Why have conservatives lost hope in the future?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

All of the older conservative people I know if they watched sci fi it would be Falling Skies and Colony. What about a show about a US Space Navy that kicks alien ass? Why did people become cynical? Does it have to do with the feeling of being besieged? So alien invasions rather than space exploration or humanity defending the galaxy be more appealing?

CaptJohnSheridan:
All of the older conservative people I know if they watched sci fi it would be Falling Skies and Colony. What about a show about a US Space Navy that kicks alien ass? Why did people become cynical? Does it have to do with the feeling of being besieged? So alien invasions rather than space exploration or humanity defending the galaxy be more appealing?

A conservative is usually against change. Its their defining feature. They see progress as potentially dangerous. Think Frankenstein and his monster. Progress is the monster that unwitting Progressives stumble into.

Thier ideas lead to stability. Unfortunately, to become better, you have the chance to get worse. Take the Glorious Revolution for example. The kings of England lost some of their power but it ended up creating a stronger nation. Not so for places like the HRE, Poland and the Dutch. Absolutists like in Russia, Prussia and France breezed through this time as the king gave stability. But they needed a revolution later due to progress outstripping them. And for France and Russia, those revolutions were catastrophic.

The Russian and French revolutions both created stronger nations, though.

CaptJohnSheridan:
All of the older conservative people I know if they watched sci fi it would be Falling Skies and Colony. What about a show about a US Space Navy that kicks alien ass? Why did people become cynical? Does it have to do with the feeling of being besieged? So alien invasions rather than space exploration or humanity defending the galaxy be more appealing?

Oh, there's conservative/libertarian science fiction out there. The one that comes immediately to mind is Starship Troopers, which admittedly is a little too fascist. (The novel, I mean. The film is very satirical.)

But a lot of alien invasion movies actually end up with some conservative undertones because the filmmakers make deals with the Pentagon where they get free use of military hardware in exchange for making the military look cool and patriotic (see: Independence Day, Transformers, Man of Steel.) That's conservative boner-material right there.

If we're talking franchises that are basically about soldiers kicking alien ass, I'd love to see a film adaptation of XCOM someday.

trunkage:

Thier ideas lead to stability. Unfortunately, to become better, you have the chance to get worse. Take the Glorious Revolution for example. The kings of England lost some of their power but it ended up creating a stronger nation. Not so for places like the HRE, Poland and the Dutch. Absolutists like in Russia, Prussia and France breezed through this time as the king gave stability. But they needed a revolution later due to progress outstripping them. And for France and Russia, those revolutions were catastrophic.

I assume you mean the October Revolution? There were multiples. But let's actually take it in context. October Revolution transformed an illiterate, agrarian society ... and in 28 years defeated the Wehrmacht, created the strongest military on Earth, rebuilt half of Europe, won the Space Race, created a greater ratio of technicians, educators, engineers and scientists to unskilled labour that has never been replicated before or since...

Quite overtly, it took the entire world and its economic warfare to cripple its ridiculous rise to power. In which a collection of Slavs who were the punching bag of the entire world for centuries stood as an irreconcilable force against the status quo of Western aristocracy and global capitalism.

The Avtomat Kalashnikova-1947 pattern rifle is not merely a masterpiece of design, but a very symbol of anti-Western action and independence that is put on flags to this day.

Fuck me... if that is what classes as 'disastrous' I feel like you have unrealistic expectations of any extant economic system in real terms. You know what Australia did with 28 years of Federation and capitalist mechanics? 32% unemployment. Mass homelessness and starvation. You want to know why Australia was the only major participant of the Great War with an all volunteer expeditionary force that sent 1 in 10 of Australians to Europe and the ME? It's because military service was the only option out of the gutter.

It was sold as steady labour, a decent pay cheque, and an adventure...

We got really good at fighting wars, precisely because the military for 6 decades of Federation was singularly one of the few occupations one could expect steady employment.

Just imagine what we might have been able to do if we had a little bit of centralized industrialization at home rather than fighting in yet another European clusterfuck?

Would you like to know precisely when Australia actually became a decently livable place? About the sametime the government had planned extensive mass industrialization and social projects not in the name of private investors, but to deliver government backed utilities and resources as cheaply as possible to people.

Free university... universal healthcare ... public housing ... cheaper electricity ...

