|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 09 2017 00:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 00:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Even if "NYT" was some monolithic superentity parsing out exactly which stories are published, the claims aren't truly contradictory. Elements of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow as a narrative is in no way contradictory with Trump acts hastily in foreign policy and potentially endangers foreign relations as a narrative.
In fact, given the NYT's other reporting those narratives sync almost perfectly-for them he's a fairly easily manipulable ill-tempered clod with poor tactical consideration and impulse control who conducts about-faces on a whim which can undo all that manipulation. Those kinds of people are sure to fuck up their own plans. So Putin comes out pretty bad in this for all these manipulations wasted. Does the official Putin spokesperson have a comment?
Well, "all" the manipulation was probably not the right way to phrase it. There's still been plenty of anti-NATO rhetoric and the creation of a branch of the Republican party and mouthpieces who will defend Russian actions to the hilt because Democrats have a negative opinion of them, which is probably worth more to them than a single attack that in reality won't amount to much unless escalations continue.
Undoing "all" manipulation applies more to people like Bannon (if those rumors are to be believed) though some of his pals definitely benefited.
Plus there's always the chance Russia is prepping to wash their hands of Syria for whatever complicated geopolitical reason.
|
This would be an odd time for Russia to withdraw given that they're basically on the cusp of getting everything they wanted in the region and the consensus on Russia in Syria has slowly but surely eroded among the people who have started to get a feel for exactly what kind of "moderate rebels" are being called allies.
I could only see that happening if the US decided that they wanted to fuck up everything in the region and get themselves involved in yet another quagmire with no end.
|
On April 09 2017 01:45 LegalLord wrote:
This would be an odd time for Russia to withdraw given that they're basically on the cusp of getting everything they wanted in the region and the consensus on Russia in Syria has slowly but surely eroded among the people who have started to get a feel for exactly what kind of "moderate rebels" are being called allies.
I could only see that happening if the US decided that they wanted to fuck up everything in the region and get themselves involved in yet another quagmire with no end.
Is that where we're headed? It kind of feels like it. It would be straight out of the Bush playbook to get into a war in a country most people can't find on a map as approval ratings are dropping, with justifications like "but he's killing his own people, he's basically Hitler."
On the other hand the fact that it's straight out of Bush's playbook would probably make it super unpopular, and Trump probably knows that, considering all of his Monday morning quarterbacking about Iraq.
|
I have no idea if that's where we're headed. Ask Mattis. Trump basically pissed off everyone who liked him in the span of one short-sighted decision.
|
On April 08 2017 23:29 Karpfen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 09:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 09:24 Godwrath wrote:On April 08 2017 07:43 zlefin wrote:
So? there's a nontrivial portion of EVERY base that are idiots. that doesn't mean much other than every side has idiots.
nor does it change that there were in fact some russian interference, that racism/sexism/xenophobia do have some real effect on the election.
so many people gotta be disingenuous pricks about the topic, trying to cover the actual facts with misrepresentations and strawmen. Correct. It's also true that the electability for the presidential run as a postitive trait to vote for Hillary during the primaries was a recurrent argument around here so it's not actually unrelated to the thread itself. But to be honest, i am more interested to know where is the democrat party moving from their loss: Has it seen Trump's victory as an own failure and a need to change in some issues ? Or do they feel like the voterbase still don't know what's best for the country* and after a Trump's term they can be persuaded back? *due to fake news, Russians, racism/sexism, ignorance... I can understand frustration from some people if it's the second, and i can also see it backfiring again. I would say that the voter-base legitimately does not understand what is in their own best interest, let alone the country. Which is why the mark of a good politician is the ability to wrap unpalatable but effective policies into a popular message. So, are you willing to make the only logical step from your premise and declare democracy a failure? You basicly said that that a good politican has to make things sound good to people but the thing is, they can be made to sound good even if they are not good. In any case you do not trust the decisions of the people which is fine, but I wonder how much that is related to them electing a person you don't like.
Reliance on an informed and engaged populace has always been a weakness of democracy, declaring democracy as a form of government a failure based on that weakness seems abit dramatic. The logical step from his statement, however, is that our democracy will fail if we fail to maintain a populace that is able to/interested in governing itself, and I think thats pretty true.
|
On April 09 2017 01:56 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 01:45 LegalLord wrote:
This would be an odd time for Russia to withdraw given that they're basically on the cusp of getting everything they wanted in the region and the consensus on Russia in Syria has slowly but surely eroded among the people who have started to get a feel for exactly what kind of "moderate rebels" are being called allies.
