Prelude to the Apocalypse

[Mischief Maker]

Immigration Reform.

Border Security.

[Zen]

How about a complimentary warning with those Sam Seder links, MM?
Seder's opening, "ICE . . . are still a, uh, still basically a terrorist organisation, as far as I am concerned" . . . alrighty then!

[Mischief Maker]

How about a complimentary warning with those Sam Seder links, MM?
Seder's opening, "ICE . . . are still a, uh, still basically a terrorist organisation, as far as I am concerned" . . . alrighty then!

I'm sorry he triggered you, but if you'd learned to embrace an open exchange of ideas and kept listening, you'd hear a pretty straightforward explanation for why he makes that argument.

ICE doesn't have the resources to deport fast enough to keep up with all these arrests of mothers who check in with immigration (as opposed to chasing down gang members, which was the priority under Obama) and could have easily put her sheet at the bottom of the pile and not deported that woman on the very night of her daughter's prom.

That's the unnecessary cruelty encouraged by the new Trump administration to terrorize the immigrant community.

[Zen]

I'm sorry he triggered you, but if you'd learned to embrace an open exchange of ideas and kept listening, you'd hear a pretty straightforward explanation for why he makes that argument.

Apology accepted.
I wasn't triggered so much as i was miffed, at giving Sam Seder clicks. I watched the video (God help me) and it went on the same way it started. As did the purposefully maudlin news piece.
Seders video also contained such gems as "i think the Steve Bannon endgame of it, is to deport everyone who is not from America and then have White people do low wage jobs" and other such silliness.
A typical Sam Seder video, in other words.


As for;

if you'd learned to embrace an open exchange of ideas

Thats not true now, is it?
I am posting in a thread where I read and consider everyone's views. A thread where, if one does not fall in with a particular perspective, one is to all intents and purposes persona non grata.

[BulletMagnet]

You're clueless about at least half of those things, but whatever. None of it's going to matter if DC gets its way in Syria which is unfortunately looking more likely given current events.

Yup, it's all completely the domain of DC, of the establishment, of the Deep State, just like they forced Daddy at gunpoint to launch those tomahawks last time around. He begged them not to, because he obviously takes the whole "looking wrong at Syria = WW3" canard just as seriously as you yourself obviously do, but they just wouldn't listen, because they all want to annihilate mankind that badly!

I really do not see how anyone, let alone self proclaimed liberals or leftists, can condone military action in a country that did not provoke the US.

If it turns out they violated international law via the use of chemical weapons, especially with the winking approval of other, more prominent nations, that might be worth looking into, even, believe it or not, for folks that weren't directly gassed, even if you consider the whole human rights thing annoyingly passe. Of course, plenty of folks would much rather pursue such ends through non-military avenues (like, y'know, not starving the State Department to death, or hiring John Bolton), but of course suggesting anything short of "never detach lips from Putin's dick" means that you still want to kill off humanity just as much as, well, John Bolton.

But I guess if cable news can convince people that border security and immigration reform are in the best interests of Russian hackers, it can convince you of the same story it failed to this time last year.

Yup, that's totally the core of the Supah Dupah Librul Media Narrative, and not something you pulled out of your ass to rankle anyone with an ounce of sense. Fuck off.

[BryanM]

even if you consider the whole human rights thing annoyingly passe.

The United States still has slavery. Would a foreign nation be justified in attacking us with their military in order to free them?

I'd respect you more on this issue if you said you wanted to take their stuff and give it to our capitalists ala someone like Trump does. At least it'd be honest.

I'm still amazed you're accepting the word of the same exact same people who brought us "WMD's in Iraq/Saddam wants to murder us all" as altruistic well-meaning guys. Real peace loving hippies, these blood gurgling fucks are. Just telling us the truth, can't possibly be propaganda nope that can't happen here because our country is better than those fools in the entire rest of the world.

That's not racist at all. Nope.

[BulletMagnet]

Dude, seriously, read that paragraph again. Sometimes you're almost as maddeningly incoherent as quash.

[BryanM]

The use of sarin gas in Ghouta was half a decade ago. The investigation was inconclusive. No further information on the matter can be acquired without the use of a time machine. Unless someone hax into al-Assad's private e-mail server and finds an e-mail saying "gas the fuckers".