We have only have two of those remaining now. And one of them is dangerously close to extinction, and the other dangerously close to privatization. But hey... when we get rid of both, just like I was at 17 lining up for a uniform because I came out to my parents and found myself on the street... the bad old days where instead 55,000 soldiers we can have hundreds of thousands of gutter rats like me who had nowhere else to go and no other options remaining.

And you know what? That's not to dismiss military service. It's hard, it's uncomfortable, it's awful, and arguably a necessary ill we double or even triple our standing army and radically increase our force projection and force multiplication means in a world of a retreating U.S. ... but by the same token, there is a difference between the mechanics of enlightened defensive actions and mutual aid to our allies in the Indo-Pacific, and the bad old days of militarism as an answer to social ills.

Capitalism with no social net is absolutism. It is economic determinism crystallized in concentration and its potency. 'Military service, crime, or homelessness...?' is not liberty.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

trunkage:

Thier ideas lead to stability. Unfortunately, to become better, you have the chance to get worse. Take the Glorious Revolution for example. The kings of England lost some of their power but it ended up creating a stronger nation. Not so for places like the HRE, Poland and the Dutch. Absolutists like in Russia, Prussia and France breezed through this time as the king gave stability. But they needed a revolution later due to progress outstripping them. And for France and Russia, those revolutions were catastrophic.

I assume you mean the October Revolution? There were multiples. But let's actually take it in context. October Revolution transformed an illiterate, agrarian society ... and in 28 years defeated the Wehrmacht, created the strongest military on Earth, rebuilt half of Europe, won the Space Race, created a greater ratio of technicians, educators, engineers and scientists to unskilled labour that has never been replicated before or since...

Quite overtly, it took the entire world and its economic warfare to cripple its ridiculous rise to power. In which a collection of Slavs who were the punching bag of the entire world for centuries stood as an irreconcilable force against the status quo of Western aristocracy and global capitalism.

The Avtomat Kalashnikova-1947 pattern rifle is not merely a masterpiece of design, but a very symbol of anti-Western action and independence that is put on flags to this day.

Fuck me... if that is what classes as 'disastrous' I feel like you have unrealistic expectations of any extant economic system in real terms. You know what Australia did with 28 years of Federation and capitalist mechanics? 32% unemployment. Mass homelessness and starvation. You want to know why Australia was the only major participant of the Great War with an all volunteer expeditionary force that sent 1 in 10 of Australians to Europe and the ME? It's because military service was the only option out of the gutter.

It was sold as steady labour, a decent pay cheque, and an adventure...

We got really good at fighting wars, precisely because the military for 6 decades of Federation was singularly one of the few occupations one could expect steady employment.

Just imagine what we might have been able to do if we had a little bit of centralized industrialization at home rather than fighting in yet another European clusterfuck?

Would you like to know precisely when Australia actually became a decently livable place? About the sametime the government had planned extensive mass industrialization and social projects not in the name of private investors, but to deliver government backed utilities and resources as cheaply as possible to people.

Free university... universal healthcare ... public housing ... cheaper electricity ...

We have only have two of those remaining now. And one of them is dangerously close to extinction, and the other dangerously close to privatization. But hey... when we get rid of both, just like I was at 17 lining up for a uniform because I came out to my parents and found myself on the street... the bad old days where instead 55,000 soldiers we can have hundreds of thousands of gutter rats like me who had nowhere else to go and no other options remaining.

And you know what? That's not to dismiss military service. It's hard, it's uncomfortable, it's awful, and arguably a necessary ill we double or even triple our standing army and radically increase our force projection and force multiplication means in a world of a retreating U.S. ... but by the same token, there is a difference between the mechanics of enlightened defensive actions and mutual aid to our allies in the Indo-Pacific, and the bad old days of militarism as an answer to social ills.

Capitalism with no social net is absolutism. It is economic determinism crystallized in concentration and its potency. 'Military service, crime, or homelessness...?' is not liberty.

That's a rather rosy picture of the Soviet Union. I mean not to discount the difficulty of your service but I assume you would prefer that to the Holodmor, right? And that is just one atrocity attributable to the Soviets. I mean, under Stalin the low end for killings by the state is around 8 million people and the high is killing everybody in California and Texas, or for you commonwealth folks, killing everybody in Australia and Canada.

As to the topic, that is an interesting theory. Conservatives often feel besieged by modern culture, so that makes a certain amount of sense. You should also look at the Hugo awards and the sad puppies campaign to see a potentially more deliberate reason.

mrglass08:
That?s a rather rosy picture of the Soviet Union. I mean not to discount the difficulty of your service but I assume you would prefer that to the Holodmor, right? And that is just one atrocity attributable to the Soviets. I mean, under Stalin the low end for killings by the state is around 8 million people and the high is killing everybody in California and Texas, or for you commonwealth folks, killing everybody in Australia and Canada.

