America - The Official Thread

[McLaren]

So Bernie tweeted this out today.


It sounded too good to be true, but if this is the correct bill he's referencing, the listed grievances are in it.
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/TJS05MAH.PDF

A BILL Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 2SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 3 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Coronavirus Response Additional Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020’’.

For an additional amount for ‘‘Federal Bureau of Investigation, Construction’’, $1,750,000,000, to remain available until expended, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally: Provided, That amounts made available under this heading in this Act shall be for the design and construction of a Washington, DC headquarters facility for the Federal Bureau of Investigation:

For an additional amount for ‘‘Aircraft Procurement, Army’’, $283,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2022, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally: Provided, That the amounts made available in this section shall only be for AH–64 Apache Block IIIB New Build: Additional AH–64 Helicopters:

SEC. 310. For an additional amount for ‘‘Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army’’, $375,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2022, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally: Provided, That the amounts made available in this section shall only be for Stryker Upgrade: Stryker DVHA1:

SEC. 312. For an additional amount for ‘‘Aircraft Procurement, Navy’’, $1,068,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2022, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally: Provided, That the amounts made available in this section shall only be for P–8A Poseidon: Additional aircraft:

SEC. 316. For an additional amount for ‘‘Aircraft Procurement, Air Force’’, $2,056,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2022, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally: Provided, That of the amounts made available in this section $686,000,000 shall be only for F–35A: Additional aircraft, $720,000,000 shall be only for C–130J: Additional aircraft and $650,000,000 shall be only for A–10: Wing replacements:

I really hope this is fake & we're just getting duped.

 

[Liquid]

Won't someone please think of the military-industrial complex?

 

[Joey D]

Jesus, we're still throwing money at that disaster called the F-35?

Also, $1.75 billion for a building? Does the FBI need gold plated toilet seats or something?

 

[Liquid]

Covid is the new boogeyman. You can use it to justify any expense now.

 

[Dotini]

Jesus, we're still throwing money at that disaster called the F-35?

Also, $1.75 billion for a building? Does the FBI need gold plated toilet seats or something?

I'm sure you appreciate creating a national budget and spending bills is a bipartisan process. Both parties have interests that they pander and kow-tow to. We also know there is considerable waste, fraud and corruption in the system. System. Right now the House wants to spend $5 trillion and Senate only $1 Trillion. They will compromise somewhere in between. Reform of the System seems vaguely in play depending upon the success of progressives and socialists in co-opting the establishment neoliberal Biden. You might hope for Kamala Harris or Stacey Abrams instead of Susan Rice as VP, and a takeover of the Senate by Democrats. Overwhelming control of the government by a single party backed up by an aroused public is the key to dramatic change.

 

[TexRex]

Covid is the new boogeyman. You can use it to justify any expense now.

Which is crazy because it was once a Democrat hoax.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Won't someone please think of the military-industrial complex?

The only way to abolish (or at least begin the process of undoing) the military-industrial-media complex in the US is to elect progressives. That's the god's honest truth. No Republican (yes, even you Rand Paul) would even consider reducing the size of the Pentagon despite Eisenhower's (a Republican president) famous warning about the dangers of the MIMC, and no neoliberal Democrat would do so either. The only 2020 candidates who were outspoken about bringing troops home, slashing Pentagon funding, and pulling out of unnecessary wars were Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard, and the mainstream media, on both sides, looked at them like they have two heads when they articulated their foreign policy plans. Nonetheless, being anti-war and anti-Pentagon is a populist position. As the infamous George W. Bush himself admitted, there are clear economic benefits of going to war, and until our leaders have the gall to stand up to these interests, the MIMC will never truly end. We as the constituency need to get rid of this mindset that the US must always be the world's strongest imperial power, with the largest and most expensive military, as well as the American Exceptionalism mindset too.

EDIT: As recent as last week, the House Progressive Caucus proposed a bill that would cut Pentagon funding by 10% (over 80 billion dollars) and that money would be redirected to fund infrastructure and social services. Only 85 congresspeople voted in favor of the bill. Sad.

 

[Danoff]

The only way to abolish (or at least begin the process of undoing) the military-industrial-media complex in the US is to elect progressives. That's the god's honest truth.

No. You'd just need to elect anti-military candidates.

We as the constituency need to get rid of this mindset that the US must always be the world's strongest imperial power, with the largest and most expensive military, as well as the American Exceptionalism mindset too.

Maybe elaborate more on why you think this is the case.

 

[GranTurNismo]

No. You'd just need to elect anti-military candidates.