The implication that a war crime 5 years ago and the one 6 days ago would be remotely sufficient cause to "help" people by murdering them, well, yes of course I'd find that distasteful.

North Korea is more belligerent than most countries, but the solution to that problem isn't nuking the place. It's by aligning the interests of their ruling body to be more in line with the well being of its people and surrounding nations.

But it's more important to finish the encirclement of Iran first. Once you've conquered all of Europe, you get 5 more infantries a turn. Which will really help out with that land war in Asia. (Which is worth a whooping 7 more infantries per turn!) After that, well, it's hard to imagine what comes after that.

My guess is a boot stomping on a human face.

[quash]

Pretty sure I linked this before, but what the hell.

http://www.newsweek.com/now-mattis-admi ... ple-801542

"Human rights abuses" lol. You voted for Hillary you useful idiot.

[ED-057]

Yup, it's all completely the domain of DC, of the establishment, of the Deep State, just like they forced Daddy at gunpoint to launch those tomahawks last time around. He begged them not to, because he obviously takes the whole "looking wrong at Syria = WW3" canard just as seriously as you yourself obviously do, but they just wouldn't listen, because they all want to annihilate mankind that badly!

Help me! My narratives are getting mixed up. Am I supposed to hate Trump because he didn't use the beautiful missles enough, because he is going to use the beautiful missles again, because it wasn't his idea to use the beautiful missles, or because it was truly his idea to use the beautiful missles? Am I supposed to hate Trump because he is going to start WW3 intentionally, because he is going to start WW3 unintentionally, or because WW3 isn't going to start yet?

If it turns out they violated international law via the use of chemical weapons

I assume that by 'they' you mean the US, who violates international law as they please and doesn't give a shit, and freely admits to using chemical weapons.

especially with the winking approval of other, more prominent nations

I assume you mean Israel and Saudi Arabia (who could be prominent-er?)

that might be worth looking into

The corporate media already looked into it. They said it's all good. HAND.

even if you consider the whole human rights thing annoyingly passe

Sometimes it becomes necessary to destroy the village in order to save it. Spreading democracy. Fightin' terrrr. Squirell!

plenty of folks would much rather pursue such ends through non-military avenues

That's OK, we'll use the beautiful missles on them too.

starving the Yemen to death

I think you had a little henkan miss there.

State Department

The State Dept. is in great hands now. We just hired the guy from the agency that tortures people and then does a half-assed job of covering it up. A very prestigious institution.

but of course suggesting anything short of "never detach lips from Putin's dick"

Hush BM, don't reveal our secret plan as to how we're going to pull off (heheh, "pull off") our first strike without Putin noticing.

you still want to kill off humanity just as much as, well, John Bolton

Yeehaw! God bless 'merica!

[BulletMagnet]

Help me! My narratives are getting mixed up. Am I supposed to hate Trump because...

I wouldn't say you're "supposed to" hate anyone, per se, but I would hope that by this point a reasonable person would admit that, no matter what motivations you might try to attach to Trump's on-the-record words and actions when it comes to Syria, he obviously doesn't believe that looking askance at the place means WW3, and thus the "...and that's why he's so soft on Putin, it's a matter of global survival!" explanation for his (likewise inconsistent) Russia policy is a load of cynical garbage and always has been. Then again, the targeted crowd still insist that tax cuts for rich people equals magic money for everyone, so I'm not holding my breath.

As for most of the other stuff you said (the more-or-less coherent portion, anyway), I've always found it fascinating that the folks who claim to be looking out most for America's interests are the ones that also like to use the fact that our country has serious misdeeds of its own to contend with as an excuse to passively allow everyone else to commit those same misdeeds, thus throwing a major roadblock into any possible path we could take to begin to atone for those atrocities. When you get down to it it's nihilism garbed in patriotism - everyone sucks, no point trying to fix it, but at least we can say we're honest about how much everything sucks! Global policy as written by the kid with the pierced tongue and raccoon eyeshadow in sophomore poetry class.

[BryanM]

Global policy as written by the kid with the pierced tongue and raccoon eyeshadow in sophomore poetry class.