You may have to compare that with the conditions under the Tzarist regime, or what would have happened if the Nazis won, though.

mrglass08:

That?s a rather rosy picture of the Soviet Union. I mean not to discount the difficulty of your service but I assume you would prefer that to the Holodmor, right? And that is just one atrocity attributable to the Soviets. I mean, under Stalin the low end for killings by the state is around 8 million people and the high is killing everybody in California and Texas, or for you commonwealth folks, killing everybody in Australia and Canada.

As opposed to Churchill purposefully starving Indians and Bangladeshis causing countless fatalities and generational sicknesses, birth defects and other horrors? Or how about Dutch petroleum companies poisoning and displacing millions, and propping up a government to violently oppress people that take exception to the routine oil spills, in the Niger delta right now? How about crippling sanctions and violent regime change in places like Libya?

Sorry, Stalin was a nutcase ... but then again, his brutality wasn't as if aberrant from Western powers whether now or then. For example, U.S. actions in the Philippines decades prior ... or U.S. actions in Vietnam decades afterwards.

The difference is, at least the Soviets undertook de-Stalinization mere years after he died. Whereas someone like Churchill gets star treatment on Nu Who. To put it pointedly, Churchill was more hated after the shambles of the Dardanelles than the historical revisionism Western showrunners seem to bend over backwards trying to paint him as if some great guy, now.

The sad fact of the matter is, responding to the disaster, Australia sent at great personal risk ships laden with wheat to land at Calcutta to alleviate the disaster Churchill was about to create. Those ships haphazardly filled with grain due to Australian officials intercepting urgent communiques by (perhaps, suspected) reports leaked by British officials in India pleading with Churchill not to undertake this action.

They knew exactly what was going to happen, and any attempt to stabilize the market prie for grain in the Indian subcontinent was better than doing nothing at all.

Churchill, instead, incensed by his own officials and Australian vessels responding to the crisis to come, demanded those ships not unload their cargo at the Calcutta dockyards. Demanding that cargo be sent to English ports ... thus the ports were closed to Australian relief vessels that they couldn't moor there ... while reducing Australia's already struggling logistical situation while preparing itself and her regional allies for a larger war with Japan.

This was at a time when Australian logistics meant active resistance could only be offensive in nature, and piecemeal in terms of high-intensity sustained warfare. The Kokoda Trail campaign beinga notable example, given that there were 30,000 deployed Allied troops in Papua New Guinea vs. 13,500 IJA soldiers, but the majority of fighting were characterized by attacks and counter-attacks and a war of movement (not defensive actions, despite Japanese advances), with only 3,500 Allied soldiers at the front for the grand majority of the campaign.

3,500 soldiers is all that could be hypothetically supplied (and those were incredibly rosy estimates to begin with)...

And you want to know why he was trying to shortchange the Empire and her allies of grain and actively hinder logistics?

Not to feed their own people, that grain wasn't to feed Britons. It was going to sit in European warehouses after processing. It was to prepare for a war chest to assist a hypothetical invasion of Greece and Bulgaria... all in order to pursue that ideological conflict.

Yet unlike the Soviets, I don't see any bulldozers plowing into his various public monuments and renaming everything associated to him, and publicly admonishing him as a mistake of grandest proportions. The Soviets even moved Stalin's corpse out of the Lenin Mausoleum. A very public symbol, and the Soviets didn't equivocate. They didn't meander ... they didn't obfuscate ... a public rebuttal both on a physical and symbolic level (assuming there is a difference).

Thaluikhain:

mrglass08:
That?s a rather rosy picture of the Soviet Union. I mean not to discount the difficulty of your service but I assume you would prefer that to the Holodmor, right? And that is just one atrocity attributable to the Soviets. I mean, under Stalin the low end for killings by the state is around 8 million people and the high is killing everybody in California and Texas, or for you commonwealth folks, killing everybody in Australia and Canada.

You may have to compare that with the conditions under the Tzarist regime, or what would have happened if the Nazis won, though.

No, I really don't. Addendum put forward a specific historical view of the benefits of the Soviet Union, I merely put in that it was built on a massive amount of corpses. That ratio of engineers gets a whole lot easier to achieve when you kill off a huge number of the peasants. And it ignores the fact that US lend lease aid pulled the Soviet bacon out of the fire. Without massive amounts of dirty capitalist support the Soviet Union would have fallen.

