It wouldn’t hurt to bring this up the next time someone tells you Trump is an anti-war candidate.

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    there are rooms full of rich men looking to start ww3 so they can profit from it. trump is just parroting their desires

    the us military budget literally never gets lowered even when they ask for it. but education, healthcare, anything helping human beings is always on the chopping block… always be cut back.

    • Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t know about lowering military budget or education or healthcare budgets at all. The key seems to be the control what those funds are spent on, to funnel them to industries and beneficiaries who support the people who get voted into office.

      I truly think the great majority of policy is set based on quid pro quo.

      Even anti-abortion has many economical opportunities. Morning after pills will spike. Neighboring state abortion clinics will explode in business. Labor in areas where abortions by the poors is not available will see a growing demand in baby products and immediately and eventually a very low cost labor base to manufacture goods to sell elsewhere.

      I do not believe politicians are dumb, on the contrary I think they have no sense of morality. The leadership of the party are vicious sociopathic megalomaniacs. They are experts at propaganda and manipulation via the media, where they work hand in hand with billionaire media owners.

      Short and near term financial gains can buy you a ticket to salvation after the planet is ruined in 50-250 years. If they need to buy luxury proprety and loads of slaves servants to retain their standing and quality of life, they are going to do that. If they are afraid of foreign powers taking control they have no issues starting proxy wars via russia or israel so the american people can spend hundreds of billions of dollars funding the military industrial complex contracts that them and their buddies benefit from, meanwhile sending the young high potential competitors to their children or grandchildren off to die on the front line.

      Anyway, the last thing they want to do is focus on taking care of the american people. IGMFY is the name of the game. The few rare exceptions like Bernie spin their wheels trying to effect real change and the majority of the other politicians try to stay out of the line of fire while promoting things that benefit themselves, typically only affecting them behind the scenes.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      If the Fallout TV show taught me anything, you cannot profit off of the apocalypse. That’s literally antithetical to capitalism. That’s why they disrespected the lore so much, right?

      • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        2 months ago

        history (aka, reality) proves war to be profitable.

        the american economy is incredibly dependent on creating and selling human killing devices. just go read what happens every time they try and cut back on the military-industrial complex.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Proxy wars are profitable. Total war really isn’t. Even in history for a war to be profitable, you have to be having the war outside your countries borders. Nukes aren’t profitable, and never will be.

          I hear what you are saying about the MIC. I also agree with Eisenhower when he said:

          “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

          • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Ultimately there’s no objective measure of whether “war is profitable”. There’s no objective definition of war. There’s no objective measurement of the “sides” and their profit/loss, much less the nuances of who specifically profits or loses.

            But total was is relatively profitable versus being destroyed. And it’s absolutely profitable for a select group of people. Most often it’s similar people on “both sides” that profit.

            • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Profitable for a select group of people, who should be named, shamed, tarred and feathered.

              I believe that if you were to do an economic analysis of the total P/L of the entirety of human conflict, the L column would overwhelmingly outweighs the P column, even leaving out all modern warfare, which just ramps up the L side. I say that because one of my econ professors did just that during a class. He published a paper about it, but I have no clue what it was called, it would have been somewhere between '96 and '98 that he published it.

              • Mammothmothman@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                They own all the guns though how can we name and shame when they can just destroy lives with impunity?