Prelude to the Apocalypse

[BryanM]

Did you honestly miss the whole "How Syria turns out is literally the only issue that actually matters" part of this thread?

Yes, I saw quash saying that. That wasn't a cringing "we mustn't make master Putin mad at us" groveling as you misframe, but him simply drawing a line in the sand that we shouldn't do to Syria what we did to Iraq.

Do you think we should overthrow Asad, and set back their society to tribal warfare until they're able to claw themselves back up to feudalism? Because that's what you seem to want us to do by pretending not to understand what any of us are saying.

[Mischief Maker]

Well fuck a duck!

2000 veterans later, Obama finally found his balls, at least with the DAPL issue.

If only he had those eight years earlier.

[quash]

I believe I said this before, but it bears repeating: Russia may not be a natural ally to the US (there are some arguments for this, though I don't agree with most of them), but there's no reason they should be a natural enemy, either.

Bryan has hit the nail on the head here. Invading Syria would be Iraq times a thousand. There's a reason the media frames its coverage in a humanitarian manner, and it's because they know it's an easy way to disguise the true intent of the war and win over public opinion. Fortunately, Americans are not duped as easily as they used to be in this regard, so it hasn't worked as well as it has elsewhere.

[Opus131]

Since she's a republican

The keks that keep on giving.

[GaijinPunch]

She did run the more xenophobic campaign of the two. I don't see how that is even an argument.

Adding that to the long list.

[atheistgod1999]

Initial D. Trump

[BryanM]

I always love those photos where Trump looks like he couldn't be happier to be there, and the person with him couldn't look more terrified.

Well fuck a duck!

2000 veterans later, Obama finally found his balls, at least with the DAPL issue.

If only he had those eight years earlier.

That moment where Belafonte was talking about the problems with the democratic party with Obama and Clinton sitting on either side of him... "Make me do it", so chilling.

[BulletMagnet]

Again, look at all of the rhetoric and actions that have already been taken which have strained relations with Russia. It's not a question of "no risks ever," we're already well past that. The desire was "let's not keep pushing it until we find the breaking point."

That wasn't a cringing "we mustn't make master Putin mad at us" groveling as you misframe, but him simply drawing a line in the sand that we shouldn't do to Syria what we did to Iraq.

I believe I said this before, but it bears repeating: Russia may not be a natural ally to the US (there are some arguments for this, though I don't agree with most of them), but there's no reason they should be a natural enemy, either.

If all of you actually believe this, why is it perfectly okay in China's case - especially after all the hand-wringing about their movements in the Pacific and whatnot back during the election - that Trump has not only been using the country as a punching bag for ages (remember, the whole climate change thing, they totally made it up!) but just committed an unforced diplomatic error against it? How has Trump not been "pushing it" when it comes to China, just as you insist Clinton has when it comes to Russia? Where exactly is the "line in the sand" when it comes to this country, and what gives any indication that Trump - or anyone covering for him - either knows or cares where it might be? Why is it not only fine but preferable that we do treat China as a "natural enemy"?

And seriously, come off of the "you totally want to watch Syrians die, just like Hillary" bullshit (for the record, I don't favor China's treatment of Taiwan either)- the issue here, once again, and assuming you actually care, is that you insisted, again and again and again, that it was worth electing Trump, in spite of everything else (including, incidentally, his tendency to both shoot off his mouth at the drop of a hat and act before he had any earthly idea what he was doing), because he'd be the one who'd pull us back from the brink of the global-scale war that Clinton was supposedly foaming at the mouth to start. From here it would appear that Trump and company aren't the least bit concerned about keeping the lid on the proverbial pot - or, to be frank, the whole "America First" thing in its entirety - except where it specifically serves whatever purpose they have for the moment, i.e. exactly what you accused Clinton of, and, again, apparently expect nobody to be impolite enough to mention it.

EDIT: Meanwhile, elsewhere in Asia, the draining of the swamp continues...

[e_tank]

If all of you actually believe this, why is it perfectly okay in China's case - especially after all the hand-wringing about their movements in the Pacific and whatnot back during the election - that Trump has not only been using the country as a punching bag for ages (remember, the whole climate change thing, they totally made it up!) but just committed an unforced diplomatic error against it? How has Trump not been "pushing it" when it comes to China, just as you insist Clinton has when it comes to Russia? Where exactly is the "line in the sand" when it comes to this country, and what gives any indication that Trump - or anyone covering for him - either knows or cares where it might be? Why is it not only fine but preferable that we do treat China as a "natural enemy"?

b/c putin is a white christian and xi jinping is an asian heathen, duh

[Durandal]

Again, look at all of the rhetoric and actions that have already been taken which have strained relations with Russia. It's not a question of "no risks ever," we're already well past that. The desire was "let's not keep pushing it until we find the breaking point."

