Mountain West Microbrew: Chit chat and irrelevancy

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Wow, you guys are truly deluded. A Ronald Reagan moment for Democrats? Good lord, haha. Can't wait for reality to catch up with you kids. How disappointing it's going to be for all of you when Bernie fails and disappears into the night. One for example of the establishment holding down progress; more disillusionment, one more excuse for your own failures. It couldn't possibly be because the majority of Americans don't actually agree with you.

The Republican side will be interesting. But I do think Trump will be their nominee.

Here's the difference, my friends and I have the maturity to vote for Hillary and not make her toxic before the election in 2016, but if you get Bernie, you'll pout and stop playing and take your ball home. We're young in mind and can wait if we need to and every four years the flat wages will increase our odds. You're old in mind and unadaptable. I feel bad for you.

The fact is, in Utah, with Bernie, we got 20,000 people who registered as Democrats at the caucuses. This race has excited more change in our local electorate since the 60's.

[bunt_q]

You're in a different position than I am. Unlike you, I don't see right and wrong, black and white, left and right. It is true, if Bernie doesn't make it, Hillary will still be the closest ideologically to you. Because there's nowhere to go but further right/conservative from where you are, Bernie's that extreme. Not the case for me, I am center-left. But given the choice between a center-right Republican or a galactically-far left Socialist, I will vote for the center-right guy every time, because he's closer to me ideologically. Because I do not view the other side as prime evil like you seem to.

Of course, it remains to be seen if center-right is the other choice we'll get. All I was saying is that Trump v. Bernie, I vote Trump every time. I won't vote for Cruz, who is waaaaay too far right for me.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You're in a different position than I am. Unlike you, I don't see right and wrong, black and white, left and right. It is true, if Bernie doesn't make it, Hillary will still be the closest ideologically to you. Because there's nowhere to go but further right/conservative from where you are, Bernie's that extreme. Not the case for me, I am center-left. But given the choice between a center-right Republican or a galactically-far left Socialist, I will vote for the center-right guy every time, because he's closer to me ideologically. Because I do not view the other side as prime evil like you seem to.

Of course, it remains to be seen if center-right is the other choice we'll get. All I was saying is that Trump v. Bernie, I vote Trump every time. I won't vote for Cruz, who is waaaaay too far right for me.

I think you would benefit with at least 20% less hyperbole against me and 20% more arguments based on what the president can actually do in the executive office.

1. I have zero debt. I have no debt on my car, my school, or credit card debt in general (I only let that debt get to ~$3,000 when I have it from time to time). I work full time managing a store as I have for years and I'm about a year away from my bachelor's from the UofU if I keep taking two classes a semester as I have for two years.

2. I was a die hard Republican as a kid, and a soft one up until Romney ran against Obama (I voted for Obama). I was originally in pre law in the Philosophy Department and I'm 2 classes away from having a full major. My mindset is extremely non black and white and I primarily study under the school of philosophers known as Pragmatists a la Peirce, James, Dewey, Whitehead and Rorty. If you know about what Pragmatists believe about truth, then you'd know calling me a believer in black and white is laughable. If you just have an understanding of the vernacular use of the word pragmatic or pragmatist, you'd know it too.

I'm a registered Republican because it's more pragmatic in keeping the more moderate Republicans in power during our state primary.

Left and right are silly things when we think back to 1980 and 1988. Those categories were made for people struggling to — at nuance. They're pretty shaky categories when one holds them under much light.

[ToysNoiz]

Originally Posted by Scottk

Although I'm sure some SLC forumer will say that there is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming, despite all of the scientific evidence.

Hi there, a small Salt Lake representative here. Climate change is happening. That is all.

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Wow, you guys are truly deluded.

Bunt, I think it is you who is truly delusional for supporting a hawkish candidate who has proven time and time again that she will change her opinion based on whatever she thinks will get her elected.

She has been dishonest about almost everything, nevermind her cozy relationship with Goldman Sachs and Wall Street.

