3 ms·

We are a democratic country, don't support a war, vote for someone in office who does not support it. China on the other hand if you don't support putting musl

We are a democratic country, don't support a war, vote for someone in office who does not support it. China on the other hand if you don't support putting muslims in concentration camps, you end up there yourself

robert_foss 6y ago
I don't think there was a vote for invading Iraq, or any of the other countries targeted by the wrecking ball that is US hegemony. Yes China is quite flawed, but this attempt at maintaining the status quo really only serves to halt progress.
- greatjack613 6y ago
  Please don't be pedantic, We do not have votes on whether the president should sneeze into a tissue or a paper towel, but yes, the president that decided to go to war was voted in by the majority of the population. Please do not try to push the CCP's propaganda by knocking the United States, it only ends one way, and that is all of us being slaves to winnie the pooh
  - minhazm 6y ago
    > the president that decided to go to war was voted in by the majority of the population. Not actually true since Bush lost the popular vote in the 2000 election.
    - minerjoe 6y ago
      And don't forget that majority of eligible voters don't vote.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > the president that decided to go to war was voted in by the majority of the population. “A majority of the electoral college, representing a second-place minority of the eligible individuals casting ballots for Presidential electors”, if you want to be accurate, but certainly not a “majority of the population” or even “a majority of voters in the general election”, and not even “a plurality of voters in the general election”.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      *a majority of the electoral college, representing a second-place minority of eligible individuals casting ballots for Presidential electors, selected one of the two candidates put forwards by the private corporations that decide every four years of a different process to select either of the two candidates, and that are not legally required to hold or respect the results of primaries
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause You don't see any possibility that informed criticism of USA policy of undeclared and unprovoked war might lead to better policy? American pacifists shouldn't argue for peace? Shouldn't vote for peace? If that is your position, don't be surprised when we put an end to the Union... all of humanity will benefit, but 3.5% of humanity will be sad for a moment.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    I'm hardly of the opinion that the US is comparable to China, but it seems to me that a democracy that commits a sin is somehow worse than an autocracy that does so. After all, if 150 million and one believe that killing a million civilians is acceptable and is able to support carrying out that activity that means that society is corrupt. If 1 man believes that killing a million civilians is acceptable and is able to carry out that activity that means that society is merely incapable of enforcing moral will.
    - gruez 6y ago
      >but it seems to me that a democracy that commits a sin is somehow worse than an autocracy that does so. Isn't that what design-by-committee is? Or upper management hiring consulting firms to "validate" a plan they already had in mind?
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    In fact George Bush was selected by the Supreme Court 5-4 because voting and reporting irregularities in Florida made the contentious result too close to call. It was subsequently found that a full state recount would have given the result to Al Gore. Less debatably, a Gore win would have been the certain result if there had been no racial bias in disallowed votes, and also if the voting machines had simply worked properly. IMO a Gore win would have prevented 9/11, avoided the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, set the scene for a less adversarial relationship with China, and pushed the global economy towards sustainability with time to spare - and possibly also avoided the economic bubble that eventually caused the recession in 2008.
peacefulhat 6y ago
Overwhelming majorities in both parties voted to authorize the war in Iraq. In fact, every democrat presidential nominee other than Obama since 2004 voted for Iraq.
sudosysgen 6y ago
The US is not a true democracy. The voting system is such that there can never be more than two parties that have any chance of winning at all. Meanwhile, both of the two parties are legally private corporations that are allowed to select candidates any way they choose. As a consequence, if those in control of both parties want something (which was the case for the Iraq War), there is absolutely no way for the people to vote against it. This is without even talking about how consent is manufactured.

robert_foss 6y ago

I don't think there was a vote for invading Iraq, or any of the other countries targeted by the wrecking ball that is US hegemony. Yes China is quite flawed, but this attempt at maintaining the status quo really only serves to halt progress.

greatjack613 6y ago
Please don't be pedantic, We do not have votes on whether the president should sneeze into a tissue or a paper towel, but yes, the president that decided to go to war was voted in by the majority of the population. Please do not try to push the CCP's propaganda by knocking the United States, it only ends one way, and that is all of us being slaves to winnie the pooh
- minhazm 6y ago
  > the president that decided to go to war was voted in by the majority of the population. Not actually true since Bush lost the popular vote in the 2000 election.
  - minerjoe 6y ago
    And don't forget that majority of eligible voters don't vote.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > the president that decided to go to war was voted in by the majority of the population. “A majority of the electoral college, representing a second-place minority of the eligible individuals casting ballots for Presidential electors”, if you want to be accurate, but certainly not a “majority of the population” or even “a majority of voters in the general election”, and not even “a plurality of voters in the general election”.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    *a majority of the electoral college, representing a second-place minority of eligible individuals casting ballots for Presidential electors, selected one of the two candidates put forwards by the private corporations that decide every four years of a different process to select either of the two candidates, and that are not legally required to hold or respect the results of primaries
- jessaustin 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause You don't see any possibility that informed criticism of USA policy of undeclared and unprovoked war might lead to better policy? American pacifists shouldn't argue for peace? Shouldn't vote for peace? If that is your position, don't be surprised when we put an end to the Union... all of humanity will benefit, but 3.5% of humanity will be sad for a moment.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  I'm hardly of the opinion that the US is comparable to China, but it seems to me that a democracy that commits a sin is somehow worse than an autocracy that does so. After all, if 150 million and one believe that killing a million civilians is acceptable and is able to support carrying out that activity that means that society is corrupt. If 1 man believes that killing a million civilians is acceptable and is able to carry out that activity that means that society is merely incapable of enforcing moral will.
  - gruez 6y ago
    >but it seems to me that a democracy that commits a sin is somehow worse than an autocracy that does so. Isn't that what design-by-committee is? Or upper management hiring consulting firms to "validate" a plan they already had in mind?
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  In fact George Bush was selected by the Supreme Court 5-4 because voting and reporting irregularities in Florida made the contentious result too close to call. It was subsequently found that a full state recount would have given the result to Al Gore. Less debatably, a Gore win would have been the certain result if there had been no racial bias in disallowed votes, and also if the voting machines had simply worked properly. IMO a Gore win would have prevented 9/11, avoided the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, set the scene for a less adversarial relationship with China, and pushed the global economy towards sustainability with time to spare - and possibly also avoided the economic bubble that eventually caused the recession in 2008.

peacefulhat 6y ago

Overwhelming majorities in both parties voted to authorize the war in Iraq. In fact, every democrat presidential nominee other than Obama since 2004 voted for Iraq.

sudosysgen 6y ago

The US is not a true democracy. The voting system is such that there can never be more than two parties that have any chance of winning at all. Meanwhile, both of the two parties are legally private corporations that are allowed to select candidates any way they choose. As a consequence, if those in control of both parties want something (which was the case for the Iraq War), there is absolutely no way for the people to vote against it. This is without even talking about how consent is manufactured.