More accurately, the people who pay them exorbitant sums to say the inexcusable things they say - that is, precisely the people Trump insisted, in the face of all available evidence, he was not only completely unaccountable to, but righteously opposed to - remain very much in charge.Mischief Maker wrote:Through Donald Trump, Sean Hannity and the Fox & Friends morons are already President!
And fuck this guy too.Painting them as a dangerous aggressor while we bring their neighbors into our protection racket and surround them with military bases qualifies. Arming proxy forces to cause trouble for them also qualifies.So what exactly, in your opinion, qualifies as "messing with" Russia?
If you could forget about the Trump-Putin bromance fan faction for a second, you would notice that the Trump admin's policy thus far has consisted of sanctions, accusations, more sanctions, and more accusations.With few exceptions, the entirety of the Trump administration's stance towards Russia
What you describe here is nothing at all like reality.Yeah, but when our ballyhooed strategy for keeping humanity safe is largely limited to allowing the purported aggressors to repeatedly bash us and others in the face with a wooden hammer in hopes that they won't switch to a metal one, when does it become appropriate to question the wisdom and/or efficacy of such a strategy?
If the WHO publishes lies, that would make them liars, yes. Are they in charge of investigating alleged war crimes now?Presumably that includes the WHO.
There's an argument to be had concerning just how well the Putin regime in fact fits the "aggressor" role, but for the heck of it, sure, let's agree that all the missile bases we've set up at their doorstep over the decades are excessive to the point of being provocative. And what the heck, let's also assume outright that most of the rebel groups and whatnot that we've supported when Russia is on the other side of the conflict were ill-advised as well. Now that we're here, it might be worth noting, once again, that the only person who seems giddy at the prospect of "solving" the Russia issue with explosive ordinance, despite how fraught with peril the situation has become, is Trump and company, though that certainly hasn't stopped the lot of them from painting everyone else as teetering us on the brink of the apocalypse. And aside from "get a couple thousand troops out of Syria" nothing much has been proposed, at least that I'm aware of, to alleviate the "provocative" actions you describe; all Trump seems to think is necessary is "turning on the charm", and he moreover blames anyone with doubts about the wisdom of cozying up to the Putin regime for not letting him succeed, so the unbroken streak of "somebody else's fault" continues in grand fashion.ED-057 wrote:Painting them as a dangerous aggressor while we bring their neighbors into our protection racket and surround them with military bases qualifies. Arming proxy forces to cause trouble for them also qualifies.
As I said earlier, they have happened, but only ever follow protracted foot-dragging, contradictory statements, and (fancy that) accusations that anyone who wants any action taken that Russia might not be able to instantaneously brush off is a blood-drinker; whatever does result inevitably does so under protest (EDIT: ...and then some!). By contrast, whenever the administration deems the proper response to be "push the launch button", suddenly Trump, by contrast, is decisive, strong, high-energy (and, lest we forget, somehow simultaneously manages to "keep all options on the table" at the same timeIf you could forget about the Trump-Putin bromance fan faction for a second, you would notice that the Trump admin's policy thus far has consisted of sanctions, accusations, more sanctions, and more accusations.
). The only thing that seems to get Trump's attention, much like most others', when it comes to Russia or Syria is chemical weapon use; "regular" ol' indiscriminate civilian slaughter? Human rights abuses on the survivors? Suspension or elimination of basic freedoms and rights? Rigged domestic elections? Interference in foreign ones? Imperialistic forays into foreign territory? Sometimes-fatal suppression of dissent? Propping up even more openly brutal regimes than oneself? Sabotaging any UN resolution to do anything about any of the above? By the time we get to Nikki Haley uttering a few harsh words (before they're shoved back down her throat by her boss, anyway) we've had the rest of the country and the rest of the planet berated for tempting the doomsday clock, while the slaughter and its accompanying nativist "what me worry" goes on, and the cycle soon repeats. Until there's another politically-expedient excuse for a missile launch.What you describe here is nothing at all like reality.
