MHF Democrat Primary Poll

[Speaker to Animals]

The indifference to foreign policy does seem to be standard among many of those American progressive sites like Slate and Salon. Usually stories there are progressive commentaries on domestic issues.

It's standard for the vast majority of the American electorate from both parties who don't actually have to risk their lives or lifelong disabilities as a consequence of these wars.

Does your mandatory service play a factor in your decision to vote? Say, if you have some Danish politician that wants to go to war pretty much everywhere, in perpetuity, but he promises you all the other stuff you care about, would you still be like, fuck no, who wants to go die for this?

Where I had hoped Tulsi could get some leverage was in pointing out that, if the democratic electorate really wants programs like universal healthcare, then the easiest way to pay for it is to take the money from the MIC and end the wars. But, alas, democrats really are a stupid lot.

A candidate in a crowded GOP primary could get some traction by pointing out that we could end the wars and rebate the American tax payers probably a third of his annual tax payments. They at least get that. A lot of them want the wars, though, because it's not like they are fighting it and they live vicariously through it like this is some kind of Hollywood war movie.

[Speaker to Animals]

Still looks like Bernie will win the nomination to me. I hope Tulsi can get some traction in next debates. We'll see. Also possible the polls are all very, very wrong, and going by the Google search statistics, that's actually possible.

Thing is.. what if Bernie wins and adopts her anti-war platform, even making her his running mate?

[StCapps]

The indifference to foreign policy does seem to be standard among many of those American progressive sites like Slate and Salon. Usually stories there are progressive commentaries on domestic issues.

It's standard for the vast majority of the American electorate from both parties who don't actually have to risk their lives or lifelong disabilities as a consequence of these wars.

Does your mandatory service play a factor in your decision to vote? Say, if you have some Danish politician that wants to go to war pretty much everywhere, in perpetuity, but he promises you all the other stuff you care about, would you still be like, fuck no, who wants to go die for this?

Where I had hoped Tulsi could get some leverage was in pointing out that, if the democratic electorate really wants programs like universal healthcare, then the easiest way to pay for it is to take the money from the MIC and end the wars. But, alas, democrats really are a stupid lot.

A candidate in a crowded GOP primary could get some traction by pointing out that we could end the wars and rebate the American tax payers probably a third of his annual tax payments. They at least get that. A lot of them want the wars, though, because it's not like they are fighting it and they live vicariously through it like this is some kind of Hollywood war movie.

I told you they don't care how they pay for there for their proposed gibs, now you know.

[StCapps]

Still looks like Bernie will win the nomination to me. I hope Tulsi can get some traction in next debates. We'll see. Also possible the polls are all very, very wrong, and going by the Google search statistics, that's actually possible.

Thing is.. what if Bernie wins and adopts her anti-war platform, even making her his running mate?

Bernie isn't going to win, he refuses to attack any of the major candidates on their biggest weaknesses, he's a pushover wearing kid gloves.

[Speaker to Animals]

Dude. Fuck. I swear to God will you fuck off already?

I don't like you. You are fucking stupid. You waste everybody's time. I curse the shit head that invited you back.

[StCapps]

Dude. Fuck. I swear to God will you fuck off already?

I don't like you. You are fucking stupid. You waste everybody's time. I curse the shit head that invited you back.

Can't handle disagreement, just like the shit head that invited me back.

You hear that Hash? StA put a hex on you, what a dick. Misplaced Anger is a helluva drug.

[BjornP]

The indifference to foreign policy does seem to be standard among many of those American progressive sites like Slate and Salon. Usually stories there are progressive commentaries on domestic issues.

It's standard for the vast majority of the American electorate from both parties who don't actually have to risk their lives or lifelong disabilities as a consequence of these wars.

Does your mandatory service play a factor in your decision to vote? Say, if you have some Danish politician that wants to go to war pretty much everywhere, in perpetuity, but he promises you all the other stuff you care about, would you still be like, fuck no, who wants to go die for this?

