin, trying to exert pressure all over the world all at once while things at home are completely falling apart. It doesn’t matter whether something is right or wrong if it is outside of our capabilities.

Aside from the fact that conditions are shit and that’s just bad inherently, the longer we go without addressing domestic issues, the stronger the far-right becomes, and that threat is much greater and more existential than any foreign power. The ruling class of the US has been stoking xenophobia to justify military spending, but there is a serious risk that it will spiral beyond their ability to control it. If the US goes full fascist, as we are very much trending towards, then other powers being able to challenge its hegemony will be the only thing holding it back.

I have no idea what the fuck you are going on about saying Ukraine isn’t much different to Russia??? Dude they were fucking invaded they don’t want to be part of Russia. They are a democracy - Russia is NOT, they are not similar at all. The Ukrainian people aren’t fighting and dying for nothing dude??? If Russia wasn’t that different they would have immediately surrendered rather than lose all the lives they’ve lost over this.

Ukraine is not a democracy. The current government came to power via coup and banned their major opposition party, which was most popular in eastern Ukraine. The people in eastern Ukraine didn’t like the direction the government was taking, and had been cut out of the political process, so they rose up and seized control of some regions from the government, which began a civil war. The separatists asked for Russian assistance, and Russia sent troops in.

They aren’t fighting because one country has more rights or freedoms or a higher quality of life, they are fighting for the interests of their state. The state’s interests are separate and distinct from the people’s interests. It would have been better if they had pursued peace rather than lose all the lives they’ve lost over this, even if it meant territorial concessions. Even if they won, it wouldn’t be worth it.

I’m a socialist. But if you’re somehow saying that STALIN is someone we should have left alone because Russia was communist, like dude have you been on the crack or something cos you appear to have lost your mind.

We did more that leave him alone, we joined an alliance and fought alongside him. But NATO’s fight against communism wasn’t just about countering Stalin. Democratically elected leaders all over the world, from Iran to Guatemala, were forcibly overthrown the moment they tried to do something to help the common people, and were replaced by fascists who hunted down and exterminated leftists of all stripes.

You’re literally promoting appeasement. Do you remember world war 2? The policy of appeasement worked wonderfully there didn’t it?

This is the second time you’ve made that comparison.

As I said before, this comparison has been used in every major conflict the US has been engaged in for the past 70 years, and we can look back at them and see how ridiculous the comparisons were and how unjustified the conflicts were. They said the Vietnamese were like the Nazis, that if we didn’t stop them there, they’d take over the world. How’d that play out?

You say that you don’t agree with those wars. Alright, but that’s very easy to do after the fact. When the US went into Iraq, many Americans were critical of Vietnam, and yet, the war had overwhelming support - just as Vietnam did, at the start. You’d get called a terrorist sympathizer if you opposed it. Then, after the fact, we can look back and see that it was no different, that it was just as unjustified. But it means nothing to say you’re “anti-war” if it only applies after the fact, when it’s too late to do anything about it, and if the moment our leaders roll out the propaganda machine and tell us “this time, it’s different,” you just go along with it. At the very least, you should be applying extreme skepticism to everything they say. These aren’t just the same types of people who lied us into wars in the Middle East, in many cases, it’s the exact same people in the exact same positions. I don’t trust them and would never follow them into a war under any circumstances.

Well countries may not want to trade with someone at least not on favourable terms if that country isolates itself in every other way.

I’m not sure reducing military interventions is going to make countries less inclined to trade with the US. They’re a part of what’s pushing more and more middle income countries over to China, when we invade and devastate independent counties, when we seize assets held in our banks, when we put up sanctions and blockades, other countries have to wonder if they’ll be next.

My point about NATO was that it’s all about working together to defeat something, so okay, in that case communism if you say so (honestly don’t know that much about it).

Well, I’m a communist, so “working together to defeat communism” isn’t exactly a point in favor in my book.

The point is that Russia and China are dangerous. I suppose you’re okay with the Ukraine stuff because it’s all about America right? Okay with the Palestinian genocide?

I have no idea how on Earth you’re making that logical leap with regards to Palestine. The US is actively funding and supplying Israel. That’s the sort of thing I’m saying I want to stop.

As for Ukraine, I just want peace. If that means giving up some territory, that’s fine with me. It’s not as if life is that different in Russia compared to Ukraine. If you really care about Ukrainians, get the killing to stop and then spend the money we’re blowing on bombs on actually improving their quality of life. If we’d done that before, maybe the people in eastern Ukraine wouldn’t have wanted to split off in the first place.

I’m fine with foreign aid, so long as it’s going to actually helping people and not to blowing people up to line some executive’s pockets.

But to just not form military alliances with other countries? That’s dangerous. Because Russia and China aren’t gonna stop with their alliance. If the US was to just ignore them two slowly taking over the world, then guess who will be the last country left, isolated as is your wish? The last country left to be taken over? Which will be much easier once they’ve conquered the rest of the world.

What indication is there exactly that they’re out to “conquer the world?” When was the last time China was engaged in a major military conflict? When was the last time the US wasn’t engaged in a major military conflict? Seems pretty clear which country is more intent on aggressive expansionism.

But that’s not really how empires fall, anyway. It’s the declining conditions in the core that you have to watch out for.

We also won’t be able to trade with the countries who have been bombed into oblivion by Russia/China/North Korea and whoever else joins them rather than die.

Pure fantasy.

