I do not suffer under the delusion that soldiers exist defend my rights.

heh, I apologize for bashing the line you took earlier. I truly think it was lol considering the lines you could have taken, but I shouldn't have attacked as I did.

I am of the opinion, that, if the commander in chief-regardless of who he is-says that we attack, we attack. If he says we withdraw, we withdraw. I did not vote for Obama, but if he said to attack Canada because he doesn't like that they speak french, I would support him in that decision. That is because the electoral college elected him president. Same thing with Trump. I'm sure multiple people would say I'm being naive to trust a process that isn't even popular vote, but I don't give a ****. I disagreed with Obama a lot but I still would stand behind his decisions until the day I die. I believe more in the process our country is founded on than the people we elect.

On the same line of thought, we may be fighting a "war" with afghanistan and iraq that doesn't need fought. I don't know enough one way or the other, and neither do you, so stfu. But if our elected officials (the ones elected by the system in place) decide that our soldiers, the ones that have decided to defend our country, should cross the ocean, then so be it.

I don't agree that our president should be elected the way that he is. I think that the electoral college is outdated and relies too much on uninformed voters. But it's the system in place, so I will respect the decisions made by him, whether republican or democrat, until the day I die.

quit while you're only slightly behind

The problem is that you think that a reasonable compromise will involve constant deference and respect to the military. For example, trotting out this "rights that they defend" stuff when any reasonable reading of US military activity for the last 50 years has them acting for reasons of selfish American interest, not high-minded ideals. You consider it mandatory to commend soldiers for putting their lives on the line, while the other side of the coin, i.e. that what they sign up to do is kill people, is considered beyond the pale to point out.

When public figures die, we honor them and are appropriately solemn and respectful at their funerals, but nobody demands that we refrain from criticizing them - even harshly - during discussion in the media or among members of the public. That's how it works with the military in civilized countries not named America, that they are given due honors on important dates, during military parades etc, but there's no expectation that public debate has to be constantly couched in terms of deference and respect.

Him being a soldier isn’t part of the equation. At least it’s not for me. The same first amendment that protects Kaep protects him. And me!

Him being a soldier is obviously a big part of why he wanted to stand, but obviously not why he gets too.

I guess I appreciate the full and frank defense of fascist militarism and the Führerprinzip. I'm being slightly hyperbolic here, but not very. I'm not sure what other spin you can put on "I'd be cool with attacking Canada as long as our Leader says it's OK".

I was born in 1980. Off the top of my head, in my lifetime the United States has invaded: Grenada, Panama, Iraq (2x), Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan. It's late so I won't be surprised if there's others I'm forgetting. Not a single one of those nations was a threat to my freedom.

Your attack was stupid given that he definitely should spend more time worrying about Americans without power in Puerto Rico over some NFL QB choosing to protest during the anthem.

As for your "we need to follow the commander in chief" line, sure, but that does not address whether American soldiers are actually dying to protect freedoms and rights when fighting overseas.

To my knowledge, there were no US ground forces in Bosnia until after a peace accord had been reached. If you count airstrikes only, you can add about a million countries to the list, obviously. I also think the military action in Bosnia was a rare example of a case where "defending freedoms" was one of the primary reasons it was undertaken. Not American freedoms, but still.

And just for the record, I do think American soldiers get hoodwinked when it comes to signing up, if they do it on account of wanting to defend American freedoms.

Protecting American freedoms is rarely if ever the job of the current US military. I can't recall a situation where the US military has genuinely protected American freedoms.

just a general comment on a convo i had recently - the american electoral college system gets lolled at a lot, but i was talking so some singaporeans/malaysians were telling me about some reasons why it's at least avoids some issues that alternative systems have

apparently what happens in a few SEA countries (like thailand, malaysia, indonesia etc) is that the campaigning politicians completely sell out to the rural / poor majority and enact a bunch of really lol and in some cases regressive and counterproductive policies in order to serve their base, and are ok with basically **** over the ppl that don't vote for them (rich ppl). the result being that the elections are pretty easy to campaign for in a game theory sense, and end up costing the country in the long run due to inefficient allocation of resources, encouraging brain drain etc (beyond the baseline issues those countries have with corruption etc)

now you could say that trump getting elected is a pretty lol indictment of for the american system, but at least it's seemingly an outlier that will be rectified at the next election. the above issues are apparently persistent and pretty hard to overturn since the politicians in power aren't going to stop the gravy train

What could anyone possibly find distasteful about the modern liberal?

This is a weird take. I'm not sure about the other two, but what you describe is definitely the case in Thailand. The reason there are so many coups there is that when they hold elections, one of the parties promises free ponies to the rural poor, in some cases literally buying votes, then when they try to enact their lol policies, the Bangkok elites have the military take control. Democracy doesn't work very well when there's huge inequality within a population.

The US Presidential election is a weird comparison though, because the President is not the legislative branch. The correct comparison would be with Congress, and any take that Congress is not dysfunctional and selling out a lot of people who didn't vote for them would be a scorching take indeed.

It's also not clear to me that an electoral college would solve the problems in Thailand. If they elected a Supreme Dictator to make laws, ignoring all the other problems with that idea, his best strategy would still be the Free Ponies For Poors one. I don't get how you think the electoral college would avert that. The problem with Thailand is not their system, but the extreme inequality, something America doesn't have (yet, but keep working on it).

it wasnt a protest. tomlin said so after the game.

Lol at this abomination of a thread. These people arent even SE posters. Get the sons of bitches out. Youre fired. Youre fired.

Holy **** stinkubus that is an incredible streak of terrible posts

In a page full of awful posts, this is the worst one. JFC.

"If the president says that all Muslims should be killed, well, I guess I'll go grab my butcher's knife and go over to Amir's house. I don't really want to, but, hey, electoral college, you know? Nothing I can do."

Presumably this xnbomb guy spent the last 8 years loyally defending everything President Obama said and did since the authority of POTUS cannot be questioned

"Anyone who enlists in the military likes to kill people" is a pretty hot take. Probably created a dozen Trump voters with that one.

The results may shock you!

Bad liberal takes have created precisely zero Trump voters

I don't see how anyone can dislike what Villanueva did.

Either you like it because it creates a distraction for the lol steelers and **** the steelers (the correct take) or you're a mouthbreathing steeler slappy who loves it because standing for the anthem means you are a TRUE AMERICAN who SUPPORTS OUR TROOPS.

Theres a really simple flowchart that people need to follow and itd make the world a much better place.


Does someome have the right to do something? YES
.
.
.
Is it harming anyone? NO
.
.
.
Shut the **** up

What's the big debate about Villanueva. We live in America and you have the right to sit for the anthem and you have the right to stand and salute during the anthem.

This is great, TUT GOAT.