Her language, her willingness to speak about killing more people we have no business killing, is reprehensible to me beyond forgiving. This is not a Republican telling you this. I believe Benghazi is a non-scandal if there ever was one. I believe Hillary’s “emails” are essentially a non-issue. But for Bernie supporters, it’s Clinton’s promises of more war, more weapons, and more “strength” that sends shivers down our spine. The fact that she is promising a more "robust" foreign policy is downright terrifying to me.


She will lose if Cruz or anyone besides Trump is the nominee. Bernie is more likely to beat almost any republican nominee, and the polls support this, with Bernie leading Hitlery by almost 5% against most republican candidates.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Trump is obnoxious, but Bernie is dangerous

If you have been paying attention and you don't think Trump is dangerous, you're a fool.

I'm willing to agree with you on a lot of centrist / good government / pragmatic politics points. But that all goes out the window if you start defending Trump as somehow harmless. I know Colorado hippies are annoying and you like to stir the liberal pot, but that is not justification to give a pass to someone who uses lawless intimidation to squash political dissent.

Trump is dangerous to the very notion of American stability and democracy. That is absolutely inexcusable in a presidential candidate.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

If you have been paying attention and you don't think Trump is dangerous, you're a fool.

I'm willing to agree with you on a lot of centrist / good government / pragmatic politics points. But that all goes out the window if you start defending Trump as somehow harmless. I know Colorado hippies are annoying and you like to stir the liberal pot, but that is not justification to give a pass to someone who uses lawless intimidation to squash political dissent.

Trump is dangerous to the very notion of American stability and democracy. That is absolutely inexcusable in a presidential candidate.

Maybe Bunt's not as center-left as he adds on? Hell, he's probably got "Goldwater in '64" tattooed on his left —-cheek.

Trump is a perfect candidate for our polarized political system in 2016. I do think that 75% of what he says is pure b/s meant to pander to his base (he's probably the most center-right candidate out there is you strip away the b/s), but he represents what happens when one party has abandoned governance, preferring ideological purity instead and obstruction instead. The rage that Trump has channeled, which is a massive distrust in a system that people think has betrayed them, and the use of violence and intimidation is the product of a party whose rhetoric, steeped in violence and social upheaval, hasn't matched what they had any chance of delivering.

I, for one, am looking forward to Cleveland going up in flames. The GOP that emerges from this — show might have regained a sense of sanity and banished their extremists back to the hinterlands- just as the Bern will go back to his.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Scottk

Bunt, I think it is you who is truly delusional for supporting a hawkish candidate who has proven time and time again that she will change her opinion based on whatever she thinks will get her elected.

She has been dishonest about almost everything, nevermind her cozy relationship with Goldman Sachs and Wall Street.

Her language, her willingness to speak about killing more people we have no business killing, is reprehensible to me beyond forgiving. This is not a Republican telling you this. I believe Benghazi is a non-scandal if there ever was one. I believe Hillary’s “emails” are essentially a non-issue. But for Bernie supporters, it’s Clinton’s promises of more war, more weapons, and more “strength” that sends shivers down our spine. The fact that she is promising a more "robust" foreign policy is downright terrifying to me.


She will lose if Cruz or anyone besides Trump is the nominee. Bernie is more likely to beat almost any republican nominee, and the polls support this, with Bernie leading Hitlery by almost 5% against most republican candidates.

Meh, Bernie's an interesting experiment, much like Cruz, in putting an isolationist in the White House. Just how much can the US stop projecting power and still exert influence to keep the Western World on top of the trash heap? What happens when our allies (and adversaries), both good and bad, figure out that someone like the Bern or Cruz tell them to go get f**ked and figure it out themselves? History says an increase in large-scale conflict among global power with a decrease in the asymmetric conflicts that have dominated post WW2.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Meh, Bernie's an interesting experiment, much like Cruz, in putting an isolationist in the White House. Just how much can the US stop projecting power and still exert influence to keep the Western World on top of the trash heap? What happens when our allies (and adversaries), both good and bad, figure out that someone like the Bern or Cruz tell them to go get f**ked and figure it out themselves? History says an increase in large-scale conflict among global power with a decrease in the asymmetric conflicts that have dominated post WW2.