You're very good at calling people names + misframing other people's opinions, and not very good at specifying your own actual, solid policy positions. It's so easy to never be wrong when you never say anything.

Could you, maybe, explain to us the situations in which murdering 50,000+ Syrians in order to overthrow their current regime would be acceptable? Make it crystal clear instead of obfuscating what you really believe, if anything, by trying to destroy any possibility of discussion by ratcheting up the toxicity?

[Mischief Maker]

A-ha!

Paul Ryan dropped out like the punk that he is. See how easy it is to beat Republicans if you actually put a modicum of support behind local races, Clinton-wing?

Something tells me he isn't going to settle down in Janesville, WI.

[BulletMagnet]

Could you, maybe, explain to us the situations in which murdering 50,000+ Syrians in order to overthrow their current regime would be acceptable?

First you'll have to explain to me how on earth you came to (say you) believe that I must support such a thing at all. And sorry, "you voted for Hillary" doesn't count.

[quash]

Here's a question: would you support military intervention to protect South African farmers who are having their land seized by their government and being killed by people their government is turning a blind eye to? How about military intervention to protect Palestinians on the Gaza strip?

Before you pull the "whataboutism" trap card from your deck of John Oliver trading cards, take a step back and try to see how this is relevant. I really want to try to understand why Syria of all countries is the one we should be concerned about from a humanitarian perspective when there's far worse shit going on in other countries that most people couldn't give less than a shit about. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for it.

Moreover, you should probably think harder about your positions. You claim that attacking Syria wouldn't start a chain reaction that could easily blow up into something much larger than the initial bargain, yet under the same breath you claim that not intervening is playing into Putin's hand. Somehow, you also seem to think that intervening in Syria wouldn't result in an unthinkable civilian death toll. Perhaps your solution is to relocate them all?

Lastly, have a look at this. I can't believe I even have to prove this to you, but Trump was staunchly anti-interventionist well before he even announced his presidency.

[ED-057]

I wouldn't say you're "supposed to" hate anyone, per se, but I would hope that by this point a reasonable person would admit that, no matter what motivations you might try to attach to Trump's on-the-record words and actions when it comes to Syria, he obviously doesn't believe that looking askance at the place means WW3, and thus the "...and that's why he's so soft on Putin, it's a matter of global survival!" explanation for his (likewise inconsistent) Russia policy is a load of cynical garbage and always has been.

There are no non-evil reasons to f%#* with Russia. None. Now, you seem to think that someone has improperly used this truth as an excuse to explain away some otherwise objectionable policy. Can you give a specific example of such a policy? Also, I would like to remind any logically-challenged readers that even if "we gotta avoid WW3 don'cha know" was/is actually offered as a lame excuse for some misdeed, that does NOT mean that we shouldn't still be trying to avoid WW3.

I've always found it fascinating that the folks who claim to be looking out most for America's interests are the ones that also like to use the fact that our country has serious misdeeds of its own to contend with as an excuse to passively allow everyone else to commit those same misdeeds, thus throwing a major roadblock into any possible path we could take to begin to atone for those atrocities.

When pundits speak about "America's interests" they are only speaking about the interests of a subset of Americans. I think you know the subset that I mean (hint: they just got a tax cut). I certainly don't claim to be looking out for them. And while nationalism may be slightly less bad than globalism, I am also not in favor of things that benefit my country which come at great cost to other countries. Love thy neighbor. Or at least, don't rape and pillage them.

I also don't believe that if a tree falls in the forest, it's because America "allowed" it to. We are not God. We are not the world police. The first step that the US should take in atoneing for past misdeeds, is to mind its own damn business and stop commiting further misdeeds.

I'm not saying that the US would never be justified to intervene when some bad shit is going down. But there is a huge, gargantuan, astronomical problem with people that want to go to war for "humanitarian" reasons (even worse than the obvious problem that bombing people doesn't help them). They are LIARS. LIARS who profit from war. LIARS who lament the misfortune of others while actively causing that misfortune. LIARS who just keep throwing the brown substance at the wall, waiting for something to stick, something that will dupe others into going along with their plans for mass murder, that they are practically drooling over all the while. The lowest, most disgusting form of humanoid. A.k.a. neocons. When the LIARS claim that Assad or Putin did this or that, there is no reason to believe them.