You want America to be isolated? In a world where we have a Russia and a China? Are you for real dude?

Absolutely.

The US is losing the peace to China because we’ve wasted so much money on bombs and invasions, while China’s been pursuing domestic development. Our roads and bridges are crumbling, our healthcare system is completely unworkable, our life expectancy is in decline, our education is being gutted, and wealth inequality has skyrocketed. Our country is falling apart at the core, this is no time to be fussing about shit on the other side of the world.

Only a few years ago, things were fine with Russia and China, and they could be fine again. The US pulled out of the Middle East and needed new conflicts to justify the military industrial complex, and so we got a bunch of sabre-rattling, proxy conflicts, and propaganda.

When the US finally pulled it’s finger out of its arse and stopped just benefiting financially from world war 2 and decided (more like was forced but whatever) to join in and fight Hitler, they were able to end it.

That was 70 years ago, and has been used as an excuse for every single major conflict since. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc, all had major US political figures drawing comparisons to Hitler and WWII to justify them, and all were unjustified, pointless wars of aggression that slaughtered countless innocent people.

The UN and NATO originated off the back of that stuff.

NATO did not originate in response to the Nazis, it originated to counteract the Soviets. In fact, ex-Nazis were often brought on board, because they were reliably anti-communist. Adolf Heusinger, for example, served in the high command of the Wehrmacht and went on to become chairman of NATO.

You cannot be isolated in a 2024 globalised world. Absolutely bizarre take. I suppose you don’t want to trade with anyone else either right?

Trade is fine. Love trade. Although I am critical of the system of neocolonialism that keeps many countries poor, but that’s more a question of returning the natural resources that were stolen during colonialism and letting them regain control of their domestic policies. I wish we focused more on trade instead of war.

At no point did I say he’d be good for foreign policy. What I said is that he’s (incorrectly) accused of stuff that, if true, would be good for foreign policy.

I suspect a big part of the war lust in America is because politicians are getting hand jobs and bribes from people who benefit in the defence industry. Trump is certainly not above being bribed.

Yes, that’s more or less what I meant when I said that, while he isn’t ideologically committed to being pro-war, he isn’t ideologically opposed either, so the machine can continue uninterrupted.

You want America to pull out of NATO? Wtf? Haha maybe you didn’t mean that? Hopefully not cos that would be crazy and yeah he could well pull the US out of NATO, so again - not good.

Yes, I would like the US to pull out of NATO. I’m an isolationist, and I don’t see how US global hegemony or adventurism benefits me as an American citizen, or anyone else outside of the elite.

Trump isn’t going to pull out of NATO, of course.

Integrity, lmao. Some people just really don’t like being proven wrong, I guess.

I haven’t done any trolling at all, nor have I licked any boots. I simply refused to engage with your irrelevant tangent.

All you did was perform a purity test to see if I’m a member of your tribe in order to discredit me, whole deploying thought-terminating cliches to distract from the fact that you were objectively proven wrong.

Edit: Busted!

Wtf is y’all’s deal with this shit? You bring up these same two things in every conversation, regardless of how completely irrelevant they are, and then if the other person doesn’t kowtow you act like you “busted” them? Absolutely bizarre, nonsensical behavior.

Congratulations, you revealed that I’m not a part of your tribe, which I never pretended to be in the first place. I guess now it doesn’t matter that I proved you objectively wrong now, because I’m the “other,” so your little in-group can write off anything I say, no matter how correct and sourced it is. Blue MAGA shit.

What, that not everyone agrees with me on what things are good or bad? No shit, that’s why politicians are constantly accusing each other of doing good things as if they were bad.

I’d love it if you could point me to someone not in the defense industry, politics, or journalism who actually benefited from the Iraq War. What a great idea that was, to avoid “”“submitting to a dictator”“” by randomly invading a country on the other side of the globe.

Tianmen square (sic)

Never been. US News and World Report rates it as the #6 thing to do in Beijing, so I will defer to their take on it. Apparently, the square itself is just a big concrete area but it’s nearby some other tourist attractions.

Uyghurs

Never met one.

Lmao, you literally only know two events from all of history, don’t you?

On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya

Literally the first sentence lmao.

Well, I mean, if you’re invested in the preservation of US hegemony for some reason, then I guess it’s debatable whether keeping up a constant state of war and bloodshed is a good or bad thing. I, however, am not. I don’t give a rat’s ass about US hegemony and I would love to have a president who’s willing to “”“submit to dictators”“” to avoid conflict.

The only people who actually gain anything at all from US hegemony are the people at the top. Nobody else, at home or abroad, benefits from it at all. Rather, we get all our domestic programs cut to fund a war machine that spreads fear and destruction to innocent people around the globe. Unless you’re part of the elite, invest heavily in companies like Lockheed Martin, or have confused national interests with your own, then yes, isolationist policies are a good thing.

Hah! In that case, what you should propose is that we have a different event that’s actually a serious debate, and rebrand what we have now as comedy roasts, without changing a thing.

Debates are pure entertainment, it’s just a bunch of quips, one-liners, and power plays. There’s no serious, formal discussion of anything. It’s glorified reality TV for nerds who would be too good for it otherwise. And that’s something that predates Trump, it’s part of what set the stage for him.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard a politician accuse Trump of just “not having a realistic idea to achieve” isolationist goals. They attack him for having isolationist goals at all (which he doesn’t actually have, really), because all of them are extreme interventionists.

I don’t understand how that would be different from the debates.