It didn't happen under Carter. The history you're referencing is the first half of the 20th century and ignores the entire 19 Century after the Napoleonic Wars. Not to mention that every nuclear power, which are many, is now off the table.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

It didn't happen under Carter. The history you're referencing is the first half of the 20th century and ignores the entire 19 Century after the Napoleonic Wars. Not to mention that every nuclear power, which are many, is now off the table.

You mean the British dominated 19th century where we had another unipolar global power structure? Which before that was dominated by several decades of large-scale global wars? Unipolar worlds tend to lead towards periods of larger-scale, infrequent, global conflict that see large casualty producing wars.

What made Carter an isolationist? We're talking about the author of the — Carter Doctrine that has pretty much defined US foreign policy in the Middle East for the last 35 years after all. He shifted gears by loosening the policy of containment, but he pretty much doubled down on the specter of US military engagement in the world.

As for nukes, the further we move away from the last large-scale conflict, the more likely is it that we'll see a nuclear kerfuffle take place. It might not be between Western powers, but it will happen and here's hoping that it involves any powers aspiring to knock the West off it's perch so that we might have a low-cost (to us) way of maintaining dominance for another hundred years or so.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

You mean the British dominated 19th century where we had another unipolar global power structure?

Are you joking? Britain was essentially isolationist when it came to the powers of the world. They tried to remain outside of every conflict in Europe and America. They basically created a parellel economy to the rest of Europe that allowed them total isolation through a strategy of subjugating weak peoples across the world for extraction of materials that they would later manufacture into products in their factories.

The 19th Century was the British Century, but it was because of colonies and manufacturing. Their foreign policy after the Napoleonic Wars was "Splendid Isolationism" a time of being unentangled with the continent. They only really intervened in the Crimean War where they used their navy to repel the Russians from the Ottoman Empire.

The first real aliance they signed on to after the Napoleonic Wars was with the Japanese in 1902. Their alliance with the Japanese would fuel a rivalry between Japan and the United States over control of the Pacific and Chinease trade. This would culminate in the pacific arena of WWII.

Does this look unipolar to you?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Scottk

and more “strength” that sends shivers down our spine. The fact that she is promising a more "robust" foreign policy is downright terrifying to me.

Well weakness is a great platform to run on. He should go with that. I'm sure it'll resonate with Americans who don't have "Free Tibet" or "Coexist" tattooed on their right —-cheek.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Hell, he's probably got "Goldwater in '64" tattooed on his left —-cheek.

Creeper. How'd you know that?

Originally Posted by Cirrus

If you have been paying attention and you don't think Trump is dangerous, you're a fool.

I tend to agree with wong, that's mostly pandering (very smartly), and that he is, at the end of the day, the center-right candidate in this race.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Trump is a perfect candidate for our polarized political system in 2016. I do think that 75% of what he says is pure b/s meant to pander to his base (he's probably the most center-right candidate out there is you strip away the b/s), but he represents what happens when one party has abandoned governance, preferring ideological purity instead and obstruction instead.

Bernie is also the perfect candidate - just for folks preferring ideological purity on the other side. I, for one, still support the TPP. But the fact that Hillary is moving away from it is a direct result of the democratic base shifting beneath her. Now, if I were a Bernie-minded type, I would feel betrayed, possibly even accuse her of being an untrustworthy flip-flopper. But as a pragmatist, I recognize that is exactly what is supposed to happen in a representative democracy. I am sure she still personally believes the TPP is smart policy. The fact that she might shift away from it just makes her a good representative of her constituency, rather than a radical idealist. I'd rather somebody with some flexibility who can adapt to what we want on some issues, give us a spoonful of medicine on other issues (like foreign policy) when the average voter gets it just plain wrong. That's called leadership, not pandering.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I, for one, am looking forward to Cleveland going up in flames. The GOP that emerges from this — show might have regained a sense of sanity and banished their extremists back to the hinterlands- just as the Bern will go back to his.

