For the amount of times I’ve heard the words “power of the purse” in regards to congress I have yet to see them exercise that power to restrain the empire.
If the answer is always yes are they really asking for permission?
59
towhee [he/him] - 1day
nooooo the president can't unilaterally go to war nooooo they need the permission of congress, obviously we would say yes because $IMPERIAL_ENEMY_OF_THE_WEEK is evil, but you need permissiooooooon
29
FnordPrefect [comrade/them, he/him] - 1day
"Of course we had to increase the military budget if we want to be able to defeat China! What with the massive tariffs on all the components and materials we need for our weapons which we are 100% dependent on China for!"
41
tlekiteki @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 1day
Iraq style? No. This is far closer to home. Expect faster reprecussions.
40
ClimateStalin [they/them, he/him] - 1day
Venezuela is way closer and has a functional, modern army and Air Force. They have the ability to hit targets inside the United States, unlike Iraq.
25
thethirdgracchi [he/him, they/them] - 1day
Venezuela has no functional ability to strike targets in the United States. Unless Russia gave them some hypersonic missiles, they have no mechanism by which to do that outside of terror attacks. Maybe they could launch a drone swarm, but a) I doubt they have the numbers for that and being able to defend their own airspace at the same time and b) they would all almost certainly be shot down on the Caribbean before they entered American air space. Their air force is not nearly modern enough to penetrate American airspace in the slightest, nor is their navy large enough to really do anything. The most they could do to realistically hit targets "inside" the United States would be using their one submarine to maybe sink some ships in an American harbor, a tall feat but not impossible. Their military is well positioned to defend Venezuela against all attacks outside of air strikes (the modern US air fleet has too much stealth capability for the Venezuelan anti-air to pose any real threat), but they have as much of a chance striking targets inside the United States as Iraq did.
32
carpoftruth [any, any] - 1day
They have the ability to hit targets inside the United States, unlike Iraq.
extremely doubtful. at best they might get lucky and hit US military assets sitting off the coast
31
plinky [he/him] - 1day
eh on the airforce, it will be gotten got, even if it were functional
27
tlekiteki @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 1day
Eh, I dont expect that they can counterstrike directly.
20
LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins [none/use name] - 1day
idk I really doubt they have the numbers to effectively do so unless they've been given some advanced Chinese shit, which would be kind of a problem on its own if they possessed it and used it (i.e. in terms of the U.S. using it as further pretext for WWIII)
12
BountifulEggnog [she/her] - 1day
Shocked only 16% of republicans want a bigger military
36
MarxMadness [comrade/them] - 23hr
A decent political opponent could exploit the Republicans' contradiction between "America Fuck Yeah" and "tax is theft," but we have Democrats instead.
26
MayoPete [he/him, comrade/them] - 21hr
"I hate taxes"
"Why do you hate the troops?"
19
jack [he/him, comrade/them] - 7hr
The American public really does not love war
3
LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins [none/use name] - 1day
I guess the democrats couldn't have prevented it from passing but at the same time why have all these fuckers vote yes, just fucking vote no and make the republicans be solely responsible?
35
SacredExcrement [any, comrade/them] - 1day
They've got MiC donors as well
36
LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins [none/use name] - 1day
yeah but if their vote literally doesn't matter then it's worth more to their donors to play pretend that they're against it and not vote for it
13
SacredExcrement [any, comrade/them] - 1day
They don't necessarily vote just because of that, they vote because their donor can just as easily give money to their opposition, or sponsor a primary against them; these companies have money to burn for days
This is of course also all overlooking the simple fact that, being even slightly against the military in this country in any way, shape, or form is often a political death sentence
24
LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins [none/use name] - 1day
i mean this just means the donor class doesn't even know what they're paying these people to do
10
john_brown [comrade/them] - 1day
the bourgeoisie aren't smart, just wealthy
17
egg1918 [she/her] - 23hr
Because there is more than likely at least 1 Boeing/Lockheed/Ratheon factory or subcontractor based in their district.
8
sgtlion [any] - 23hr
Almost three thousand dollars per person, that's baby, adult and pensioner, and that's just a fraction of the total 'real' military spend.
No money for healthcare tho
34
Infamousblt [any] - 1day
It's the best system we got because in your system you have one rich dude who listens to nobody and does whatever they want but in our system we got hundreds of them and everyone knows bigger numbers is better numbers
25
Sanctus - 1day
I wouldnt really call this a democracy anymore. Its not run by the people and hasn't been for a while.
16
miz [any, any] - 1day
anymore
never was. from slavery to Jim Crow to modern debt peonage
Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich— that is the democracy of capitalist society. If we look more closely into the machinery of capitalist democracy, we see everywhere, in the “petty”— supposedly petty— details of the suffrage (residential qualifications, exclusion of women, etc.), in the technique of the representative institutions, in the actual obstacles to the right of assembly (public buildings are not for “paupers”!), in the purely capitalist organization of the daily press, etc., etc.,— we see restriction after restriction upon democracy. These restrictions, exceptions, exclusions, obstacles for the poor seem slight, especially in the eyes of one who has never known want himself and has never been in close contact with the oppressed classes in their mass life (and nine out of 10, if not 99 out of 100, bourgeois publicists and politicians come under this category); but in their sum total these restrictions exclude and squeeze out the poor from politics, from active participation in democracy.
In capitalist society, providing it develops under the most favourable conditions, we have a more or less complete democracy in the democratic republic. But this democracy is always hemmed in by the narrow limits set by capitalist exploitation, and consequently always remains, in effect, a democracy for the minority, only for the propertied classes, only for the rich. Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slaveowners. Owing to the conditions of capitalist exploitation, the modern wage slaves are so crushed by want and poverty that "they cannot be bothered with democracy", "cannot be bothered with politics"; in the ordinary, peaceful course of events, the majority of the population is debarred from participation in public and political life.
