Roleplayer's Off Topic Thread #24

[Witchking of Angmar]

13 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

And if we did, I’d rather we lose “soft power”, and mind our business. And Europe mind theirs.

China is free to do as they please, it’s Europe that’s afraid of them, not us.

I doubt that will ever be the case as the world has gotten more and more interconnected. I doubt anything short of an apocalypse could really sever those connections. 

If you favor a more isolationist stance I can in a way understand it. Military interventions are probably way too expensive for what you gain out of them. But I don't think turning away from global politics almost completely will benefit you in the long run. The rest of the world will still affect you because of how interconnected it is. Ignoring that wont change the fact. It'll just mean you refuse to influence the world for your own benefit. 

Either way, I feel we both know enough of each other's stance by now and I think it's just better to agree to disagree. I also think it's time for a new Off Topic thread. 

[ColonelKillaBee]

Indeed which is why I said I doubt we could go back to isolationism. I don’t think it’s smart to take a leave out of global politics entirely but I don’t want our president getting us into any obligations to the UN, and I definitely will never, ever vote in accordance to what foreigners want for the US, especially since it is rarely, if ever for the benefit of the United States.

But anyway, I can agree to disagree indeed, it’s not personal or anything of course.

[The Good Doctor]

I think you missed Colonel’s point. 

1 hour ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

America doesn’t need to cater to Europe to influence them, soft or otherwise.

59 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

And if we did, [the stuff you disputed]

He also said he doesn’t favor total isolation. Hardly anyone does. America still benefits from relations with other countries, but there’s a difference between dealing with them fairly and bending over for them. It’s the latter that we have a problem with. 

Viking’d.  

Edited August 7, 2019 by The Good Doctor

[The Good Doctor]

8 minutes ago, Witchking of Angmar said:

Either way, I feel we both know enough of each other's stance by now and I think it's just better to agree to disagree. I also think it's time for a new Off Topic thread. 

I tried yesterday but couldn’t think of a poll idea.  

[Celan]

2 hours ago, Witchking of Angmar said:

We don't really elect leaders as you do. We vote for parties for the parliament and then the parties and party leaders decide among themselves who will get what posts in the new government. Foreign opinion is pretty much non-existent due to how unknown the party leaders are in other countries, but the media and the opposition would have a field day if for example the prime minister didn't have any tact when at a meeting with other national leaders.

Though then again, we are required to be a bit more aware of our foreign relations given how we are members of the EU where playing nice is required if one want to get any influence. 

Your voters still don't take their decisions on who to elect from the American popular opinion. And I'm not sure how the EU requires one to be nice, since they're unelected bureaucrats. But I can't believe Europeans let themselves be led around like that anyway, especially since the EU is so German dominated.

[Celan]

3 hours ago, Centurion said:

They all act like the military is gonna obey that order  nah that comes down the chain a huge chunk, perhaps 1/2 to 3/4 are gonna say nah fam and then there advantages start to slip.

I was thinking that too while reading some chump on reddit saying "if you won't agree to X and Y reforms then we're just going to have to repeal the 2nd Amendment."

You and what fucking army? Because it sure won't be ours.  

[Witchking of Angmar]

Though I think also a lot of our disagreement comes our disparate views. You say the US is bowing and scraping for other countries. We in the rest of the world don't see it like that and more often see the US as playing by its own rules than dealing with others fairly in a give and take. 

11 minutes ago, Celan said:

Your voters still don't take their decisions on who to elect from the American popular opinion. And I'm not sure how the EU requires one to be nice, since they're unelected bureaucrats. But I can't believe Europeans let themselves be led around like that anyway, especially since the EU is so German dominated.

While the EU does have some unelected bureaucrats it also got a parliament through which all laws and policies must be passed. In this parliament every country gets a number of seats proportional to the country's population. So the reason Germany and France (and formerly Britain) dominates so much is because they got really high populations. But every country also get veto power in the EU so if a country doesn't like something they can essentially block it forever. These last few years the biggest source of disgruntlement regarding the EU has actually been about the inability to unite around certain issues (like immigration) and having to deal with member countries that got in despite crap economy and really corrupt systems of government (Greece and Romania for example).

[ColonelKillaBee]

20 minutes ago, Celan said:

I was thinking that too while reading some chump on reddit saying "if you won't agree to X and Y reforms then we're just going to have to repeal the 2nd Amendment."

You and what fucking army? Because it sure won't be ours.  

That’s why I’m grabbing my ar-15 sooner rather than later, just in case the libs wanna get cute

[Celan]

22 minutes ago, Witchking of Angmar said:

Though I think also a lot of our disagreement comes our disparate views. You say the US is bowing and scraping for other countries. We in the rest of the world don't see it like that and more often see the US as playing by its own rules than dealing with others fairly in a give and take. 