Where I had hoped Tulsi could get some leverage was in pointing out that, if the democratic electorate really wants programs like universal healthcare, then the easiest way to pay for it is to take the money from the MIC and end the wars. But, alas, democrats really are a stupid lot.

A candidate in a crowded GOP primary could get some traction by pointing out that we could end the wars and rebate the American tax payers probably a third of his annual tax payments. They at least get that. A lot of them want the wars, though, because it's not like they are fighting it and they live vicariously through it like this is some kind of Hollywood war movie.

Danish mandatory service is for domestic defense only. IOW, if the US decides to attack Iran and Denmark probably join that war, unless Danish sovereign territory was in danger of being invaded by Iran, I wouldn't be called. Only soldiers who have signed on for... I forgot how many years of volunteer service get deployed to non-invasion-related conflicts. I do think I might get called into service if a military ally was (militarily) invaded by another country. So... if Mexico invades again, maybe. I doubt they'd have me for fighting service now, though. Chronic eye pain and occasional blurry vision isn't useful on the frontline, I suspect.

Anyway, in a way it still does affect my decision to vote. It makes soldiers a down to earth, relatable group rather than some foreign out-tribe that will do the fighting for you and bring you the bacon home. And, obviously, my country could still end up pissing off someone in the vicinity, and then I'd have to figth. I preferred my government kept it cool.

[Speaker to Animals]

The indifference to foreign policy does seem to be standard among many of those American progressive sites like Slate and Salon. Usually stories there are progressive commentaries on domestic issues.

It's standard for the vast majority of the American electorate from both parties who don't actually have to risk their lives or lifelong disabilities as a consequence of these wars.

Does your mandatory service play a factor in your decision to vote? Say, if you have some Danish politician that wants to go to war pretty much everywhere, in perpetuity, but he promises you all the other stuff you care about, would you still be like, fuck no, who wants to go die for this?

Where I had hoped Tulsi could get some leverage was in pointing out that, if the democratic electorate really wants programs like universal healthcare, then the easiest way to pay for it is to take the money from the MIC and end the wars. But, alas, democrats really are a stupid lot.

A candidate in a crowded GOP primary could get some traction by pointing out that we could end the wars and rebate the American tax payers probably a third of his annual tax payments. They at least get that. A lot of them want the wars, though, because it's not like they are fighting it and they live vicariously through it like this is some kind of Hollywood war movie.

Danish mandatory service is for domestic defense only. IOW, if the US decides to attack Iran and Denmark probably join that war, unless Danish sovereign territory was in danger of being invaded by Iran, I wouldn't be called. Only soldiers who have signed on for... I forgot how many years of volunteer service get deployed to non-invasion-related conflicts. I do think I might get called into service if a military ally was (militarily) invaded by another country. So... if Mexico invades again, maybe. I doubt they'd have me for fighting service now, though. Chronic eye pain and occasional blurry vision isn't useful on the frontline, I suspect.

Anyway, in a way it still does affect my decision to vote. It makes soldiers a down to earth, relatable group rather than some foreign out-tribe that will do the fighting for you and bring you the bacon home. And, obviously, my country could still end up pissing off someone in the vicinity, and then I'd have to figth. I preferred my government kept it cool.

I wish we had something like that here, or at least limit voting in national elections to veterans if not mandatory service of some kind.

It really blows my mind that the average democrat has not yet figured out the reason we can't have what all these other countries have (like a decent health care system) is because we are throwing all that money at the MIC. If they really want this shit, they need adopt Tulsi's foreign policy and starve the MIC.

[StCapps]

Democrats think they can have their cake and eat it too, and no amount of bean counting is going to change their minds. Trying to convince them to be anti-war on fiscal conservative grounds is a fools errand, that shit don't sell.

[Speaker to Animals]

Defense budget is 693 billion this year, fam.

VA budget is 220 billion.

Almost 1 trillion dollars.