The US has been a full-blown military junta since 1963
30
Maturin [any] - 1day
The US has been a full-blown military junta since 1963 1775
21
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him] - 1day
Was it ever?
16
buttwater [they/them] - 1day
Joe Biden's 2020 electoral victory represented the highest popular vote turnout in American history, receiving 81 million votes with "66% voter turnout". Considering that the population in 2020 was 331 million (81÷331), only 24% of Americans, less than a quarter, voted for Joe Biden. Using this same formula Trump's recent election was made possibly by only receiving votes from 22% of the population. Consistently, fewer than half of all Americans participate in the Democratic process
16
ClimateStalin [they/them, he/him] - 24hr
That’s all true but I don’t think that actually proves that the US isn’t a democracy. Australia has mandatory voting, nearly everyone votes in every election, and Australia has no more functional a democracy than we do.
11
sgtlion [any] - 23hr
The point isn't about who voted, but moreso just an indication that such a small portion of the public actually choose to support the government. Therefore it isn't representative
Obviously mandatory voting doesn't make people choose to support a bourgeois government any more because it still doesn't solve the problem or give people real choice
plinky in news
Imperial grindset - 900 billion to military
linky
For the amount of times I’ve heard the words “power of the purse” in regards to congress I have yet to see them exercise that power to restrain the empire.
If the answer is always yes are they really asking for permission?
nooooo the president can't unilaterally go to war nooooo they need the permission of congress, obviously we would say yes because $IMPERIAL_ENEMY_OF_THE_WEEK is evil, but you need permissiooooooon
Iraq style? No. This is far closer to home. Expect faster reprecussions.
Venezuela is way closer and has a functional, modern army and Air Force. They have the ability to hit targets inside the United States, unlike Iraq.
Venezuela has no functional ability to strike targets in the United States. Unless Russia gave them some hypersonic missiles, they have no mechanism by which to do that outside of terror attacks. Maybe they could launch a drone swarm, but a) I doubt they have the numbers for that and being able to defend their own airspace at the same time and b) they would all almost certainly be shot down on the Caribbean before they entered American air space. Their air force is not nearly modern enough to penetrate American airspace in the slightest, nor is their navy large enough to really do anything. The most they could do to realistically hit targets "inside" the United States would be using their one submarine to maybe sink some ships in an American harbor, a tall feat but not impossible. Their military is well positioned to defend Venezuela against all attacks outside of air strikes (the modern US air fleet has too much stealth capability for the Venezuelan anti-air to pose any real threat), but they have as much of a chance striking targets inside the United States as Iraq did.
extremely doubtful. at best they might get lucky and hit US military assets sitting off the coast
eh on the airforce, it will be gotten got, even if it were functional
Eh, I dont expect that they can counterstrike directly.
idk I really doubt they have the numbers to effectively do so unless they've been given some advanced Chinese shit, which would be kind of a problem on its own if they possessed it and used it (i.e. in terms of the U.S. using it as further pretext for WWIII)
Shocked only 16% of republicans want a bigger military
A decent political opponent could exploit the Republicans' contradiction between "America Fuck Yeah" and "tax is theft," but we have Democrats instead.
"I hate taxes"
"Why do you hate the troops?"
The American public really does not love war
I guess the democrats couldn't have prevented it from passing but at the same time why have all these fuckers vote yes, just fucking vote no and make the republicans be solely responsible?
They've got MiC donors as well
yeah but if their vote literally doesn't matter then it's worth more to their donors to play pretend that they're against it and not vote for it
They don't necessarily vote just because of that, they vote because their donor can just as easily give money to their opposition, or sponsor a primary against them; these companies have money to burn for days
This is of course also all overlooking the simple fact that, being even slightly against the military in this country in any way, shape, or form is often a political death sentence
i mean this just means the donor class doesn't even know what they're paying these people to do
the bourgeoisie aren't smart, just wealthy
Because there is more than likely at least 1 Boeing/Lockheed/Ratheon factory or subcontractor based in their district.
Almost three thousand dollars per person, that's baby, adult and pensioner, and that's just a fraction of the total 'real' military spend.
No money for healthcare tho
It's the best system we got because in your system you have one rich dude who listens to nobody and does whatever they want but in our system we got hundreds of them and everyone knows bigger numbers is better numbers
I wouldnt really call this a democracy anymore. Its not run by the people and hasn't been for a while.
never was. from slavery to Jim Crow to modern debt peonage
—Lenin, State and Revolution, 1917
—Lenin, State and Revolution, 1917
all states are class dictatorships, so it has only ever been a democracy for the bourgeois class since it has always been a bourgeois dictatorship.
https://redsails.org/concessions/
https://redsails.org/xi-on-democracy/
The US has been a full-blown military junta since 1963
Was it ever?
Joe Biden's 2020 electoral victory represented the highest popular vote turnout in American history, receiving 81 million votes with "66% voter turnout". Considering that the population in 2020 was 331 million (81÷331), only 24% of Americans, less than a quarter, voted for Joe Biden. Using this same formula Trump's recent election was made possibly by only receiving votes from 22% of the population. Consistently, fewer than half of all Americans participate in the Democratic process
That’s all true but I don’t think that actually proves that the US isn’t a democracy. Australia has mandatory voting, nearly everyone votes in every election, and Australia has no more functional a democracy than we do.
The point isn't about who voted, but moreso just an indication that such a small portion of the public actually choose to support the government. Therefore it isn't representative
Obviously mandatory voting doesn't make people choose to support a bourgeois government any more because it still doesn't solve the problem or give people real choice