Cioran wrote
He also said the US military has been depleted.
US military spending:

Click to View Content

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Regardless of the US military spending jn relation to other countries, the military HAS been depleted.

Illustrated wrote

Cioran wrote
He also said the US military has been depleted.
US military spending:

Click to View Content

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Regardless of the US military spending jn relation to other countries, the military HAS been depleted.

He would only raise it in his speech if he felt like it was a problem which needed to be fixed.
I don't understand how more spending needs to be put into a military which is that large already.

It could have been depleted from $20 billion and I wouldn't see a need to raise that as an issue when it is still higher than all of those other countries combined.

Halo wrote Yeah we spend a lot on the military but I firmly believe if we were to fight in a major war against another super power tomorrow we would not be able to effectively eliminate the enemy without taking heavy casualties. We'd probably be near the numbers we were at in the Vietnam war. That's just my opinion from being in a mechanized infantry unit and being able to look at the equipment given to us.

From what I have seen a lot of the money invested in the US military goes towards vehicles, like fighter jets.
What else, if not weapons and equipment, does this money go towards?

This is a genuine question, I'm not trying to catch you out or anything.
I just don't understand how that much money can go on everything except what it should be prioritised towards.

Cioran wrote

Illustrated wrote

Cioran wrote
He also said the US military has been depleted.
US military spending:

Click to View Content

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Regardless of the US military spending jn relation to other countries, the military HAS been depleted.

He would only raise it in his speech if he felt like it was a problem which needed to be fixed.
I don't understand how more spending needs to be put into a military which is that large already.

It could have been depleted from $20 billion and I wouldn't see a need to raise that as an issue when it is still higher than all of those other countries combined.

Yeah we spend a lot on the military but I firmly believe if we were to fight in a major war against another super power tomorrow we would not be able to effectively eliminate the enemy without taking heavy casualties. We'd probably be near the numbers we were at in the Vietnam war. That's just my opinion from being in a mechanized infantry unit and being able to look at the equipment given to us.

Cioran wrote All of this stuff about giving him a chance is precious.
The people who supported him during his campaign are the people who should be most upset with him.

What did he campaign on? Draining the swamp, attacking other candidates for being owned by big money donors and Goldman Sachs? Then what does he do? Takes money from big money donors and appoints Goldman Sachs alumni to his administration.

This isn't political strategy... it's just lying. He was absolutely right to hammer Hillary on being corrupt but it's not alright for him to be a hypocrite all of a sudden.

He also said the US military has been depleted.
US military spending:

Click to View Content

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

But raising any kind of criticism of Trump on this website is asking for trouble.
OP asked on the previous page the harmless question of whether or not anyone wanted Bernie to win and he got downvoted three times.
When it comes to Trump you guys are just insufferable and you take everything like it's an attack against him as a person rather than his policy.
Just because far leftists only talk about him being a racist, bigoted, sexist doesn't mean there aren't other legitimate criticisms of him to be made.
I think Obama was a decent president but I can easily talk about all the terrible things he did while he was in office.

I guess I can thank Buzzfeed for giving his supporters a reason to doubt absolutely any criticism of him now.

As a trump supporter (not originally), I support his policies, you know, the things that he can act on. I don't care about his tactics of where he got today, it's all just smoke blowing in the wind. We don't vote based on what a candidate says about another, we vote based on what changes the candidate wants to make, what they support, and what they don't support.

As far as depleted military spending, it has nothing to do with what other countries are spending. Literally, nothing. It has to do what we normally spend vs what we are spending.



Yes, spending is higher than other countries. But guess who just got out of a couple wars? Would that possibly have ANYTHING to do with spending more on the military?

Either way, the dollar value isn't what matters. What matters is the actual military. Is it depleted? The force is smaller than when Obama took office and its equipment is aging. And, indeed, military leaders have spoken out about what they call the national-security dangers associated with climate change. That is the bottom line fact.

002 wrote

Cioran wrote All of this stuff about giving him a chance is precious.
The people who supported him during his campaign are the people who should be most upset with him.

What did he campaign on? Draining the swamp, attacking other candidates for being owned by big money donors and Goldman Sachs? Then what does he do? Takes money from big money donors and appoints Goldman Sachs alumni to his administration.

This isn't political strategy... it's just lying. He was absolutely right to hammer Hillary on being corrupt but it's not alright for him to be a hypocrite all of a sudden.