(If there is any population that needs "saving" I would suggest that Yemenis need saving from the US and its "ally" KSA. But the LIARS aren't itching to save Yemen for some reason. Wonder why.)

[BryanM]

Paul Ryan dropped out like the punk that he is.

Can't wait for him to run for president and out-Jeb Jeb!

A great example of the rot always visible at the tail end of collapsing power structures. Someone who never should have been able to become a politician. And never would have been, in a merit based system.

The first step that the US should take in atoneing for past misdeeds

We could also prosecute our war criminals.

..............lol

Could you imagine what kind of insane world this would be if there were even a 0.0001% chance of that happening? Dracula driving a stake through his own heart. It's the realm of fantasy.

Lastly, have a look at this. I can't believe I even have to prove this to you, but Trump was staunchly anti-interventionist well before he even announced his presidency.

Except for when he wasn't. It's so easy to glom onto the positives and ignore the negatives if you like someone's personality. Like with many Obama supporters - people talked about him like he was the second coming of FDR.

Words cost nothing. If you want to see into someone's heart, you look at their budgets. A song and a dance is such a useless ephemeral thing.

[quash]

Obviously things are different now. Or maybe they aren't. He's certainly playing hard to get at the moment. At least he's having some doubts?

[Mischief Maker]

Hey, speaking of playing hard to get, Trump is now pro-TPP.

I'm. so. incredibly. shocked.

Shit, at this point you might as well have voted for Hillary.

[BryanM]

I like how the article doesn't mention the corporate tribunal for investor-state disputes in the TPP.

The failing New York Times, everyone.

[gameoverDude]

Good riddance to Paul Ryan.
I don't approve of Idiot Trump preparing to attack Syria again. It's sad that those civilians got murdered, but it's not really our problem.

We don't need that damn TPP. I'm not so sure NAFTA is necessary either. Let countries who have trade disputes hash them out in a strictly bilateral manner.

[Specineff]

Bwa ha ha ha. I wonder, where are all those Paper Patriots who sang Trump's praises and paraded him as the solution to the chaos and destruction that Hillary Clinton was going to bring? Guess they're not so proud of him now that he's tearing the country apart and the only meaningful piece of legislation he's passed is a permanent tax cut for the rich. Voter's Remorse much?

[quash]

If that's the case, you really shouldn't be relishing in it, because it means your vote literally doesn't matter and we're fucked no matter what.

[BryanM]

Fun how the news about the gulf stream is so ho-hum. Always fun to feel blasé about forthcoming extinction.

it means your vote literally doesn't matter

My vote got crooked fuckers like Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Kirsten Gillibrand to pretend they support expanding Medicare.

Your vote helped create the power vacuum in the democratic party where an actual revolution is possible. As well as creating a 2006 style reactionary blue wave. I'm of the opinion that feelings and intent don't matter, only the end effect. So thanks for that much.

One day Mr.Burns won't be the only option, once all the TV voters are gone.

[quash]

My vote doesn't count regardless because I'm registered in California. I'm either pissing in the ocean or pissing in an ocean of piss.

[BryanM]

Wrong.

It's called a primary. If you didn't vote in the primary, you didn't vote at all.

If you think the general election matters 1/10th as much, then you've been badly brainwashed by TV propaganda.

In a couple years you get to decide if you prefer Sanders or Biden as the next president, or if you don't care. Biden also has the best chance of getting Trump reelected since like Hillary, the abstract idea of Biden is a lot more attractive than the reality of Biden. Not nearly at the same magnitude, but he kicks his base occasionally just the same.

Lots of power, you have. This isn't even touching on the house elections.

And it's a good day to be Scooter Libby. The most righteous of all possible worlds.

[BulletMagnet]

Here's a question: would you support military intervention to protect South African farmers who are having their land seized by their government and being killed by people their government is turning a blind eye to? How about military intervention to protect Palestinians on the Gaza strip?

Feel free to remind me of when I advocated military action at all, in Syria or anywhere else.