Could the Tzarist regime have been better, of course, but the Soviet Union was not a good thing for most of the people it held dominion over. To make it sound like a great thing minimizes the tragedy it actually was. To make it sound like it was an actual collective representation of the people is to misunderstand that one group of elites got traded for a different group. Did the Soviet Union do impressive things, yes, there is no denying that. Just remember all of the human cost to get there and realize that it was no utopia of common cause by common people. It was more, increase production to what we tell you or you might get the choice between a gulag or a bullet to the back of the head.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

mrglass08:

That?s a rather rosy picture of the Soviet Union. I mean not to discount the difficulty of your service but I assume you would prefer that to the Holodmor, right? And that is just one atrocity attributable to the Soviets. I mean, under Stalin the low end for killings by the state is around 8 million people and the high is killing everybody in California and Texas, or for you commonwealth folks, killing everybody in Australia and Canada.

As opposed to Churchill purposefully starving Indians and Bangladeshis causing countless fatalities and generational sicknesses, birth defects and other horrors? Or how about Dutch petroleum companies poisoning and displacing millions, and propping up a government to violently oppress people that take exception to the routine oil spills, in the Niger delta right now? How about crippling sanctions and violent regime change in places like Libya?

Sorry, Stalin was a nutcase ... but then again, his brutality wasn't as if aberrant from Western powers whether now or then. For example, U.S. actions in the Philippines decades prior ... or U.S. actions in Vietnam decades afterwards.

The difference is, at least the Soviets undertook de-Stalinization mere years after he died. Whereas someone like Churchill gets star treatment on Nu Who. To put it pointedly, Churchill was more hated after the shambles of the Dardanelles than the historical revisionism Western showrunners seem to bend over backwards trying to paint him as if some great guy, now.

How about how fucked up it is people give props to Kennedy as if some symbol of liberalism in the U.S.?

Yet unlike the Soviets, I don't see any bulldozers plowing into his various public monuments and renaming everything associated to him, and publicly admonishing him as a mistake of grandest proportions. The Soviets even moved Stalin's corpse out of the Lenin Mausoleum. A very public symbol, and the Soviets didn't equivocate. They didn't meander ... they didn't obfuscate ... a public rebuttal both on a physical and symbolic level (assuming there is a difference).

I think you might be missing a part of why destalinization happened. Khrushchev hated Stalin and so he wanted to erase as much of his legacy as he could. It was almost the same idea as a damnatio memoriae. However the killings might have slowed but they never really stopped.

Kennedy gets a bit of a pass since he was assassinated in office, so there is a lot of nostalgia and loss of innocence wrapped up in that one. He also had a series of presidents after him who were not great so he looks better by comparison.

Churchill is an interesting one, there was a good deal of criticism at the time but when people look back now they see two things, being right about World War II and doing what it took to win and his time being the last great gasp of the old empire. He still has his critics but people look past the faults because of the nostalgia.

Conservatism is about preserving the order. Heroically fighting against upsetters of the order is the appeal of conservative fiction; and that's done easier by fighting alien invaders than by fighting to expand human domain on the Galaxy.

mrglass08:

I think you might be missing a part of why destalinization happened. Khrushchev hated Stalin and so he wanted to erase as much of his legacy as he could. It was almost the same idea as a damnatio memoriae. However the killings might have slowed but they never really stopped.

What? And you think the situation got better for the world wherever the British, French, Belgians, U.S., you name it were in? There was a lot to hate about Stalin. Publicly and privately.

Kennedy gets a bit of a pass since he was assassinated in office, so there is a lot of nostalgia and loss of innocence wrapped up in that one. He also had a series of presidents after him who were not great so he looks better by comparison.

Churchill ... King Albert I ... de Gaulle ...? To name a handful. All contemporaries of Stalin.

Churchill is an interesting one, there was a good deal of criticism at the time but when people look back now they see two things, being right about World War II and doing what it took to win and his time being the last great gasp of the old empire. He still has his critics but people look past the faults because of the nostalgia.

Doing what it took to win? He was chronically inept. He had to resign in disgrace during the Great War for a reason. Hell, his handling of North Africa and Singapore alone is a textbook example of why you don't let drunk politicians play general. He was a petty man and a hateful arsehole.