No, but it IS their job to say "we're treating people for symptoms consistent with chemical weapon use". Which they've done, and you apparently believe they just made the whole thing up. To repurpose a heretofore-unanswered question I posed to quash some time ago, who isn't in on the con? Who doesn't want to start WW3? Whose attestations would you believe when it comes to anything Russia-related? Pretty much everyone who's said anything thus far for at least the past several years has seemingly been corrupted beyond redemption and ruled out, so who's left, aside from Daddy's increasingly-schizophrenic (but always somehow Better Than The Alternative) personal judgement on the matter?If the WHO publishes lies, that would make them liars, yes. Are they in charge of investigating alleged war crimes now?
...and Gorsuch and the Federal Judiciary, lifetime appointments all.BryanM wrote:The difference between Clinton is that the tax cuts for billionaires are in the form of a raw across the board cut, as opposed to subsidies and other pick-and-choose kickbacks.
Trump is both giddy about explosive ordinance and "cozying up" in the same paragraph? Yes, Trump is a bit of a flip-flopper. Aside from that, I don't even know what you're trying to argue.There's an argument to be had concerning just how well the Putin regime in fact fits the "aggressor" role, but for the heck of it, sure, let's agree that all the missile bases we've set up at their doorstep over the decades are excessive to the point of being provocative. And what the heck, let's also assume outright that most of the rebel groups and whatnot that we've supported when Russia is on the other side of the conflict were ill-advised as well. Now that we're here, it might be worth noting, once again, that the only person who seems giddy at the prospect of "solving" the Russia issue with explosive ordinance, despite how fraught with peril the situation has become, is Trump and company, though that certainly hasn't stopped the lot of them from painting everyone else as teetering us on the brink of the apocalypse. And aside from "get a couple thousand troops out of Syria" nothing much has been proposed, at least that I'm aware of, to alleviate the "provocative" actions you describe; all Trump seems to think is necessary is "turning on the charm", and he moreover blames anyone with doubts about the wisdom of cozying up to the Putin regime for not letting him succeed, so the unbroken streak of "somebody else's fault" continues in grand fashion.
Well, my position is that none of this needed to happen, nor does it serve any legitimate purpose. It's all a distraction.As I said earlier, they have happened, but only ever follow protracted foot-dragging
That's because chemical weapon use is part of the narrative (whether it actually happened or not).The only thing that seems to get Trump's attention, much like most others', when it comes to Russia or Syria is chemical weapon use
Very few are in on it, unfortunately some people fall for the lies and most aren't paying attention. (For instance, that "cutting taxes increases revenue" thing that you like to bring up)who isn't in on the con?
Anyone who thinks about it for long enough?Who doesn't want to start WW3?
That depends. You need to consider the bigger picture.Whose attestations would you believe when it comes to
What I've been arguing, for quite some time now, is that two of Team Trump's most treasured justifications for all the shit he (and they) have pulled, namely 1) Even just saying something wrong (as Hillary so clearly did), let alone taking any kind of aggressive action, when it comes to Syria or Russia will be more than enough to tip Putin over the edge and doom civilization, and 2) Trump, unlike all those establishment elitists he's so obviously nothing like at all, Obviously Gets This and will act accordingly, are a load of open-faced horseshit, always have been, and anyone who ever peddled them is, much like their chosen avatar, either a shameless huckster or a blithering idiot.ED-057 wrote:Aside from that, I don't even know what you're trying to argue.
...is there supposed to be some kind of clever "point" to these turns of phrase, or did a screw come loose?your hero George W....your BFF Trump
That certainly wasn't the tune being struck in the lead-up to the election, in particular...back then the America Firsters were basically in 9/11 mode all over again, and to be quite frank haven't retreated much from the they're everywhere, trust no one, revere no institution, they're all liars, and out to get me mindset that continues to allow them to dismiss out of hand pretty much anything that might suggest their recent political and social path has proved, shall we say, counterproductive.Very few are in on it, unfortunately some people fall for the lies and most aren't paying attention. (For instance, that "cutting taxes increases revenue" thing that you like to bring up)
Even if that Something, as you subsequently suggest yourself, is non-military in nature? If I may remind you once again, the only one who seems to truly see the situation in pure "blow more shit up, I support nothing else" terms is Daddy, so why should those with more nuanced takes, not to mention genuine humanitarian concerns, be the ones to receive the "boy who cried wolf" treatment?When someone from the country with the trillion-dollar military and hundreds of foreign military bases says that Something Must Be Done(tm) about Russian aggression? Probably BS.