I could only see that happening if the US decided that they wanted to fuck up everything in the region and get themselves involved in yet another quagmire with no end. Is that where we're headed? It kind of feels like it. It would be straight out of the Bush playbook to get into a war in a country most people can't find on a map as approval ratings are dropping, with justifications like "but he's killing his own people, he's basically Hitler." On the other hand the fact that it's straight out of Bush's playbook would probably make it super unpopular, and Trump probably knows that, considering all of his Monday morning quarterbacking about Iraq.
well apparently Graham wants 5-7k ground troops in Syria. I doubt this administration has an actual plan though.
|
BUDAPEST, Hungary — A group with alleged historical links to Nazi Germany has told NBC News it was "proud" when President Donald Trump's deputy assistant wore its medal.
Controversy has swirled around Sebastian Gorka, one of Trump's top counterterrorism advisers, ever since he attended the president's Jan. 20 Inaugural Ball wearing the honorary medal of Hungarian nationalist organization Vitezi Rend.
NBC News traveled to Hungary to dig deeper into Gorka's ties with the group, speaking with members of the organization as well as with locals who knew him when he lived there.
"When he appeared on U.S. television ... with the medal of the Vitez Order ... it made me really proud," Vitezi Rend spokesman Andras Horvath said in the Hungarian capital of Budapest. Vitezi Rend is also known as the Order of Vitez.
Three people, including one of Gorka's former political allies, said he was a well-known member of Vitezi Rend back in Hungary, a charge he strongly denies.
Gorka's decision to wear the medal — which he said was awarded to his Hungarian-born father — has provoked outrage among Jewish groups.
While in Budapest, NBC News also spoke with Andras Heisler, the Hungarian vice-president of the New York-based World Jewish Congress, who said that wearing the medal "isn't a good message for a democratic society."
Vitezi Rend was founded in 1920 by Hungarian ruler Miklos Horthy to award medals to Hungarian veterans of World War I. But the group's history became murky after the country allied with Nazi Germany in 1938.
Heisler told NBC News that members of the organization were likely complicit in the murder of some of the hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews toward the end of World War II.
During the war, the State Department listed Vitezi Rend among a group of "organizations under the direction of the Nazi government of Germany." And Horthy, its founder, once said that "I have always been an anti-Semite throughout my life," according to "The Jews of Hungary," a 1995 book by Hungarian-Jewish historian Raphael Patai.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/sebastian-gorka-made-nazi-linked-vitezi-rend-proud-wearing-its-n742851
|
On April 09 2017 02:02 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 01:56 ChristianS wrote:On April 09 2017 01:45 LegalLord wrote:
This would be an odd time for Russia to withdraw given that they're basically on the cusp of getting everything they wanted in the region and the consensus on Russia in Syria has slowly but surely eroded among the people who have started to get a feel for exactly what kind of "moderate rebels" are being called allies.
I could only see that happening if the US decided that they wanted to fuck up everything in the region and get themselves involved in yet another quagmire with no end. Is that where we're headed? It kind of feels like it. It would be straight out of the Bush playbook to get into a war in a country most people can't find on a map as approval ratings are dropping, with justifications like "but he's killing his own people, he's basically Hitler." On the other hand the fact that it's straight out of Bush's playbook would probably make it super unpopular, and Trump probably knows that, considering all of his Monday morning quarterbacking about Iraq. well apparently Graham wants 5-7k ground troops in Syria. I doubt this administration has an actual plan though.
Going to have to talk to Hillary about it, she's had a plan for it for years.
|
United States43518 Posts
On April 09 2017 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 02:02 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 09 2017 01:56 ChristianS wrote:On April 09 2017 01:45 LegalLord wrote:
This would be an odd time for Russia to withdraw given that they're basically on the cusp of getting everything they wanted in the region and the consensus on Russia in Syria has slowly but surely eroded among the people who have started to get a feel for exactly what kind of "moderate rebels" are being called allies.
I could only see that happening if the US decided that they wanted to fuck up everything in the region and get themselves involved in yet another quagmire with no end. Is that where we're headed? It kind of feels like it. It would be straight out of the Bush playbook to get into a war in a country most people can't find on a map as approval ratings are dropping, with justifications like "but he's killing his own people, he's basically Hitler." On the other hand the fact that it's straight out of Bush's playbook would probably make it super unpopular, and Trump probably knows that, considering all of his Monday morning quarterbacking about Iraq. well apparently Graham wants 5-7k ground troops in Syria. I doubt this administration has an actual plan though. Going to have to talk to Hillary about it, she's had a plan for it for years.