Yup.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Are you joking? Britain was essentially isolationist when it came to the powers of the world. They tried to remain outside of every conflict in Europe and America. They basically created a parellel economy to the rest of Europe that allowed them total isolation through a strategy of subjugating weak peoples across the world for extraction of materials that they would later manufacture into products in their factories.

The 19th Century was British Century, but it was because of colonies and manufacturing. Their foreign policy after the Napoleonic Wars was "Splendid Isolationism" a time of being unentangled with the continent. They only really intervened in the Crimean War where they used their navy to repel the Russians from the Ottoman Empire.

The first real aliance they signed on to after the Napoleonic Wars was with the Japanese in 1902. Their alliance with the Japanese would fuel a rivalry between Japan and the United States over control of the Pacific and Chinease trade. This would culminate in the pacific arena of WWII.

Yet Britain dominated the 19th Century and did not entangle itself in Continental affairs via diplomacy because it didn't have to to maintain power. If your foreign policy goal is to maintain the balance of power, where you are dominant, and you don't have to entangle yourself in a network of alliances to do so, than why get involved? It certainly wouldn't be the pragmatic thing to do.

Bernie and Cruz are talking about absconding from the world stage and removing the US as the lynchpin of the Western Hegemony. What the British did in the 19th Century made them the lynchpin of a British Hegemony and everything they did ensured that they remained so- which meant no getting tied down in European alliances and tipping the balance of power one way or the other. Intervention or isolation can both serve as power mechanisms in the world and both can maintain a unipolar power structure. But as soon as it changes, the world has a tendency to go "boom!".

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Does this look unipolar to you?

No it doesn't. It reflects the multi-polar world that developed in the late 19th century (~1880's), as Europe became unbalanced, and the unipolar world of British dominance shifted to a multi-polar world of the Great Powers with fundamental change in the global power structure that followed the wave of nationalism in the 1860's-70's

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Yet Britain dominated the 19th Century and did not entangle itself in Continental affairs via diplomacy because it didn't have to to maintain power. If your foreign policy goal is to maintain the balance of power, where you are dominant, and you don't have to entangle yourself in a network of alliances to do so, than why get involved? It certainly wouldn't be the pragmatic thing to do.

Bernie and Cruz are talking about absconding from the world stage and removing the US as the lynchpin of the Western Hegemony. What the British did in the 19th Century made them the lynchpin of a British Hegemony and everything they did ensured that they remained so- which meant no getting tied down in European alliances and tipping the balance of power one way or the other. Intervention or isolation can both serve as power mechanisms in the world and both can maintain a unipolar power structure. But as soon as it changes, the world has a tendency to go "boom!".

They maintained power with a super strong navy and avoiding the shenanigans of the Bismark and Sardinia.

I think we get very little from the Middle East in 10 years as we phase off oil and see peak consumption. So unless they are propping up the empire, I guess they get to go boom boom. And America gets to reign in its debt, improve its infrastructure, take care of its weak, and invest in its future.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

I think we get very little from the Middle East in 10 years as we phase off oil and see peak consumption. So unless they are propping up the empire, I guess they get to go boom boom. And America gets to reign in its debt, improve its infrastructure, take care of its weak, and invest in its future.

Do you truly believe oil is the only reason for the U.S. to care about stability in the Middle East? Or do you just not give a — what happens to our allies in Europe, and how they cope with millions upon millions of refugees?

I am assuming it's the latter, based on your support for an isolationist, but maybe I am wrong. Isolationism, Obama-style, has gone very badly in Syria. What's going to bring some semblance of stability in the long run is, unfortunately, Russian intervention. If we think Obama's "red lines" were laughable, can you imagine any lines Bernie puts down?

(To say nothing of the living breathing humans who actually live in the Middle East, who contrary to naive belief on the far left, will not be better off if we just go away.)

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I tend to agree with wong, that's mostly pandering (very smartly), and that he is, at the end of the day, the center-right candidate in this race.

