4 ms·

I support nationalism, we have many domestic problems we must fix before we start fixing other countries. If we have to go to war than so be it. People will al

by mozman 4y ago

I support nationalism, we have many domestic problems we must fix before we start fixing other countries. If we have to go to war than so be it. People will always argue and there will always be consequences of these arguments.

FpUser 4y ago
>"many domestic problems we must fix before we start fixing other countries." >"If we have to go to war than so be it." The more I look at these two statements the more I think that someone would benefit from having their head examined.
- boppo1 4y ago
  Yeah, bad idea to go to war unless your shit at home is already together. Wars are expensive. I think a lot of the domestic turmoil in the US can be linked to our useless wars in the ME. Could have used all that steel and those men to build stuff here: hospitals, schools, trains and so on. Bush & cheney did enormously more damage to the US than Trump. Not that I liked Trump at all.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    >"Yeah, bad idea to go to war unless your shit at home is already together." So if your country doing fine and all "shit is together" it is ok to start a war? What is fucking wrong with people.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
LargeWu 4y ago
How many domestic problems in developed countries are the result of income inequality? Probably most of them. Poor education, poor wages, poor health(care)...these exist because of the billionaire class extracting wealth from the economy. Those problems aren't going to be solved by going to war.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  Income inequality is downstream from globalism (middle class jobs get exported), so I think you’re making his point?
  - orwin 4y ago
    Income inequality is downstream from unregulated capitalism. How many big anti-monopoly moves were actually done in the last 20 years compared to pre-Reagan or pre-Thatcher times?
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      I don’t understand what point you’re making because (1) no one has unregulated capitalism (2) globalization didn’t meaningfully exist in the pre-Reagan era, and (3) how would a “pre-Reagan globalization” not have exported jobs? “Exporting jobs” is pretty much the definition of globalization as it pertains to wealthy countries. EDIT: Also (4) I’m pretty sure almost every “very regulated” economy in the world has more inequality as a consequence of globalization. It’s really hard to imagine a practical globalization that doesn’t create concentrated wealth and poverty.

by mozman 4y ago

FpUser 4y ago

>"many domestic problems we must fix before we start fixing other countries." >"If we have to go to war than so be it." The more I look at these two statements the more I think that someone would benefit from having their head examined.

boppo1 4y ago
Yeah, bad idea to go to war unless your shit at home is already together. Wars are expensive. I think a lot of the domestic turmoil in the US can be linked to our useless wars in the ME. Could have used all that steel and those men to build stuff here: hospitals, schools, trains and so on. Bush & cheney did enormously more damage to the US than Trump. Not that I liked Trump at all.
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"Yeah, bad idea to go to war unless your shit at home is already together." So if your country doing fine and all "shit is together" it is ok to start a war? What is fucking wrong with people.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

LargeWu 4y ago

How many domestic problems in developed countries are the result of income inequality? Probably most of them. Poor education, poor wages, poor health(care)...these exist because of the billionaire class extracting wealth from the economy. Those problems aren't going to be solved by going to war.

throwaway894345 4y ago
Income inequality is downstream from globalism (middle class jobs get exported), so I think you’re making his point?
- orwin 4y ago
  Income inequality is downstream from unregulated capitalism. How many big anti-monopoly moves were actually done in the last 20 years compared to pre-Reagan or pre-Thatcher times?
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    I don’t understand what point you’re making because (1) no one has unregulated capitalism (2) globalization didn’t meaningfully exist in the pre-Reagan era, and (3) how would a “pre-Reagan globalization” not have exported jobs? “Exporting jobs” is pretty much the definition of globalization as it pertains to wealthy countries. EDIT: Also (4) I’m pretty sure almost every “very regulated” economy in the world has more inequality as a consequence of globalization. It’s really hard to imagine a practical globalization that doesn’t create concentrated wealth and poverty.