Like is it just destroyed, is it payed to the federal reserve, or does the government actually just use it as part of the budget for other things?

A lot of the debt is owned by the federal reserve... But it makes no sense to pay money to the guy who runs the printing press.

Yang has lost his Chinese Privileges

http://dlvr.it/RG4Nhy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEebVsIae6c&t=360

OHHHH. Mr Yang has been a very bad commie.

I think he is from Taiwan

So if he gets president that would be hilarious

The Chinese would have to deal with essentially their “joker”

A man who fundamentally dislikes them and has been shoved to the dark with his entire family

While he leads the stronger nation now

The nationalists in China would have the last laugh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zmyH3VilSs

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/465431-gabbard-rips-trumps-syria-decision-kurds-are-now-paying-the-price

Tulsi flip-flopping on her stance on foreign military intervention? Conceptualize my astonishment

Sheesh how can this woman still be taken seriously, she does more flips than a gymnast

is this a flip flop?

Hey can anyone find that video of the UC berkley riots where Antifa attacks people with flag poles. I've been searching on youtube forever and can't find it

Tulsi being in favor of reduced interventionism and then switching that stance to "we should stay and fight their war?" Yeah that's flip-flop

It means she's a virtue signalling snake who doesn't actually have moral principles (this is her second offense on the issue of being unprincipled btw)

@Arth This?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBvmLCjbSng

tulsi was never anti-interventionist afaik

she's always advocated for fighting islamist terror groups

for example

i think her position was moreso that we shouldn't pursue a policy of regime change

https://www.thenation.com/article/tulsi-gabbard-president-foreign-islam/

That's exactly my point. Tulsi is a snake, she virtue signals, she's not really anti-interventionism and shit

And now she's been revealed (apparently not for the first time)

i mean has she every claimed to be opposed to foreign intervention outright

she's just stated her opposition to certain kinds of it

also the subtitle to that article is really funny

i might look at it later when i come back

I mean, from what I know she was the "only nationalist left candidate" and she ran on a strong reduction in interventionism

Doesn't mean zero intervention, I mean it's impossible to promise that anyway

So yeah maybe in absolute terms she never stated she's against intervention*ism*

So I'm actually starting to think that the Dems wanted her out of the race not because she was too promising, but because they knew she was too easy to read

Politics contains a great amount of poker, and someone who's terrible at bluffing will not perform well

yeah i mean this article seems to be in line with what i'm saying

the issue is that there seems to be a trend where when a politician comes out against certain forms of intervention they start to become labelled as "anti-war" or "anti-intervention"

you can see a similar thing with donald trump where people were ascribing these labels to him despite him advocating for putting boots on the ground in syria to combat ISIS and such

this article quotes here in 2016 saying “when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk. When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.”

her professed positions in the past as far as i'm aware don't conflict with the position she is taking now on this issue