A charlatan with a silver tongue who killed more British subjects by policy decisions than the indirect and direct actions of Axis forces, and he actively hindered the Allied war effort. He is the living embodiment of; "With friends like these..." About his only accomplishment is throwing far more innocent people than necessary into the meat grinder that was the Tripartite warmachine until it broke down because, instead, the colonials and the Soviets put the boot in.

So let me get this straight ...

Churchill is "doing what it takes to win..."

But Stalin facing a global attempt to destroy the Soviet Union isn't?

Both of them were mass murdering nutcases. The difference is the Soviets agreed, and even publicly tossed his corpse out of its resting place, tore down his statues, and renamed cities.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

mrglass08:

I think you might be missing a part of why destalinization happened. Khrushchev hated Stalin and so he wanted to erase as much of his legacy as he could. It was almost the same idea as a damnatio memoriae. However the killings might have slowed but they never really stopped.

What? And you think the situation got better for the world wherever the British, French, Belgians, U.S., you name it were in? There was a lot to hate about Stalin. Publicly and privately.

Obviously not enough to hate that satirical films about him are still banned from screening there, as recently as this year.

Blood Brain Barrier:

Obviously not enough to hate that satirical films about him are still banned from screening as recently as this year.

Ehhh, it's a bit hard to make satirical films about the man. A satirical film about King Leopold's genocide of the Congolese isn't going to be that swimmingly accepted, either. Plus even if he were hated, he still had his personality cults everywhere... you can kill things with humour, but you can also kill things by burying them and tearing down their symbols.

Plus, you know. Some people are beyond satire. Like how Stalin purportedly said after one of his sons tried to commit suicide via pistol; "See, the boy can't even shoot straight..." or something to that effect.

That and I doubt Putin is going to change that narrative any time soon, either.

Say what you like about Stalin ... he was utterly uninspired with the idea of creating a dynasty. As another son of his found out to his horror after being captured by Germans and they tried to organize an exchange of prisoners.

"I will not trade a Marshal for a Lieutenant!"

Once again, some people are beyond satire.

CaitSeith:
Conservatism is about preserving the order. Heroically fighting against upsetters of the order is the appeal of conservative fiction; and that's done easier by fighting alien invaders than by fighting to expand human domain on the Galaxy.

More or less this.

Conservatism is typically defined as "the status quo is good, it shouldn't change", so stories with that kind of bent are typically about defending oneself from outsiders coming to destroy or upset the way things are.

...That or it could be something about how important an off-the-books assassination of a foreign leader is, and cheerleading american/insert-nation-here exceptionalism but those tend to be looked at a little more critically.

...Or they could just strawman the philosophies they don't like as some kind of evil "communist evil empire" that they overcome with the power of the free market and flag salutes, but strawmanning opposing philosophies isn't strictly a conservative thing, so I guess I can cross this out?

Considering the state of chaos in the world today (over-reported probably, the world is generally speaking more stable and safe than it's been in ages), and how they're losing the culture war, conservative people appear to very much feel besieged, so the kinds of stories they make might very well reflect that.

Well I know I would have rather been in Japan than Poland, so there's that.

Look, what you posted originally was basically the Soviet Union was an unalloyed good, bringing goodness and light wherever it went. A veritable universal brotherhood with workers of the world uniting thinking of the common good. That is not true and if I had said something similar in praise of Great Britain or the United States I would quite rightly have been put in my place for my rosy picture of history. Those accomplishments you mentioned as being so great were built on a mountain of corpses. Mao's accomplishments were built on an even bigger mountain of corpses. It is alright if you want to talk about the successes of the Soviets and other Communists, but just like I have to acknowledge the cost of what my country did, these countries had their costs. Nobodies hands are clean and many times nobodies lives were really improved.

mrglass08:
Well I know I would have rather been in Japan than Poland, so there?s that.

Look, what you posted originally was basically the Soviet Union was an unalloyed good, bringing goodness and light wherever it went. A veritable universal brotherhood with workers of the world uniting thinking of the common good. That is not true and if I had said something similar in praise of Great Britain or the United States I would quite rightly have been put in my place for my rosy picture of history. Those accomplishments you mentioned as being so great were built on a mountain of corpses. Mao?s accomplishments were built on an even bigger mountain of corpses. It is alright if you want to talk about the successes of the Soviets and other Communists, but just like I have to acknowledge the cost of what my country did, these countries had their costs. Nobodies hands are clean and many times nobodies lives were really improved.