While the EU does have some unelected bureaucrats it also got a parliament through which all laws and policies must be passed. In this parliament every country gets a number of seats proportional to the country's population. So the reason Germany and France (and formerly Britain) dominates so much is because they got really high populations. But every country also get veto power in the EU so if a country doesn't like something they can essentially block it forever. These last few years the biggest source of disgruntlement regarding the EU has actually been about the inability to unite around certain issues (like immigration) and having to deal with member countries that got in despite crap economy and really corrupt systems of government (Greece and Romania for example).

The US has footed the bill for NATO and the UN for decades, so that Europe can wag its collective finger at us and tell us we're barbaric. European nations can afford their luxury socialist states because the US pays for their defense in treasure and blood. 

I just couldn't imagine letting another country have veto power over your laws and policies.

16 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

That’s why I’m grabbing my ar-15 sooner rather than later, just in case the libs wanna get cute

Obama was the greatest AR-15 salesman in the last decade.

The hypocrisy is really astounding. Back in the 80s, when it was the Reagan administration pushing handgun bans and the Saturday Night Special was the scapegoat of choice, the Democrats called it racist. Now that they think it's an issue they can convince their base will only hurt rural white males they hate anyway, they're all "down with the NRA!"

[Celan]

Better hire a witcher

https://www.wbtv.com/2019/08/06/something-clawed-nc-teacher-death-woods-months-ago-nobody-knows-what-it-was/

 

[ColonelKillaBee]

He was racist but that’s neither here nor there  I get your point of course, that when republicans do it, they’re against it.

[Witchking of Angmar]

15 minutes ago, Celan said:

The US has footed the bill for NATO and the UN for decades, so that Europe can wag its collective finger at us and tell us we're barbaric. European nations can afford their luxury socialist states because the US pays for their defense in treasure and blood. 

I just couldn't imagine letting another country have veto power over your laws and policies.

While I wont deny that the US has carried a disproportionate load when it comes to NATO, I'm not sure what you're paying to the UN. I'm pretty sure there's no real membership fee for the UN because I would have heard of it by now as we tend to love to complain about paying money to international organisations. 

Veto power is more about which policies don't get implemented. A country can still implement a policy as long as it doesn't clash with already established EU law. Even then the EU has often been rather toothless if a country breaks with certain laws. 

On the whole EU is has been on the more positive side. The open market has given a lot of benefits, with a some exceptions where I think tighter regulations would be in order (like I really don't think we should import meat from certain countries), as well as not letting countries that can't keep their economy in order join. And a big point is so far no WW3. Still, membership fees are a bit too high and it's discouraging when a big portion of it goes to those countries with crap economies and corrupt governments. 

Edited August 7, 2019 by Witchking of Angmar

[Celan]

42 minutes ago, Witchking of Angmar said:

While I wont deny that the US has carried a disproportionate load when it comes to NATO, I'm not sure what you're paying to the UN. I'm pretty sure there's no real membership fee for the UN because I would have heard of it by now as we tend to love to complain about paying money to international organisations. 

Every UN member pays dues. The US pays the highest percentage, 22% of all UN agency and peacekeeping costs. By comparison, the next highest is Japan who pays a measly 9.68%. It's based on GDP, but I consider the UN worse than useless. It's a vanity project. We should not be paying anything at all. Why should I have to fork over tax dollars to a mass of nameless bureaucrats who just pass resolutions and have no ability to enact anything?

[The Good Doctor]

46 minutes ago, Witchking of Angmar said:

I'm not sure what you're paying to the UN. I'm pretty sure there's no real membership fee for the UN because I would have heard of it by now as we tend to love to complain about paying money to international organisations. 

We foot a massive chunk of the UN’s bills, both through mandatory payments and voluntary ones. 

Trump’s decision to scale back on our voluntary payments in order to put that money to use in our own country was met with the usual international scorn.

[Witchking of Angmar]

I just checked some numbers. It's true that you pay for about 22% of the UN budget. Though those 10 billion dollars only account for about 0.3% of your national tax revenue (and even less of the national budget as you always spend more than you make). In comparison Sweden pays 1.2 billion dollars, which is 1% of our national tax revenue. Norway pay 1 billion and Denmark 0.5 billion. So when it comes to contribution I think we in the north have more right to complain about disproportionate fees. 

[The Good Doctor]

19 minutes ago, Witchking of Angmar said:

So when it comes to contribution I think we in the north have more right to complain about disproportionate fees. 

By all means, have at it. 

[Witchking of Angmar]

Though if you really want to cut government costs I think the UN fees are more or less chump change for you in the grand scheme of things. 