He also said the US military has been depleted.
US military spending:

Click to View Content

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

But raising any kind of criticism of Trump on this website is asking for trouble.
OP asked on the previous page the harmless question of whether or not anyone wanted Bernie to win and he got downvoted three times.
When it comes to Trump you guys are just insufferable and you take everything like it's an attack against him as a person rather than his policy.
Just because far leftists only talk about him being a racist, bigoted, sexist doesn't mean there aren't other legitimate criticisms of him to be made.
I think Obama was a decent president but I can easily talk about all the terrible things he did while he was in office.

I guess I can thank Buzzfeed for giving his supporters a reason to doubt absolutely any criticism of him now.

As a trump supporter (not originally), I support his policies, you know, the things that he can act on. I don't care about his tactics of where he got today, it's all just smoke blowing in the wind. We don't vote based on what a candidate says about another, we vote based on what changes the candidate wants to make, what they support, and what they don't support.

As far as depleted military spending, it has nothing to do with what other countries are spending. Literally, nothing. It has to do what we normally spend vs what we are spending.

Click to View Content

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Yes, spending is higher than other countries. But guess who just got out of a couple wars? Would that possibly have ANYTHING to do with spending more on the military?

Either way, the dollar value isn't what matters. What matters is the actual military. Is it depleted? The force is smaller than when Obama took office and its equipment is aging. And, indeed, military leaders have spoken out about what they call the national-security dangers associated with climate change. That is the bottom line fact.

I'm talking about the military in my post above because I don't want to saturate this post discussing it.

As a trump supporter (not originally), I support his policies, you know, the things that he can act on. I don't care about his tactics of where he got today, it's all just smoke blowing in the wind. We don't vote based on what a candidate says about another, we vote based on what changes the candidate wants to make, what they support, and what they don't support.

You vote based on what changes the candidate wants to make. Donald Trump said that he wanted to drain the swamp. You have said that you think it's great that we have a non-politician in office because we want change, yet Trump has done exactly what Hillary would have done had she been elected.

You don't see these as good reasons to be annoyed at him?

Just to clarify, when I say that he has done exactly what Hillary would have done I'm not saying that she would have appointed the same people, but that she would have appointed the same types of people. Establishment democrats rather than establishment republicans.

Edit: I'm just going to cut to the chase here so we aren't wasting a lot of our time.

I do think that a lot of people need to give him more of a chance. If he does things right I will be one of the first people to say "Good for him, he did that right."
But you can both give him a chance and criticise what he has already done, like criticising who he has picked for his administration.

Halo wrote

Cioran wrote

Illustrated wrote

Cioran wrote
He also said the US military has been depleted.
US military spending:

Click to View Content

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Regardless of the US military spending jn relation to other countries, the military HAS been depleted.

He would only raise it in his speech if he felt like it was a problem which needed to be fixed.
I don't understand how more spending needs to be put into a military which is that large already.

It could have been depleted from $20 billion and I wouldn't see a need to raise that as an issue when it is still higher than all of those other countries combined.

Yeah we spend a lot on the military but I firmly believe if we were to fight in a major war against another super power tomorrow we would not be able to effectively eliminate the enemy without taking heavy casualties. We'd probably be near the numbers we were at in the Vietnam war. That's just my opinion from being in a mechanized infantry unit and being able to look at the equipment given to us.

FINALLY! I'm actually glad someone finally said this. Everyone here talks like they are so educated on today's affairs and with our military. Have you ever served? Have you ever picked up an M4 from the armory before heading into the field? Our weapons are shit. Our M4's jam, missfeed and break down constantly. Our equipment is highly outdated or extremely worn. About a week before I got out a Paladin broke down and my buddy who is still enlisted and still there said it has been sitting in the same spot ever since and never touched. All these funds are put into the Airforce and Navy. We dropped 49,000 bombs this year on ISIS targets. Do you know how much just one bomb is? One JDAM is approximately 25,000 dollars depending on the ordinance size and payload.

Do the math, the Army and Marines equipment is not up to par. So increasing our military budget would provide more gear to our force on the ground and also add more safety to them with updated gear.

You can sit there all you want and type 15 paragraph posts about how we have to lower our budget and what not but this is the reality we live in.

Cioran wrote
From what I have seen a lot of the money invested in the US military goes towards vehicles, like fighter jets.
What else, if not weapons and equipment, does this money go towards?

This is a genuine question, I'm not trying to catch you out or anything.
I just don't understand how that much money can go on everything except what it should be prioritised towards.

We're a big country, and we (arguably) lead the world. A country like that needs a big military like our. And the more men you have means the more spending. The military funding goes to uniforms, food, and pay for the troops as well.. not just vehicles and weapons.

Illustrated wrote

Cioran wrote
From what I have seen a lot of the money invested in the US military goes towards vehicles, like fighter jets.
What else, if not weapons and equipment, does this money go towards?