I never said any of that. Like point to me where I wrote that? What I wrote was theSoviet Union should be judged by historical accuracy and its time and place, and the level of adversity it faced. More accurately to note, I'd rather live in East Germany than Churchill's India. I'd rather live in Brezhnev's Grozny than de Gaulle's Algeria or Vietnam. I would rather live in Khrushchev's St. Petersburg than Chiang Kai-Shek's Shanghai. I would rather live in Gorbachev's Warsaw than in Eden's Kuala Lumpur.

And while we're on the subject, I'd rather live in Stalin's Moscow than 19th century colonial Australia ... I'd also pick Khrushchev's Moscow over Great Depression-era Sydney.

Pretending like life didn't improve after the revolutions in France and Russia is to ignore that the grand majority of capitalist, fascist and imperialist colonies that were rife at its inception were and are squalorous.

People living in capitalist Manchester, circa mid-late 19th century, didn't have a picnic either.

I also think the French live better for the fact they did off a whole lot of aristocrats. I'm pretty ure you won't see many French complaining about the revolution. At least in comparison to the majority that thought it was 'about time'.

Well when you support slavery and it fails, and you oppose women voting and it fails, and you support segregation and it fails, and you opposes gay marriage and it becomes legal anyways, and you oppose a black President but he is the best President ever...

Saelune:
black President but he is the best President ever...

I mean, if we're talking in terms of a body count from targeted killings with unmanned drones, then yes.

CM156:

Saelune:
black President but he is the best President ever...

I mean, if we're talking in terms of a body count from targeted killings with unmanned drones, then yes.

Or using Mexican as your border defence. You cant tell me that didn't lead to lots of bodies. Obama was smart. The Southern border of Mexico is way smaller than the North. AND you can blame human rights issues onto the MExicans

CM156:

Saelune:
black President but he is the best President ever...

I mean, if we're talking in terms of a body count from targeted killings with unmanned drones, then yes.

Conservatives just mad he killed people with drones instead of capturing them and letting them starve in detention centers

or maybe taking their kids away from them and handing them directly to sex traffickers before losing them

CM156:

Saelune:
black President but he is the best President ever...

I mean, if we're talking in terms of a body count from targeted killings with unmanned drones, then yes.

Oh you mean cause he wants American Soldiers to have a higher rate of survival?

Cause Bush and Trump are targeting the same exact people, they just sent Americans to their death to do it.

Republicans have no ground to condemn Obama on this. It is hypocritical to condemn him for conflicts that Republicans started and propigate.

And Republicans are bigots against Muslims, so thats another strike against you. Do not pretend like right-wingers give ANY fucks about Muslim lives.

undeadsuitor:
Conservatives just mad he killed people with drones instead of capturing them and letting them starve in detention centers

Don't forget the waterbording and other tortures we used on people without any real reason. And the fact that we can't set up a trial to prove that these guys are terrorists without running into a million problems with the law.

or maybe taking their kids away from them and handing them directly to sex traffickers before losing them

Also true.

Saelune:
Republicans have no ground to condemn Obama on this. It is hypocritical to condemn him for conflicts that Republicans started and propigate.

So the standard for the, and I'm quoting what you directly said, "best president ever" is that he only indiscriminately killed military-age Muslim men (and those around them) because Bush got him into a war and besides, Trump is doing this too. Got it.

And Republicans are bigots against Muslims, so thats another strike against you. Do not pretend like right-wingers give ANY fucks about Muslim lives.

I do, actually. I don't favor our Middle East policy because we've thrown away blood and treasure and have little to show for it. It's the problem with fighting non-state actors. Quite frankly, I don't know if anything we do can prevent the Taliban from gaining power when we leave Afghanistan.

I dunno, US conservatives seem pretty hopeful to me. Ol' Donnie T's win did a lot for them. There are entire conspiracies on that side now about how they have secretly won everything and all their enemies are in jail but also not somehow.

BreakfastMan:
I dunno, US conservatives seem pretty hopeful to me. Ol' Donnie T's win did a lot for them. There are entire conspiracies on that side now about how they have secretly won everything and all their enemies are in jail but also not somehow.

And also conspiracy theories from people like Louise Mensch that any day now the Marshal of the United States Supreme Court is going to arrest Trump and invalidate the 2016 elections. Yep. Any minute now.

CM156:

BreakfastMan:
I dunno, US conservatives seem pretty hopeful to me. Ol' Donnie T's win did a lot for them. There are entire conspiracies on that side now about how they have secretly won everything and all their enemies are in jail but also not somehow.