[The Good Doctor]

1 minute ago, Witchking of Angmar said:

Though if you really want to cut government costs I think the UN fees are more or less chump change for you in the grand scheme of things. 

It’s $10+ billion that would be better off getting flushed down a very large toilet. And just because we could be more financially responsible in other areas doesn’t mean we shouldn’t put this money to better use as well. In fact, we should prioritize areas like this one first, since it’s especially useless.

And hell, one year of our UN spending is more than double what President Trump asked Congress for to build a border wall. When the democrats refused, our federal government got shut down for a whole month over just $4 billion.

[Witchking of Angmar]

I don't know why you think it's completely useless. While it's true that it is rather toothless and incapable of passing any resolutions, it at least provides a forum for countries to discuss things. Which the big point of is to prevent another WW, something it has more or less successfully done.

Also just checked. Trump asked for 12 billion for building the border wall. That is 20% more than what you spend on a year in the UN. Still little in the grand scheme of things and you people could always just borrow more as you always do. So on the whole that dispute was more ideological than economical. But this sin't the first time you've had a government shutdown over a dispute between congress and the president, and given how your system is set up I don't think it'll be the last. 

[The Good Doctor]

5 minutes ago, Witchking of Angmar said:

Also just checked. Trump asked for 12 billion for building the border wall. That is 20% more than what you spend on a year in the UN. Still little in the grand scheme of things and you people could always just borrow more as you always do.

Check again. He has asked for different amounts at different times. The time he asked for $4 billion is the one that got our government shut down.

7 minutes ago, Witchking of Angmar said:

I don't know why you think it's completely useless. While it's true that it is rather toothless and incapable of passing any resolutions, it at least provides a forum for countries to discuss things. Which the big point of is to prevent another WW, something it has more or less successfully done.

We are more than capable of sitting down and discussing things with other countries  without shoveling over billions of dollars to an ineffectual wannabe world government that mostly just condemns every next thing we do and pretends like it’s responsible for world peace.

[Witchking of Angmar]

7 minutes ago, The Good Doctor said:

Check again. He has asked for different amounts at different times. The time he asked for $4 billion is the one that got our government shut down.

Alright. Seems like he upped the estimate later on. Though when the shutdown happened he did ask for 5.7 billion. And the shutdown was actually more expensive with estimates pointing towards at least 10 billion. 

8 minutes ago, The Good Doctor said:

We are more than capable of sitting down and discussing things with other countries without shoveling over billions of dollars to an ineffectual wannabe world government that mostly just condemns every next thing we do and pretends like it’s responsible for world peace.

I think you underestimate the benefit of at least having a forum. Sitting down and speaking between countries has been possible since 1800s, but that didn't really prevent WW1. 

[The Good Doctor]

40 minutes ago, Witchking of Angmar said:

Alright. Seems like he upped the estimate later on. Though when the shutdown happened he did ask for 5.7 billion. And the shutdown was actually more expensive with estimates pointing towards at least 10 billion. 

The shutdown was over $4.1. Not 12 or the 5.7 that the House voted on before it. But this is splitting hairs and has little to do with either of our points. Mine is that there are more useful places to put billions of dollars than the UN.

40 minutes ago, Witchking of Angmar said:

I think you underestimate the benefit of at least having a forum. Sitting down and speaking between countries has been possible since 1800s, but that didn't really prevent WW1. 

Maybe in theory, but the UN has been a joke since it’s conception. It isn’t the reason there hasn’t been a WW3, and the causes of 1 and 2 were pretty specific with most countries in very different political and cultural mindsets at the time that would’ve likely rejected the UN to begin with.

And one thing that was common between both wars is that their causes had very little to do with the US. It isn’t our job to keep European nations from each other’s throats or to provide the bulk of the support for a phony organization that is mostly full of disdain for us anyway.

[ColonelKillaBee]

I’d rather pay tax dollars to protect our borders, ineffectual strategy or not, than waste them on the inept UN,

[Centurion]

The UN can lick my butt and suck on my balls. I can’t find a singular fuck give about what foreigners think about my country and sending billions to an organization that claims to be the reason “peace” has been maintained when we all know the true reason great powers don’t engage in open conflict nowadays. They are called fucking nukes. Europe and the rest of the world can laugh and sneer all they want, but at the end of the day we all know who the big dog is. Not only did we put a man on the moon with less technology than is in your hands right now, back to back world war champs, inventors of airplanes, etc etc, but we are also the greatest military force the world has ever seen. Someone else can have a say when we are completely reliant on them to protect us from the baddies of the world, but that’s not how it right now 

[The Good Doctor]

Made a new thread. We can continue this there if y’all want to, but I’m gonna lock this one now.