She had the same plan Obama had. Make the case to Congress and try and get them to step up. Of course it turns out Congress has a rape fantasy. If you ask them for consent they say no and call you a pussy. If you don't ask they fucking love it.
|
On April 09 2017 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 02:02 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 09 2017 01:56 ChristianS wrote:On April 09 2017 01:45 LegalLord wrote:
This would be an odd time for Russia to withdraw given that they're basically on the cusp of getting everything they wanted in the region and the consensus on Russia in Syria has slowly but surely eroded among the people who have started to get a feel for exactly what kind of "moderate rebels" are being called allies.
I could only see that happening if the US decided that they wanted to fuck up everything in the region and get themselves involved in yet another quagmire with no end. Is that where we're headed? It kind of feels like it. It would be straight out of the Bush playbook to get into a war in a country most people can't find on a map as approval ratings are dropping, with justifications like "but he's killing his own people, he's basically Hitler." On the other hand the fact that it's straight out of Bush's playbook would probably make it super unpopular, and Trump probably knows that, considering all of his Monday morning quarterbacking about Iraq. well apparently Graham wants 5-7k ground troops in Syria. I doubt this administration has an actual plan though. Going to have to talk to Hillary about it, she's had a plan for it for years.
Start with the no-fly zone. Russia will comply because the only reason they didn't is that Obama was a weak leader. Assad will go, the moderate rebels will come together and establish a moderate democracy as a bald eagle perches atop an American flag erected atop the Syrian Parliament Building in the US's honor for finally ending the brutal Assad regime and bringing peace. And all will be well with the world.
|
On April 08 2017 23:29 Karpfen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 09:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 09:24 Godwrath wrote:On April 08 2017 07:43 zlefin wrote:
So? there's a nontrivial portion of EVERY base that are idiots. that doesn't mean much other than every side has idiots.
nor does it change that there were in fact some russian interference, that racism/sexism/xenophobia do have some real effect on the election.
so many people gotta be disingenuous pricks about the topic, trying to cover the actual facts with misrepresentations and strawmen. Correct. It's also true that the electability for the presidential run as a postitive trait to vote for Hillary during the primaries was a recurrent argument around here so it's not actually unrelated to the thread itself. But to be honest, i am more interested to know where is the democrat party moving from their loss: Has it seen Trump's victory as an own failure and a need to change in some issues ? Or do they feel like the voterbase still don't know what's best for the country* and after a Trump's term they can be persuaded back? *due to fake news, Russians, racism/sexism, ignorance... I can understand frustration from some people if it's the second, and i can also see it backfiring again. I would say that the voter-base legitimately does not understand what is in their own best interest, let alone the country. Which is why the mark of a good politician is the ability to wrap unpalatable but effective policies into a popular message. So, are you willing to make the only logical step from your premise and declare democracy a failure? You basicly said that that a good politican has to make things sound good to people but the thing is, they can be made to sound good even if they are not good. In any case you do not trust the decisions of the people which is fine, but I wonder how much that is related to them electing a person you don't like.
Failure compared to what? Because that's the key question, not about how bad democracy is, but if there is any alternative that would be better.
And absolutely, a politician can take a bad plan and sell it. That's, more or less, the situation you have right now. But I wouldn't call them a good politician for it - sure, they're good at the getting elected part, but it doesn't matter when they fail at their actual job.
I'd say Obama, more than anyone else in recent memory, is a good example of everything I've said. He took complex, difficult plans and sold them to the voting population in easy to swallow messages, and after implementing them it took years for people to realize how beneficial the changes were for themselves. He's also a perfect example of expectations of voters not meeting the reality of the leadership, which lead a lot of people toward politicians who were promising those things.
|
On April 09 2017 02:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 23:29 Karpfen wrote:On April 08 2017 09:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 09:24 Godwrath wrote:On April 08 2017 07:43 zlefin wrote:
So? there's a nontrivial portion of EVERY base that are idiots. that doesn't mean much other than every side has idiots.
nor does it change that there were in fact some russian interference, that racism/sexism/xenophobia do have some real effect on the election.