And also conspiracy theories from people like Louise Mensch that any day now the Marshal of the United States Supreme Court is going to arrest Trump and invalidate the 2016 elections. Yep. Any minute now.

It's fun watching them move the date constantly. A year and a half now, they've pushed it back. I honestly wonder if they're going to keep it up for the next 6 and a half years.

Plus I'm pretty optimistic for the future. Tories are set to take over in Ontario in next month's election, Coalition's going to win here in this year's election, Sheer's pretty much won the 2019 federal election, Alberta's about to enter another century of conservative rule due to the NDP not realising that a protest vote means that going full socialist in a conservative province means party death, and the other two Prairie provinces are solid Tory rule. Honestly the only place in Canada of note that's not either currently or about to be under direct right wing rule is B.C., and no one cares what they have to think since their whole economy is built on a foundation of sand on a major fault line and we all know how that's going to end.

Yup, things are looking up for us up here. As with all things, we're always just a few years behind the rest of you when it comes to the inevitable societal changes that go through the west.

CM156:

BreakfastMan:
I dunno, US conservatives seem pretty hopeful to me. Ol' Donnie T's win did a lot for them. There are entire conspiracies on that side now about how they have secretly won everything and all their enemies are in jail but also not somehow.

And also conspiracy theories from people like Louise Mensch that any day now the Marshal of the United States Supreme Court is going to arrest Trump and invalidate the 2016 elections. Yep. Any minute now.

The best we can hope for is that sinkhole on the WH front lawn keeps getting bigger.

undeadsuitor:

CM156:

BreakfastMan:
I dunno, US conservatives seem pretty hopeful to me. Ol' Donnie T's win did a lot for them. There are entire conspiracies on that side now about how they have secretly won everything and all their enemies are in jail but also not somehow.

And also conspiracy theories from people like Louise Mensch that any day now the Marshal of the United States Supreme Court is going to arrest Trump and invalidate the 2016 elections. Yep. Any minute now.

The best we can hope for is that sinkhole on the WH front lawn keeps getting bigger.

Have you ever thought that maybe the sinkhole is the drain?

Zontar:

undeadsuitor:

CM156:

And also conspiracy theories from people like Louise Mensch that any day now the Marshal of the United States Supreme Court is going to arrest Trump and invalidate the 2016 elections. Yep. Any minute now.

The best we can hope for is that sinkhole on the WH front lawn keeps getting bigger.

Have you ever thought that maybe the sinkhole is the drain?

Ironic considering the swamp drain is starting directly under the president eh?

CM156:

BreakfastMan:
I dunno, US conservatives seem pretty hopeful to me. Ol' Donnie T's win did a lot for them. There are entire conspiracies on that side now about how they have secretly won everything and all their enemies are in jail but also not somehow.

And also conspiracy theories from people like Louise Mensch that any day now the Marshal of the United States Supreme Court is going to arrest Trump and invalidate the 2016 elections. Yep. Any minute now.

Oh god. Don't even get me started on the #RESISTANCE/RussiaGate people. I can fucking go on and on about those chuckleheads.

CM156:

Saelune:
Republicans have no ground to condemn Obama on this. It is hypocritical to condemn him for conflicts that Republicans started and propigate.

So the standard for the, and I'm quoting what you directly said, "best president ever" is that he only indiscriminately killed military-age Muslim men (and those around them) because Bush got him into a war and besides, Trump is doing this too. Got it.

No President is innocent. He is definitely better than every modern 'republican' President. Obama's main contender would be Lincoln, who by modern standards would be a Democrat, but as great as he was, he was not opposing slavery purely cause it was evil. I respect him, I do, but in an alternate timeline, Lincoln kept slavery just cause he felt it would keep the US together.

And Obama was blatantly better than McCain, Romney, Hilary, Trump and Bernie.

Saelune:
Oh you mean cause he wants American Soldiers to have a higher rate of survival?

Remind me of this one when you start condemning Trump for deaths under drone strikes...

But seriously, it's neither of their faults. Drones are an increasingly convenient form of warfare. Deaths from drones will inevitably continue to rise regardless of the guy at the top for the foreseeable future.

And Republicans are bigots against Muslims, so thats another strike against you. Do not pretend like right-wingers give ANY fucks about Muslim lives.

Aaaand you unironically post about bigotry with a quote that casts everybody of one political stance into the same hat and makes sweeping generalisations.