Y'know, it's kind of funny - the folks still somehow clinging to the "only Trump doesn't want to hit the big flashing insta-doomsday button in Syria, everyone else wants to kill us all for some undisclosed reason, it's probably in Hillary's emails" view of the world seem to assume from the outset of every such "discussion" that any proposed reaction to Assad and/or Putin from anyone but Trump must be, by default, no-holds-barred belligerent in nature, when the only one who actually seems to be wearing those particular blinders is none other than Trump himself. Trade sanctions, on-the-record criticism, multilateral condemnation? It's like pulling teeth. Launching missiles? Now we're talking!

Off to the side, it was absolutely precious to see Sarah Sanders explain how, when Trump specifically threatened to send more missiles into Syria, he was actually, in his own, very special way, saying in an abundantly clear fashion that "all options are still on the table". I don't know how much farther past the point of parody we can get before coming back out the other end, but Team Trump seems determined to find out.

I really want to try to understand why Syria of all countries is the one we should be concerned about from a humanitarian perspective when there's far worse shit going on in other countries that most people couldn't give less than a shit about. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for it.

On purely humanitarian grounds I wouldn't put it leagues above other places (and, again, feel free to point out where I did so), but, as you yourself would surely attest (albeit on completely different grounds, which the President himself has done his damndest to grind into powder), the outcome there will likely have wider implications outside of its borders than most, if nothing else.

There are no non-evil reasons to f%#* with Russia. None.

So what exactly, in your opinion, qualifies as "messing with" Russia? What "controversial" actions has Putin taken that would be unnecessarily "provocative" to respond to in some (to repeat myself, non-military) fashion? Moreover, to borrow from my off-the-cuff list up above, where should the line be drawn when it comes to "some fashion"? Would sanctions be too much? A UN resolution? A tweet?

Now, you seem to think that someone has improperly used this truth as an excuse to explain away some otherwise objectionable policy. Can you give a specific example of such a policy?

With few exceptions, the entirety of the Trump administration's stance towards Russia - and your own - seems to have its roots deep within the infamous "there are a lot of killers, you think we're so innocent?" comment from before the election; of course, there's no need to stop at Russia, as Trump has hardly met a despot he didn't like. Even if you don't care about how many allies this series of winks and outright embraces has alienated (apparently the only things worth cribbing from them are their military parades, it would seem), can it seriously be in the country's best interests outside of the handful of totally-not-a-factor private real estate deals in the offing for a handful of very particular people?

Also, I would like to remind any logically-challenged readers that even if "we gotta avoid WW3 don'cha know" was/is actually offered as a lame excuse for some misdeed, that does NOT mean that we shouldn't still be trying to avoid WW3.

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?

When the LIARS claim that Assad or Putin did this or that, there is no reason to believe them.

Presumably that includes the WHO. But why not - at this point, the New World Order includes so many people it might as well already be here.

[Mischief Maker]

Ainsley Earhardt suggests on Fox & Friends this morning that if (anti-interventionist) Trump started bombing Syria, it'd steal the thunder from Comey's book in the news cycle. Geraldo responds to her with several seconds of horrified silence before changing the subject.

Trump bombs Syria by the end of the day.

The only thing scarier than a moron like Trump being the president is the morons on Fox & Friends being the president.

[gameoverDude]

Ainsley Earhardt suggests on Fox & Friends this morning that if (anti-interventionist) Trump started bombing Syria, it'd steal the thunder from Comey's book in the news cycle. Geraldo responds to her with several seconds of horrified silence before changing the subject.

Trump bombs Syria by the end of the day.

The only thing scarier than a moron like Trump being the president is the morons on Fox & Friends being the president.

Yeah, I heard about that little adventure in Syria. What a fucking idiot. Why don't we just leave Assad alone & worry about our own problems? It's sad that he gassed some of his own people. That said, I don't mean to sound cold but it's not our problem.

Hopefully no one will be dumb enough to vote for those Fox & Friends morons if they do run for president. IMO, Fox & Friends are conservative smut dealers. What we need for a president is someone more moderate.

[Mischief Maker]

Hopefully no one will be dumb enough to vote for those Fox & Friends morons if they do run for president.

But they don't have to. That's my point.

Through Donald Trump, Sean Hannity and the Fox & Friends morons are already President!