Quite a —, and it's based on nothing but wishful thinking.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Do you truly believe oil is the only reason for the U.S. to care about stability in the Middle East? Or do you just not give a — what happens to our allies in Europe, and how they cope with millions upon millions of refugees?

This honestly reads like a troll commenter from the Drudge Report. The refugee crisis is Europe's fault. It wouldn't be a crisis if they had a separate borders where they could check passports. Or if they gave up this silly notion of a confederacy and became a proper federal system. You know, so they could have things like a CIA, an FBI, an NSA, and a Department of Homeland Security. They could also have a national guard to put their massively over educated and unemployed young adults to work. I just don't see the Euro being able to keep the status quo.

I am assuming it's the latter, based on your support for an isolationist, but maybe I am wrong. Isolationism, Obama-style, has gone very badly in Syria. What's going to bring some semblance of stability in the long run is, unfortunately, Russian intervention. If we think Obama's "red lines" were laughable, can you imagine any lines Bernie puts down?

(To say nothing of the living breathing humans who actually live in the Middle East, who contrary to naive belief on the far left, will not be better off if we just go away.)

Well Hillary was th architect of Obama's foreign policy and she was really — for a land war in Syria. Most of the failures, either way, she shoulders, but because I want us to cut back I see it as a success.

America was trying to get through its own struggles with the Great Depression while millions of Russians and Western Europeans were trying to fight off the Nazi war machine. I'm glad we got involved and that Democracy won, but I wouldn't have had us get involved sooner than we did. We can't keep making our role in globalism as the military larger than all the militaries combined if we have talks of cutting entitlements for old people and veterans. A state already tried something like that and it collapsed and became the Russian Federation. And we're getting to be like the Soviet Union too when we manage declines in GDP and think of consumption as unimportant.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

No it doesn't. It reflects the multi-polar world that developed in the late 19th century (~1880's), as Europe became unbalanced, and the unipolar world of British dominance shifted to a multi-polar world of the Great Powers with fundamental change in the global power structure that followed the wave of nationalism in the 1860's-70's

Great, so between 1815 and 1850 (35 years they were unipolar; enough time to rebuild Europe after Napoleon destroyed it). So we'll be unipolar for about the same time. About the same amount of time there were Cowboys in America. It seems more like a fluke in a modern world rather than a rule. I'm glad this will be predictable. Lord help us if Rusians have to spend money to keep states from collapsing instead of the United States or if China wants to develop Africa with nicer loans than we dole out from the IMF. I'm not seeing the tragedy. Destroying states should no longer be one of our projects. Destroying states leads to things like death camps in Poland and ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

And if there's one thing people on the "left" and the "right" of this country love, it's destroying states. We loved the Arab Spring and Invading Iraq and firing everyone.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Great, so between 1815 and 1850 (35 years they were unipolar; enough time to rebuild Europe after Napoleon destroyed it). So we'll be unipolar for about the same time. It seems more like a fluke in a modern world rather than a rule. I'm glad this will be predicable. Lord help us if Rusians have to spend money to keep states from collapsing instead of the United States or if China wants to develop Africa with nicer loans than we dole out from the IMF. I'm not seeing the tragedy. Destroying states should no longer be one of our projects.

More like 1815 to 1875 (so about 60 years) that could be considered a clear-cut unipolar world. But the key point is that the destabilization that occurs due to the shift results in an increase in global conflict with the kind of large-scale wars that go down in the history books (Thirty Years,Seven Years War, Napoleonic Wars, WW1, WW2, etc.) We've had over a half-century of relative peace and the tragedy would be another large-scale war (Russia/US, US/China, Pakistan/India, Isreal/Saudi Arabia, Iran/Saudi Arabia, Germany vs the World, etc) where the casualty counts would hit the tens of millions.

I know that most Americans are insulated don't understand what warfare actually means beyond the sanitized version that's delivered via the media or what the — to while on LiveLeak, but I kind of prefer the world that's maintained via the current hegemony versus the one where we have Victory Bond drives, rationing, conscription, etc. Should it cost as much defense-wise as what we're currently spending? No. But that's more a domestic issue than one of foreign policy.