Well like I mentioned, only two of the 20+ 2020 candidates were explicitly anti-military. Both happened to be progressives, and that's no coincidence. And then you have people like Trump and his pseudo-populism, claiming he wants to "end the wars" and "bring the troops home" yet under Trump, it's just been business as usual.

Maybe elaborate more on why you think this is the case.

It's pretty simple to answer. War has historically been a tactic used to unify the constituency. And the MSM (which is why I prefer the term "military-industrial-media complex) will hype up going to war, since supporting the war is supposedly patriotic while being anti-war is fringe and un-American. The majority of Americans are quite gullible. If the president, Congress, and the media all encourage a war interests, even if the US has no business entering that war, it's likely that many Americans would support the war. Though I do think that's beginning to change, albeit gradually.

My view on foreign policy is as simple as this: the US should not go to war or invade a foreign nation unless we are the ones attacked first. Which in itself is extremely unlikely. After all, we spend more per annum on our military than the next nine nations combined.

 

[Exorcet]

My view on foreign policy is as simple as this: the US should not go to war or invade a foreign nation unless we are the ones attacked first. Which in itself is extremely unlikely. After all, we spend more per annum on our military than the next nine nations combined.

In general I like the idea though I'd also add the condition that the US could act outside of strict self defense only with the direct support of the population who would need to be briefed on the predicted cost and duration of war. Mainly it's WWII like situations that worry me a little about sitting on the sidelines waiting to be hit.

 

[Danoff]

Well like I mentioned, only two of the 20+ 2020 candidates were explicitly anti-military. Both happened to be progressives, and that's no coincidence. And then you have people like Trump and his pseudo-populism, claiming he wants to "end the wars" and "bring the troops home" yet under Trump, it's just been business as usual.

You're at least ignoring third party candidates then.

It's pretty simple to answer. War has historically been a tactic used to unify the constituency.

Maaaybe... a few times. Mostly war is used for other reasons.

And the MSM (which is why I prefer the term "military-industrial-media complex) will hype up going to war, since supporting the war is supposedly patriotic while being anti-war is fringe and un-American. The majority of Americans are quite gullible. If the president, Congress, and the media all encourage a war interests, even if the US has no business entering that war, it's likely that many Americans would support the war. Though I do think that's beginning to change, albeit gradually.

Many, but then those many are the ones voting for the people that would do this.

My view on foreign policy is as simple as this: the US should not go to war or invade a foreign nation unless we are the ones attacked first. Which in itself is extremely unlikely. After all, we spend more per annum on our military than the next nine nations combined.

Drawing down (some) on military budget seems reasonable, and going to war without justification is definitely wrong. But if you like peace, the thing you should be championing is the global spread of capitalism.

 

[GranTurNismo]

You're at least ignoring third party candidates then.

Fair enough. I'm not as familiar with the platforms of third-party candidates as I should be.

But if you like peace, the thing you should be championing is the global spread of capitalism.

This sounds to me like a covert justification of the Vietnam war and the US's cold war-esque foreign policy towards Latin America.

 

[Danoff]

This sounds to me like a covert justification of the Vietnam war and the US's cold war-esque foreign policy towards Latin America.

That was to stop the spread of authoritarian enforced communism, which is quite a bit different different from supporting capitalism. Capitalism is not a form of government. It's a natural practice of people within a framework that enforces human rights. Fighting the USSR's authoritarian oppression of its people is related to the spread of capitalism, but it's definitely not the same thing.

 

[TexRex]

Twitter 1, DJTJ 0

You hate to see it.

 

[UKMikey]

That was to stop the spread of authoritarian enforced communism, which is quite a bit different different from supporting capitalism.

By stopping the spread of authoritarian enforced communism, are you referring to the Vietnam war or the deposition of democratically elected left-wing presidents in South America? It's hard to see what was enforced about the latter, unless the Soviet Union had been rigging elections in say Chile since 1932.

 

[Danoff]

By stopping the spread of authoritarian enforced communism, are you referring to the Vietnam war or the deposition of democratically elected left-wing presidents in South America? It's hard to see what was enforced about the latter, unless the Soviet Union had been rigging elections in say Chile since 1932.

I was talking about Vietnam. Not necessarily supporting it, but addressing the accusation that my statement would support it.

 

[Famine]

And then you have people like Trump and his pseudo-populism, claiming he wants to "end the wars" and "bring the troops home" yet under Trump, it's just been business as usual.