This is a genuine question, I'm not trying to catch you out or anything.
I just don't understand how that much money can go on everything except what it should be prioritised towards.

We're a big country, and we (arguably) lead the world. A country like that needs a big military like our. And the more men you have means the more spending. The military funding goes to uniforms, food, and pay for the troops as well.. not just vehicles and weapons.

I'm getting from you and Glock- that spending goes mainly towards pay, food, bombs, the navy and the airforce.
If you were to end up in a war tomorrow with another major superpower which weapons would be the most effective. Would it be your boots on the ground and their equipment or the bombs from the airforce, etc. ?

If it is your boots on the ground then wouldn't it be better to re-allocate the funds and balance them across all areas of the military, rather than pouring it into one area while other areas are deprived?
If it is the air force and bombing then wouldn't you rather that money goes towards that area, rather than troop equipment?

Either way I don't see why military spending needs to be increased when the only problem seems to be mis-allocation of funds, rather than the pot not being full enough to adequately equip all areas.

Glock-, I understand that you are highly educated when it comes to military spending which is why I'm asking you guys these questions, rather than going to a random website which could be throwing its own spin on things. I trust that you, as a staunch arbiter of truth and justice, will not deceive me.

Cioran wrote

Illustrated wrote

Cioran wrote
From what I have seen a lot of the money invested in the US military goes towards vehicles, like fighter jets.
What else, if not weapons and equipment, does this money go towards?

This is a genuine question, I'm not trying to catch you out or anything.
I just don't understand how that much money can go on everything except what it should be prioritised towards.

We're a big country, and we (arguably) lead the world. A country like that needs a big military like our. And the more men you have means the more spending. The military funding goes to uniforms, food, and pay for the troops as well.. not just vehicles and weapons.

I'm getting from you and Glock- that spending goes mainly towards pay, food, bombs, the navy and the airforce.
If you were to end up in a war tomorrow with another major superpower which weapons would be the most effective. Would it be your boots on the ground and their equipment or the bombs from the airforce, etc. ?

If it is your boots on the ground then wouldn't it be better to re-allocate the funds and balance them across all areas of the military, rather than pouring it into one area while other areas are deprived?
If it is the air force and bombing then wouldn't you rather that money goes towards that area, rather than troop equipment?

Either way I don't see why military spending needs to be increased when the only problem seems to be mis-allocation of funds, rather than the pot not being full enough to adequately equip all areas.

Glock-, I understand that you are highly educated when it comes to military spending which is why I'm asking you guys these questions, rather than going to a random website which could be throwing its own spin on things. I trust that you, as a staunch arbiter of truth and justice, will not deceive me.

i respect that, I do.

We need to subtract some funds from the navy and Airforce and focus on the Army and Marines. We need updated technology and equipment

Glock- wrote

Cioran wrote

Illustrated wrote

Cioran wrote
From what I have seen a lot of the money invested in the US military goes towards vehicles, like fighter jets.
What else, if not weapons and equipment, does this money go towards?

This is a genuine question, I'm not trying to catch you out or anything.
I just don't understand how that much money can go on everything except what it should be prioritised towards.

We're a big country, and we (arguably) lead the world. A country like that needs a big military like our. And the more men you have means the more spending. The military funding goes to uniforms, food, and pay for the troops as well.. not just vehicles and weapons.

I'm getting from you and Glock- that spending goes mainly towards pay, food, bombs, the navy and the airforce.
If you were to end up in a war tomorrow with another major superpower which weapons would be the most effective. Would it be your boots on the ground and their equipment or the bombs from the airforce, etc. ?

If it is your boots on the ground then wouldn't it be better to re-allocate the funds and balance them across all areas of the military, rather than pouring it into one area while other areas are deprived?
If it is the air force and bombing then wouldn't you rather that money goes towards that area, rather than troop equipment?

Either way I don't see why military spending needs to be increased when the only problem seems to be mis-allocation of funds, rather than the pot not being full enough to adequately equip all areas.

Glock-, I understand that you are highly educated when it comes to military spending which is why I'm asking you guys these questions, rather than going to a random website which could be throwing its own spin on things. I trust that you, as a staunch arbiter of truth and justice, will not deceive me.

i respect that, I do.

We need to subtract some funds from the navy and Airforce and focus on the Army and Marines. We need updated technology and equipment

When you say subtract you don't then mean that the amount of money currently being allocated to the US military in total needs to be increased. It just needs to be distributed more evenly?

Because if that's what you're saying then I would completely agree.

I don't understand why a lot of republicans say that military spending needs to be increased overall if the problem can be solved without increasing the amount spent allowing that leftover money to go to other areas which need it, like healthcare, or education.