so many people gotta be disingenuous pricks about the topic, trying to cover the actual facts with misrepresentations and strawmen. Correct. It's also true that the electability for the presidential run as a postitive trait to vote for Hillary during the primaries was a recurrent argument around here so it's not actually unrelated to the thread itself. But to be honest, i am more interested to know where is the democrat party moving from their loss: Has it seen Trump's victory as an own failure and a need to change in some issues ? Or do they feel like the voterbase still don't know what's best for the country* and after a Trump's term they can be persuaded back? *due to fake news, Russians, racism/sexism, ignorance... I can understand frustration from some people if it's the second, and i can also see it backfiring again. I would say that the voter-base legitimately does not understand what is in their own best interest, let alone the country. Which is why the mark of a good politician is the ability to wrap unpalatable but effective policies into a popular message. So, are you willing to make the only logical step from your premise and declare democracy a failure? You basicly said that that a good politican has to make things sound good to people but the thing is, they can be made to sound good even if they are not good. In any case you do not trust the decisions of the people which is fine, but I wonder how much that is related to them electing a person you don't like. Failure compared to what? Because that's the key question, not about how bad democracy is, but if there is any alternative that would be better. And absolutely, a politician can take a bad plan and sell it. That's, more or less, the situation you have right now. But I wouldn't call them a good politician for it - sure, they're good at the getting elected part, but it doesn't matter when they fail at their actual job. I'd say Obama, more than anyone else in recent memory, is a good example of everything I've said. He took complex, difficult plans and sold them to the voting population in easy to swallow messages, and after implementing them it took years for people to realize how beneficial the changes were for themselves. He's also a perfect example of expectations of voters not meeting the reality of the leadership, which lead a lot of people toward politicians who were promising those things.
Obama's policies were not particularly popular and even now they are only reluctantly approved on their own merits when assessed devoid of context. I'm afraid that what really gave Obama his popularity is his personal charisma, his ability to sell very mildly palatable plans to the public in a package that they would reluctantly accept by talking a very good talk.
|
On April 09 2017 02:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2017 02:02 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 09 2017 01:56 ChristianS wrote:On April 09 2017 01:45 LegalLord wrote:
This would be an odd time for Russia to withdraw given that they're basically on the cusp of getting everything they wanted in the region and the consensus on Russia in Syria has slowly but surely eroded among the people who have started to get a feel for exactly what kind of "moderate rebels" are being called allies.
I could only see that happening if the US decided that they wanted to fuck up everything in the region and get themselves involved in yet another quagmire with no end. Is that where we're headed? It kind of feels like it. It would be straight out of the Bush playbook to get into a war in a country most people can't find on a map as approval ratings are dropping, with justifications like "but he's killing his own people, he's basically Hitler." On the other hand the fact that it's straight out of Bush's playbook would probably make it super unpopular, and Trump probably knows that, considering all of his Monday morning quarterbacking about Iraq. well apparently Graham wants 5-7k ground troops in Syria. I doubt this administration has an actual plan though. Going to have to talk to Hillary about it, she's had a plan for it for years. She had the same plan Obama had. Make the case to Congress and try and get them to step up. Of course it turns out Congress has a rape fantasy. If you ask them for consent they say no and call you a pussy. If you don't ask they fucking love it.
Weird how it was just a matter of who said it. Democrats didn't want Obama to escalate in Syria, but they are on board with the maniac who can't be trusted with our military escalating in Syria. Many saying he's not escalating enough and this +the nonstop bombing (that was happening under Obama as well) is just theater.
The plan you're referring to is a no-fly zone which would take troops on the ground and cost american casualties. Kinda like what Graham is pushing.
So Democrats aligned with Hillary and hawks like Graham are on the same page, escalate in Syria. Meanwhile Trump is the voice of moderation on escalating middle east conflicts against "liberals" (not you kwark).
