3 ms·

>But I don’t really care who wins anyway, I’m not sure why I’m even engaging here. The democrats are so far from the 2008 version that you don't care if they l

by Sabinus 2mo ago

>But I don’t really care who wins anyway, I’m not sure why I’m even engaging here. The democrats are so far from the 2008 version that you don't care if they lose? That Trump's activities are as bad as Biden's?

iamnothere 2mo ago
As I said earlier, Republicans are doing a pretty good job of dismantling the empire, and I care about that more than whatever either party is offering domestically (not much). So if they win, so be it. 2008 Dems had a large “liberaltarian” presence, which isn’t perfectly aligned with my views, but it was close enough that I was often in favor of their policies. Current Dems just want the war machine to focus more on Russia while sticking it to red states at home. Antiwar sentiment in the party died after the entry of “CIA Democrats” like Spanberger, who now have outsized influence within the party. I don’t see much good coming out of a Dem victory until they are expelled.
- estearum 2mo ago
  "Current Dems just want our country to honor its commitments" is quite a criticism! Maybe I'm just some war hungry lunatic, but I actually think that when the US tells a country it will defend its sovereignty in exchange for it not having nuclear weapons, it's very important that we honor those commitments. That's probably because I prefer deterrence, and intermittent war required to assert deterrence, more than I like the idea of every nation in a race to build nuclear weapons and then every neighbor doing scrambling to prevent nuclearization. Basically a warmonger then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - iamnothere 2mo ago
    You also probably believe in strong regulation of the internet (including possibly ID verification), open borders, and other positions I don’t accept. As I said, I’m not a fan of the current party, and I hope that the right continues to degrade state capacity until neither side has much left to work with.
    - estearum 2mo ago
      No, I actually don't. I always find it surprising when people not only just internally start ascribing irrelevant and probably-untrue things to their interlocutors so they can dismiss their ideas, but they actually say it out loud! I don't understand what my prior comment has to do with any party at all. It was a direct response to your implicit claim about the US's obligations to Ukraine, and therefore to the rest of its security umbrella.
      - deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
      - iamnothere 2mo ago
        Well then you wouldn’t be in alignment with the mainstream of your party, who does seem to want that, at least if you look at blue state legislation. As to how it has to do with the party, we were discussing the Democratic Party, Russia was a brief aside. But I do find that people’s position on the Russia/Ukraine conflict typically tends to say a lot about their other positions.
        estearum 2mo ago
        Can you identify specific blue state legislation that creates or attempts to create open borders? Are you referring to sanctuary policies which just say a locality won't expend local resources to enforce federal immigration law? Not sure what you could possibly be referring to here. You're aware that actual open borders is an extremely, extremely fringe position, right? The borders between US states are "open borders." Support for open international borders is unbelievably rare, across the entire political spectrum.
        iamnothere 2mo ago
        Actually I was referring mostly to the Internet regulation with regards to blue state legislation, but regardless, yes the sanctuary policies could be considered (in my view) as support for nonenforcement of border controls, or in other words, open borders. I guess it’s not technically open borders if your policy is that you can’t come across unless you manage to survive the dangerous illegal crossing and evade the border patrol, then you can stay. Fine. Guess you got me there. I don’t really feel like rehashing the open borders motte and bailey that always happens on the internet, yes most Dems don’t support actual open borders but the policies they push for are equivalent. If there’s one thing Americans can agree on, it’s that they like having an underpaid slave caste, even if Republicans do pretend that they are against it.

by Sabinus 2mo ago

iamnothere 2mo ago

As I said earlier, Republicans are doing a pretty good job of dismantling the empire, and I care about that more than whatever either party is offering domestically (not much). So if they win, so be it. 2008 Dems had a large “liberaltarian” presence, which isn’t perfectly aligned with my views, but it was close enough that I was often in favor of their policies. Current Dems just want the war machine to focus more on Russia while sticking it to red states at home. Antiwar sentiment in the party died after the entry of “CIA Democrats” like Spanberger, who now have outsized influence within the party. I don’t see much good coming out of a Dem victory until they are expelled.

estearum 2mo ago
"Current Dems just want our country to honor its commitments" is quite a criticism! Maybe I'm just some war hungry lunatic, but I actually think that when the US tells a country it will defend its sovereignty in exchange for it not having nuclear weapons, it's very important that we honor those commitments. That's probably because I prefer deterrence, and intermittent war required to assert deterrence, more than I like the idea of every nation in a race to build nuclear weapons and then every neighbor doing scrambling to prevent nuclearization. Basically a warmonger then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- iamnothere 2mo ago
  You also probably believe in strong regulation of the internet (including possibly ID verification), open borders, and other positions I don’t accept. As I said, I’m not a fan of the current party, and I hope that the right continues to degrade state capacity until neither side has much left to work with.
  - estearum 2mo ago
    No, I actually don't. I always find it surprising when people not only just internally start ascribing irrelevant and probably-untrue things to their interlocutors so they can dismiss their ideas, but they actually say it out loud! I don't understand what my prior comment has to do with any party at all. It was a direct response to your implicit claim about the US's obligations to Ukraine, and therefore to the rest of its security umbrella.
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    - iamnothere 2mo ago
      Well then you wouldn’t be in alignment with the mainstream of your party, who does seem to want that, at least if you look at blue state legislation. As to how it has to do with the party, we were discussing the Democratic Party, Russia was a brief aside. But I do find that people’s position on the Russia/Ukraine conflict typically tends to say a lot about their other positions.
      - estearum 2mo ago
        Can you identify specific blue state legislation that creates or attempts to create open borders? Are you referring to sanctuary policies which just say a locality won't expend local resources to enforce federal immigration law? Not sure what you could possibly be referring to here. You're aware that actual open borders is an extremely, extremely fringe position, right? The borders between US states are "open borders." Support for open international borders is unbelievably rare, across the entire political spectrum.
        iamnothere 2mo ago
        Actually I was referring mostly to the Internet regulation with regards to blue state legislation, but regardless, yes the sanctuary policies could be considered (in my view) as support for nonenforcement of border controls, or in other words, open borders. I guess it’s not technically open borders if your policy is that you can’t come across unless you manage to survive the dangerous illegal crossing and evade the border patrol, then you can stay. Fine. Guess you got me there. I don’t really feel like rehashing the open borders motte and bailey that always happens on the internet, yes most Dems don’t support actual open borders but the policies they push for are equivalent. If there’s one thing Americans can agree on, it’s that they like having an underpaid slave caste, even if Republicans do pretend that they are against it.