If you expect Trump voters to apologize for voting for the candidate who offered what they wanted but failed to deliver, rather than the candidate who offered what they didn't want, then you're out of luck. I don't see Obama voters apologizing for his failure to close Gitmo and vowing to vote Repub next time. (Have I ever mentioned that the "two" party system is garbage and arguing about it is a huge waste of time?)What I've been arguing, for quite some time now, is that two of Team Trump's most treasured justifications for all the shit he (and they) have pulled, namely 1) Even just saying something wrong (as Hillary so clearly did), let alone taking any kind of aggressive action, when it comes to Syria or Russia will be more than enough to tip Putin over the edge and doom civilization, and 2) Trump, unlike all those establishment elitists he's so obviously nothing like at all, Obviously Gets This and will act accordingly, are a load of open-faced horseshit, always have been, and anyone who ever peddled them is, much like their chosen avatar, either a shameless huckster or a blithering idiot.
People don't have to be in on the con to be instruments of it.That certainly wasn't the tune being struck in the lead-up to the election, in particular...back then the America Firsters were basically in 9/11 mode all over again, and to be quite frank haven't retreated much from the they're everywhere, trust no one, revere no institution, they're all liars, and out to get me
This is plainly not true. There is a whole circus of reliable war cheerleaders from "bomb bomb bomb Iran" Mccain and his ilk, to presstitutes like Thomas Friedman and Trump's idiot foreign counterparts May and Netanyahu. War existed before Trump and will continue to exist after.If I may remind you once again, the only one who seems to truly see the situation in pure "blow more shit up, I support nothing else" terms is Daddy
What Trump voters, like anyone else in a position like theirs, need to be doing, in line with your insistence that folks these days (or is it just certain types of folks?) should be "listening hard for BS" (or is it just certain brands of BS?), is to consider what's happened since the election (and what's on the horizon), why those things have happened, and ask themselves honestly what precisely it was that convinced (or "convinced") them that Trump was ever the guy truly "offering what they wanted"...or, for that matter, what, exactly, "what they wanted" comprised.ED-057 wrote:If you expect Trump voters to apologize for voting for the candidate who offered what they wanted but failed to deliver, rather than the candidate who offered what they didn't want, then you're out of luck.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for WWIII and so is a vote for Trump. US imperialism is a bipartisan affair. Shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp, no?Mischief Maker wrote:...aaaaand Trump pulled us out of the Iran nuclear deal.
Remember when people were saying a vote for Hillary was a vote for WWIII?
"Stupid".indulgently stupid "Giant Meteor 2016" bumper stickers
Another idiotic gesture from Trump (and the neocons and AIPAC and the Sauds). But are the Europeans sufficiently annoyed yet to challenge it? Will Emma Sheen defect from the Titans to AEUG?...aaaaand Trump pulled us out of the Iran nuclear deal.
It's an incredibly difficult concept. The other team is the bad team. My team has what plants crave. My team has electrolytes. The other team doesn't have electrolytes. That's why everything is the other team's fault. Bip-arti-san? Is that a kind of sex position?US imperialism is a bipartisan affair. Shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp, no?
The really difficult-to-grasp idea seems to be "it is possible to openly and correctly label one party/candidate/etc. worse than another on particular grounds without being a mindless ideologue whose every criticism somehow implies that the alternative has no faults whatsoever."ED-057 wrote:It's an incredibly difficult concept.
Yep. The democrats might be the obviously greater evil, but that doesn't make the republicans good. As the heel, they get to push the envelope on how much their joint employer Goldman Sachs gets to gobble up within any given election cycle.BulletMagnet wrote:correctly label one party/candidate/etc. worse than another on particular grounds without being a mindless ideologue whose every criticism somehow implies that the alternative has no faults whatsoever."
One big flaw in the US voting system is the lack of an "Against All" choice on the November ballot. It's a shame that you can only vote "for" a candidate, especially if you're stuck with a choice between Trump & Hillary.BryanM wrote:Yep. The democrats might be the obviously greater evil, but that doesn't make the republicans good. As the heel, they get to push the envelope on how much their joint employer Goldman Sachs gets to gobble up within any given election cycle.BulletMagnet wrote:correctly label one party/candidate/etc. worse than another on particular grounds without being a mindless ideologue whose every criticism somehow implies that the alternative has no faults whatsoever."