Me and xDaunt over here like "please don't keep escalating conflict in the middle east" hahahah
What a world.
|
Isn't really surprising though, the "anti-imperialist" left and the isolationist right share pretty much the same FP positions. It's 'America first' in both camps, for different reasons.
|
On April 09 2017 02:58 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 02:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 23:29 Karpfen wrote:On April 08 2017 09:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 09:24 Godwrath wrote:On April 08 2017 07:43 zlefin wrote:
So? there's a nontrivial portion of EVERY base that are idiots. that doesn't mean much other than every side has idiots.
nor does it change that there were in fact some russian interference, that racism/sexism/xenophobia do have some real effect on the election.
so many people gotta be disingenuous pricks about the topic, trying to cover the actual facts with misrepresentations and strawmen. Correct. It's also true that the electability for the presidential run as a postitive trait to vote for Hillary during the primaries was a recurrent argument around here so it's not actually unrelated to the thread itself. But to be honest, i am more interested to know where is the democrat party moving from their loss: Has it seen Trump's victory as an own failure and a need to change in some issues ? Or do they feel like the voterbase still don't know what's best for the country* and after a Trump's term they can be persuaded back? *due to fake news, Russians, racism/sexism, ignorance... I can understand frustration from some people if it's the second, and i can also see it backfiring again. I would say that the voter-base legitimately does not understand what is in their own best interest, let alone the country. Which is why the mark of a good politician is the ability to wrap unpalatable but effective policies into a popular message. So, are you willing to make the only logical step from your premise and declare democracy a failure? You basicly said that that a good politican has to make things sound good to people but the thing is, they can be made to sound good even if they are not good. In any case you do not trust the decisions of the people which is fine, but I wonder how much that is related to them electing a person you don't like. Failure compared to what? Because that's the key question, not about how bad democracy is, but if there is any alternative that would be better. And absolutely, a politician can take a bad plan and sell it. That's, more or less, the situation you have right now. But I wouldn't call them a good politician for it - sure, they're good at the getting elected part, but it doesn't matter when they fail at their actual job. I'd say Obama, more than anyone else in recent memory, is a good example of everything I've said. He took complex, difficult plans and sold them to the voting population in easy to swallow messages, and after implementing them it took years for people to realize how beneficial the changes were for themselves. He's also a perfect example of expectations of voters not meeting the reality of the leadership, which lead a lot of people toward politicians who were promising those things. Obama's policies were not particularly popular and even now they are only reluctantly approved on their own merits when assessed devoid of context. I'm afraid that what really gave Obama his popularity is his personal charisma, his ability to sell very mildly palatable plans to the public in a package that they would reluctantly accept by talking a very good talk.
Which was more or less my point?
I mean, obviously ymmv depending on which party line you're sitting on. But something like Obamacare wouldn't have been implemented if he wasn't good at selling the plan to the public, and then the voting public flip-flopped on electing Republicans campaigning to remove it, then crying out when they realized they'd lose health care coverage if it was gone.
|
On April 09 2017 03:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 02:58 LegalLord wrote:On April 09 2017 02:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 23:29 Karpfen wrote:On April 08 2017 09:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 09:24 Godwrath wrote:On April 08 2017 07:43 zlefin wrote:
So? there's a nontrivial portion of EVERY base that are idiots. that doesn't mean much other than every side has idiots.
nor does it change that there were in fact some russian interference, that racism/sexism/xenophobia do have some real effect on the election.
so many people gotta be disingenuous pricks about the topic, trying to cover the actual facts with misrepresentations and strawmen. Correct. It's also true that the electability for the presidential run as a postitive trait to vote for Hillary during the primaries was a recurrent argument around here so it's not actually unrelated to the thread itself. But to be honest, i am more interested to know where is the democrat party moving from their loss: Has it seen Trump's victory as an own failure and a need to change in some issues ? Or do they feel like the voterbase still don't know what's best for the country* and after a Trump's term they can be persuaded back? *due to fake news, Russians, racism/sexism, ignorance... I can understand frustration from some people if it's the second, and i can also see it backfiring again. I would say that the voter-base legitimately does not understand what is in their own best interest, let alone the country. Which is why the mark of a good politician is the ability to wrap unpalatable but effective policies into a popular message. So, are you willing to make the only logical step from your premise and declare democracy a failure? You basicly said that that a good politican has to make things sound good to people but the thing is, they can be made to sound good even if they are not good. In any case you do not trust the decisions of the people which is fine, but I wonder how much that is related to them electing a person you don't like. Failure compared to what? Because that's the key question, not about how bad democracy is, but if there is any alternative that would be better. And absolutely, a politician can take a bad plan and sell it. That's, more or less, the situation you have right now. But I wouldn't call them a good politician for it - sure, they're good at the getting elected part, but it doesn't matter when they fail at their actual job. I'd say Obama, more than anyone else in recent memory, is a good example of everything I've said. He took complex, difficult plans and sold them to the voting population in easy to swallow messages, and after implementing them it took years for people to realize how beneficial the changes were for themselves. He's also a perfect example of expectations of voters not meeting the reality of the leadership, which lead a lot of people toward politicians who were promising those things. Obama's policies were not particularly popular and even now they are only reluctantly approved on their own merits when assessed devoid of context. I'm afraid that what really gave Obama his popularity is his personal charisma, his ability to sell very mildly palatable plans to the public in a package that they would reluctantly accept by talking a very good talk. Which was more or less my point? I mean, obviously ymmv depending on which party line you're sitting on. But something like Obamacare wouldn't have been implemented if he wasn't good at selling the plan to the public, and then the voting public flip-flopped on electing Republicans campaigning to remove it, then crying out when they realized they'd lose health care coverage if it was gone.