I remember when Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize for his claims of similar, and that ended... not quite how he promised.

 

[GranTurNismo]

I remember when Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize for his claims of similar, and that ended... not quite how he promised.

Yup. Obama was just as bad.

 

[McLaren]

Jesus, we're still throwing money at that disaster called the F-35?

Also, $1.75 billion for a building? Does the FBI need gold plated toilet seats or something?

It's across the street from the Trump hotel, so.... Yes.


BTW, there's an interesting theory that Trump has been pushing for this more than originally thought to be, b/c if the FBI re-locates as they've been trying to, Trump doesn't want that new land being bought up by a competing hotel since it's prime real estate.

 

[Liquid]

It's across the street from the Trump hotel, so.... Yes.


BTW, there's an interesting theory that Trump has been pushing for this more than originally thought to be, b/c if the FBI re-locates as they've been trying to, Trump doesn't want that new land being bought up by a competing hotel since it's prime real estate.

And I'm sure associated stays and FBI expenditure at the hotel won't hurt Trump's pocket either.

 

[TexRex]

Watchdog alleges Trump campaign illegally concealed $170 million in spending.

A nonpartisan watchdog filed a complaint with the Federal Election Committee (FEC) on Tuesday alleging President Trump's reelection campaign broke the law by "laundering" $170 million in spending in an effort to conceal payments to people close to the Trump family and campaign.

The 81-page complaint, filed by the Campaign Legal Center (CLC), alleges that former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale used a "pass-through" company to pay downstream vendors, including Trump campaign members, associates and family members.

"This illegal conduit scheme leaves voters in the dark about the entities working for the Trump campaign, the nature of their services, and the full amount they are paid," said Brendan Fischer, the CLC's director of federal reform. "We don't know all of what is being hidden by this scheme, but we do know that it violates the law."

The CLC has asked the FEC to investigate and take action against the campaign for funneling payments through the American Made Media Consultants (AMMC), which is the parent company the Trump campaign allegedly used to conceal the payments.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Watchdog alleges Trump campaign illegally concealed $170 million in spending.

Well that doesn't look good. Maybe that is why Parscale stepped down as campaign Manager. Or maybe it is just another nothing burger.

 

[Joey D]

Watchdog alleges Trump campaign illegally concealed $170 million in spending.

Trump's campaign doing shady stuff?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Watchdog alleges Trump campaign illegally concealed $170 million in spending.

2018:

Trump cites 'massive' Obama campaign finance violation.

Trump, in his Wednesday morning tweet, appeared to be referring to a $375,000 fine levied by the Federal Election Commission in early 2013 against Obama's 2008 presidential campaign over a slew of campaign finance violations, including missing filing deadlines for disclosing large donations during the final weeks of the campaign, reporting the wrong dates on certain contributions, and not returning donations that exceeded the campaign contribution maximum quickly enough.

Just to get ahead of the whataboutism

 

[huskeR32]

Well that doesn't look good. Maybe that is why Parscale stepped down as campaign Manager. Or maybe it is just another nothing burger.

At this point, the always innocent Trump has hired/appointed so many people of questionable character, that he must be a complete idiot. Keep bleating about the "nothing burgers" (gods, what a stupid phrase) all you want, but eventually you'll have to accept it as a sign of his utter incompetence. He can't be both above board and competent.

 

[Danoff]

At this point, the always innocent Trump has hired/appointed so many people of questionable character, that he must be a complete idiot. Keep bleating about the "nothing burgers" (gods, what a stupid phrase) all you want, but eventually you'll have to accept it as a sign of his utter incompetence. He can't be both above board and competent.

But he can be both below board and incompetent.

 

[Danoff]

He's now openly floating seizing control of the country. I'm putting him down for worst president ever.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53597975

 

[Blitz24]

He's now openly floating seizing control of the country. I'm putting him down for worst president ever.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53597975

I agree. I can't see how "turning America directly into Russia, Turkey and China" is an effective tactic to become a great president.

He'd also need completely suspend the constitution or else the system of checks and balances will make his idea DOA.

 

[Danoff]

I agree. I can't see how "turning America directly into Russia, Turkey and China" is an effective tactic to become a great president.

He'd also need completely suspend the constitution or else the system of checks and balances will make his idea DOA.

5 seconds ago delaying elections for a hoax pandemic was preposterous.

 

[Joey D]

He's now openly floating seizing control of the country. I'm putting him down for worst president ever.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53597975

Do you want Nancy Pelosi as president? Because this is how you get Nancy Pelosi as president.