Pot, meet kettle.

On topic, if you haven't lost hope in the future, you aren't paying enough attention to the world. Beyond the political shenanigans and so forth.

CM156:
I mean, if we're talking in terms of a body count from targeted killings with unmanned drones, then yes.

The drones are a genuine problem for me. On the one hand, a drone airstrike is theoretically more precise and less risky than putting boots on the ground, and drone surveillance facilitates the intelligence-gathering that allows an airstrike to avoid bombing the wrong target. On the other hand, the US military seems to have taken the fact that drones are a low-risk method of killing from afar and started resorting to them much more often, resulting in greater overall bloodshed.

It's kind of like a Death Note situation.

CM156:
And also conspiracy theories from people like Louise Mensch that any day now the Marshal of the United States Supreme Court is going to arrest Trump and invalidate the 2016 elections. Yep. Any minute now.

Mensch has had a few too many, if you ask me.

Zontar:
Have you ever thought that maybe the sinkhole is the drain?

That doesn't make any sense. If the White House lawn was the drain, that would make Trump the swamp.

Saelune:
And Obama was blatantly better than McCain, Romney, Hilary, Trump and Bernie.

Ehh, maybe not Bernie. I mean, I can't say for sure because he obviously didn't win. And also because a lot of Obama's accomplishments may end up being fleeting; the EPA and CFPB are being gutted, the Iran deal and the Paris agreement are gone, Trump has taken credit for beating ISIS and Obamacare is likely to be replaced by a Medicare-for-all system sometime in the next ten years.

As a matter of morbid curiosity, I would have genuinely liked to see what might have happened to Bernie Sanders' principles if they had come into contact with the immense font of power that is the US presidency. Would he have stuck to his principles firmly enough to make a change? Or would the US still be assassinating people via drone in Year Two of the Sanders administration?

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Oh you mean cause he wants American Soldiers to have a higher rate of survival?

Remind me of this one when you start condemning Trump for deaths under drone strikes...

But seriously, it's neither of their faults. Drones are an increasingly convenient form of warfare. Deaths from drones will inevitably continue to rise regardless of the guy at the top for the foreseeable future.

And Republicans are bigots against Muslims, so thats another strike against you. Do not pretend like right-wingers give ANY fucks about Muslim lives.

Aaaand you unironically post about bigotry with a quote that casts everybody of one political stance into the same hat and makes sweeping generalisations.

Pot, meet kettle.

On topic, if you haven't lost hope in the future, you aren't paying enough attention to the world. Beyond the political shenanigans and so forth.

Actually, way back when, I defended Trump's early military actions cause I know it comes with being President...then I found out he actually fucked it up and made things worse. I am not a Republican, I do not need hypocrisy to defend myself.

Political stances are choices people make. You are not born your political stance. Anyone can choose to be a Nazi. Anyone can choose to not be a Nazi. You want to pretend hating black people is the same as hating Nazis, and you are wrong.

bastardofmelbourne:

Saelune:
And Obama was blatantly better than McCain, Romney, Hilary, Trump and Bernie.

Ehh, maybe not Bernie. I mean, I can't say for sure because he obviously didn't win. And also because a lot of Obama's accomplishments may end up being fleeting; the EPA and CFPB are being gutted, the Iran deal and the Paris agreement are gone, Trump has taken credit for beating ISIS and Obamacare is likely to be replaced by a Medicare-for-all system sometime in the next ten years.

As a matter of morbid curiosity, I would have genuinely liked to see what might have happened to Bernie Sanders' principles if they had come into contact with the immense font of power that is the US presidency. Would he have stuck to his principles firmly enough to make a change? Or would the US still be assassinating people via drone in Year Two of the Sanders administration?

Bernie sucks. Less than any Republican ofcourse, but he still is overhyped and supports guns, then pretended he never supported guns just to suck up to people who realize how awful guns are after, I think the Florida gay club shooting. And now after hindering Hillary last election, he has the nerve to run again!?

Obama's accomplishments are only fading because Republicans and Trump are literally working to undo everything Obama has done.
Ironically, I want the next President to run under 'Make America Great Again' and work to undo every single thing the last President did.

Fuck Bernie, I am tired of old white men ruining everything.

Bernie would still be droning people. Though he would probably not fuck up as Trump has. It will likely take multiple consecutive presidencies advocating peace and fairness to stop that, but as long as right-wingers keep disjointing that, it won't end until we are ended.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here