Obama left with popularity, and yet both possible successors were deeply disliked - and the base of both parties is as polarized as ever. Not to mention that despite his personal popularity the party he led has been thoroughly wiped out at the local and state level. That doesn't sound like particular popularity for his policies - merely acceptance. Even among the Democrats who should be with him all the way. I'm not sure that could be called a particular success of "selling his policies" considering that they are far from safe right now.
|
On April 09 2017 03:07 Nyxisto wrote:
Isn't really surprising though, the "anti-imperialist" left and the isolationist right share pretty much the same FP positions. It's 'America first' in both camps, for different reasons.
Can anyone give me an explanation as to why/how Trump haphazardly wielding Americas military went from being a "threat to humanity" to "another Friday" among so many Democrats?
|
On April 09 2017 03:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 03:07 Nyxisto wrote:
Isn't really surprising though, the "anti-imperialist" left and the isolationist right share pretty much the same FP positions. It's 'America first' in both camps, for different reasons. Can anyone give me an explanation as to why/how Trump haphazardly wielding Americas military went from being a "threat to humanity" to "another Friday" among so many Democrats?
Because Democrats only oppose war after the fact, when it had a bad result.
|
On April 09 2017 03:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 03:07 Nyxisto wrote:
Isn't really surprising though, the "anti-imperialist" left and the isolationist right share pretty much the same FP positions. It's 'America first' in both camps, for different reasons. Can anyone give me an explanation as to why/how Trump haphazardly wielding Americas military went from being a "threat to humanity" to "another Friday" among so many Democrats?
I don't think any Democrat is a fan of Trump as commander in chief but I guess many people agree that Assad needs to go? After all that was Clinton's position as well and everybody knew it.
On April 09 2017 03:19 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 03:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2017 03:07 Nyxisto wrote:
Isn't really surprising though, the "anti-imperialist" left and the isolationist right share pretty much the same FP positions. It's 'America first' in both camps, for different reasons. Can anyone give me an explanation as to why/how Trump haphazardly wielding Americas military went from being a "threat to humanity" to "another Friday" among so many Democrats? Because Democrats only oppose war after the fact, when it had a bad result.
In contrast to evaluating military action before the results are in? Do you agree that there is such a thing as a justified military intervention or does that term only apply if you grab land in the process?
|
On April 09 2017 03:21 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 03:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2017 03:07 Nyxisto wrote:
Isn't really surprising though, the "anti-imperialist" left and the isolationist right share pretty much the same FP positions. It's 'America first' in both camps, for different reasons. Can anyone give me an explanation as to why/how Trump haphazardly wielding Americas military went from being a "threat to humanity" to "another Friday" among so many Democrats? I don't think any Democrat is a fan of Trump as commander in chief but I guess many people agree that Assad needs to go? After all that was Clinton's position as well and everybody knew it. Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 03:19 LegalLord wrote:On April 09 2017 03:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2017 03:07 Nyxisto wrote:
Isn't really surprising though, the "anti-imperialist" left and the isolationist right share pretty much the same FP positions. It's 'America first' in both camps, for different reasons. Can anyone give me an explanation as to why/how Trump haphazardly wielding Americas military went from being a "threat to humanity" to "another Friday" among so many Democrats? Because Democrats only oppose war after the fact, when it had a bad result. In contrast to evaluating military action before the results are in? Do you agree that there is such a thing as a justified military intervention or does that term only apply if you grab land in the process?
There is no continuity between the idea that Trump in control of our military is a threat to humanity and Trump should remove Assad.
Either people didn't believe the first part or they are willing to risk humanity to have Trump try to remove Assad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
