Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

I read several posts frequently on this site about how Republicans are corrupt, neoimperalist warmongers, and perhaps that's true, but I think they're a little more honest about it. Democratic presidents from LBJ to Obama have all made claims of supporting world peace and deescalating global conflict only to get the US further embroiled in pointless and even goalless conflicts. The US could never really "win" Vietnam and there doesn't seem to be any clear point to the neverending drone attacks in our current time. If you're going to preach pacifism, then actually be a pacifist. I don't see how the Democrats are considered the lesser of two evils when from my point of view they're more openly hypocritical and dishonest.

Also, before our friendly neighborhood tankies chime in, I don't think violent overthrow of the entire system is the solution either. I support a less violent world where a nation's primary concern is its own infrastructure and not trying to play world police or maintain control of proxy colonies. And least of all do I support the famines and purges that come along with violent revolution.

Because every politician does these days. The military industrial complex is too lucrative for them

>And least of all do I support the famines and purges that come along with violent revolution
>supporting famine

That was a typo. It was supposed to say "I don't support famines and purges" Apparently, KYM doesn't let you edit posts outside of a 30 minute time frame.

I don't think even tankies support famines intentionally. That's just ridiculous.
P.S. sorry for being off-topic.

Because they're paid to
all politicians are bought and paid for by the mic, wall street, and the banks

loaded question

@Smol Nozomi is right. It is a loaded question. Even if I somewhat agree with the premise.

The democratic parties aims and goals are, on paper, preferable to the republican party. In practice however, that tends to be different.

This is because at the end of the day, all politicians, regardless of who they are or what party they belong to, are loyal to those who most supported their campaigns. Even if they genuinely wish to help the people. If what's best for the people conflicts with what's best for their donors, they will choose their donors. This almost always the case without fail.

As for the warmongering aspect. International politics is a complicated beast. Although I personally tend to believe more in non-interventionism, conflict is something that cannot and will probably never be avoided. No state, in the history of man, has ever not been involved in some kind of conflict.

With all that said. That doesn't mean one needs to go the war over pointless reasons. There was absolutely no reason for us to do what we did in Libya. Regardless of how awful Gaddafi was, it wasn't our business and wasn't our place to get involved. Its entirely possible to just not cross that line as well. Jimmy Carter is good example of that.

The banksters that used to support the Republicans switched parties when Obama came into office because he would let them be even more corrupt and criminal than they were before. The Republicans in DC have not noticed and are still loyal to the banksters. Meanwhile, this group has taken over the Democrats:

Avaaz: Imperialist Pimps of Militarism, Protectors of the Oligarchy, Trusted Facilitators of War

This thread isn't about covid, which was a disaster primarily because of a sorely lacking response from Republican politicians

This thread is about politicians who accept lobbyist moolah from corporate interests more specifically those who produce military vehicles/weapons/gear/miscellany and how the government engages in conflicts to justify their existence (which both sides of the aisle do, dem and rep alike, and if independents had a more significant presence there'd probably be some offenders too)

Because OP wonders about the democrats since they too could be working with corporations and the military industrial complex. It doesn't help when you ask someone whose not from the US that knows about political wings and alignments, they could note that the democrats are right wing, just more left in the right wing than the republicans.

That said Smol Nozomi noted this is a loaded question and TripleA9000 noted more on how politicians will pay back those that supported them the most in their campaigns as well as noting how international politics is more complicated.

The fundamental problem with representational politics is that those with more power are going to be favored. Having money taken out of politics would help a fair amount, but the vast majority are going to still be ignored. There needs to be more ballot initiatives and more agency for individual communities. War and imperialism are profitable, while community support and meeting people's basic needs are not. The fact that we have the Space Force rather than more funding for NASA is pretty telling.

Politicians are not your friends. Community organizing and unionization are more helpful. Unfortunately for me, my social anxiety prevents me from practicing what I preach.

Because dems pretend they aren't

Plus the republicans lost a good chunk of thier corporate donors recently, funnily enough making the Democrats the party with the most corporate influence by a wide margin.

Because the world is literally burning right now

The far left is correct in that a revolution is needed. However a violent revolution, even if successful, would have long term negative consequences for the country. If the French and Russian revolutions are anything to go by, violently overthrowing the government and killing those in it will either lead to the collapse of the country, or will allow opportunistic authoritarians to take over.

What's needed is a political revolution, in which the working class run for and occupy public offices. At all levels: local, city, state, and federal. No more billionaires, no more celebrities, and no more establishment politicians. Normal, everyday, hard working Americans must become Mayors, senators, presidents, Police Commissioners etc etc. Then and only then can we start to see real change in this country and at the pace desirable by those who can see the issues with our Nation.

Half of all satellites in space currently belong to the US. An increasing number of our security apparatus, infrastructure, and critical elements of the economy depend heavily on those satellites being operational. Not just the US but also our allies. Not just satellites but US assets that are made by NASA and private firms as well. With vulnerability being that high you damn better believe the US should invest into a department exclusively focused on military operations that are in space. I think it's really important for people to understand the reasoning behind the existence of a Space Force, and it's primary functions.

Of course, though it will take a long time for it to take effect, and there’s also the possibility of them becoming corrupt once in power

The far left doesn't understand history objectively to say that revolution is needed. A revolution in advanced economies does not go leftward – because the overwhelming majority of people in an advanced economy have too much to lose with the revolution. Anyone who's looked at which direction revolutions went during the 20th century would recognize that left-revolutions emerged largely in countries that have had their economies remain relatively pre-industrial, or early-industrial, where the bulk of the people would stand to gain from such a revolution.

64.2% of Americans own their own homes. 25 Million Americans are running their own businesses. A left-revolution would fundamentally destroy this. 70% of Americans consider themselves middle-class, and it's the middle class that would stand to lose the most out of any left-revolution.

Civil unrest in advanced economies results in a demand for order, people are far more willing to support political candidates that promise order and guarantee to preserve the existing interests of the middle class.

Nor would having working class people run for or occupy public spaces would solve the issue – as long as there exists a legal framework for people who occupy political spaces to advance their own interests. In many local elections, and I'd argue, in the majority of local elections the pool of candidates tend to be from the exact backgrounds you describe.

While the problems are vast, the most important change that can happen to Americans is a shift of focus of what politics are important. Federal and national politics currently take overwhelming center stage despite often having little impact on people's lives. Meanwhile local politics tend to be ignored, dismissed, leaving an entire system of politicians that are able to maintain their positions with little to no effort while impacting the local population far more.

Your city council has far more influence and impact on your daily lives than your Senator or President. But even that isn't the end-all-be-all solution either, if you have a population that is entirely ignorant about the long term effects of the things they vote on.

Personally. I am very much into the idea of Allocative Voting System – instead of voting yes or no on particular issues, a person allocates a set number of votes on issues that are most important to them. This seems to be a far better model about understanding what the current populations' interests are. For example, say you have 10 votes to allocate on 3 issues: Environmental, Homelessness, Taxation, well, for you, it's more important to deal with the environmental issues so you allocate 5 votes into Environment, 3 into Homelessness and 2 into taxation. That shows you, as an individual voter, have a far better preference that the government deals with environmental issues first.

Corporations are becoming bigger than the goverment.

So…yeah the answer is… Cause you should be scared.

Corporatism? Time for someone to post a stupid meme showing what DNC and NS Germany had in common.