That wasn't a cringing "we mustn't make master Putin mad at us" groveling as you misframe, but him simply drawing a line in the sand that we shouldn't do to Syria what we did to Iraq.

I believe I said this before, but it bears repeating: Russia may not be a natural ally to the US (there are some arguments for this, though I don't agree with most of them), but there's no reason they should be a natural enemy, either.

If all of you actually believe this, why is it perfectly okay in China's case - especially after all the hand-wringing about their movements in the Pacific and whatnot back during the election - that Trump has not only been using the country as a punching bag for ages (remember, the whole climate change thing, they totally made it up!) but just committed an unforced diplomatic error against it? How has Trump not been "pushing it" when it comes to China, just as you insist Clinton has when it comes to Russia? Where exactly is the "line in the sand" when it comes to this country, and what gives any indication that Trump - or anyone covering for him - either knows or cares where it might be? Why is it not only fine but preferable that we do treat China as a "natural enemy"?

I don't know if (?accepting) (?unauthorized) phone calls from foreign countries which in turn (?angers) other nuclear superpowers is an escalation event on equal level with establishing no-fly zones in countries where the only comparable nuclear force has air assets, maybe you have more experience with this matter than I do (perhaps the moral thing to do would be to ignore Taiwan until proper diplomatic procedures which don't cause any hubbub can be established?). Though if Dilbert Man is to be believed, Trump is trying to get a feel for the boundaries of what he can't and can do before pulling back his hand if the iron is too hot (which does fall in line for the flip-flopping on his policies you've been fervently criticizing him for). Whether that's any more reassuring over the hardline-stance Clinton took against Russia (something I believe she would pretend like it never happened if she did get elected only to bring up the Red boogeyman whenever convenient), I have no idea, it's too early to tell. It's just a beta, dude. There are 1483 more days of Trump as president and president-elect and the ensuing events to analyze, isn't it too early to draw conclusions? (It's never too late to warn people so you can tell them later that you told them so, I know I would)

[BryanM]

Though if Dilbert Man is to be believed, Trump is trying to get a feel for the boundaries of what he can't and can do before pulling back his hand if the iron is too hot

heh, the hoops people jump through to rationalize stuff. It's like they say - it's like someone's priest they like and they make excuses for him because they trust him completely and innocently.

Trump is just excited about all the attention he's getting now - he'd take calls from almost any leader in the world. He's finally a part of the big boy's club, like he always wanted to be. No longer a joke clown on the fringe of the stage. He's lead actor, now.

He's really a lot like Mike Scott when it comes to his social interactions with humans.

Where exactly is the "line in the sand" when it comes to this country

The line in the sand is sending in air and ground troops to an allied country of theirs in order to overthrow that regime.

Not a phone call.

Bullet, do you know what the difference between a phone call and removing a dictator from power is?

I'm not sure you do because you keep acting like you don't.

is that you insisted, again and again and again, that it was worth electing Trump, in spite of everything else, because he'd be the one who'd pull us back from the brink of the global-scale war that Clinton was supposedly foaming at the mouth to start

That was quash's position.

BryanM's position is that there's maybe a meager 2% to 8% chance Trump won't start another big war somewhere like W. Bush did. This fellow's Trump advocacy mostly consisted of the assertion that republicans are supposed to be human garbage, and that we need to start running democrats who aren't human garbage as soon as possible. That a narrow Hillary victory in 2016 followed by a massive defeat in 2020 would be worse in the long run.

These are two different people with very different opinions on things, and stuff.

come off of the "you totally want to watch Syrians die, just like Hillary" bullshit

Why won't you come off your "I totally want to watch Syrians die, just like Hillary" bullshit? All you have to do is say "hey, I don't think we should remove Assad from power." Since you haven't said that, and have decided to lash out irrationally instead, I have to assume that's what you want to do. Because it's a lot easier to state your position on something instead of avoiding a simple yes or no question.

Jesus man, even I've said negative things about Sanders plenty of times. And it's not wrong to say I love the man. You can admit Clinton has massive shortcomings and that this was not an easy election for everyone.

[quash]

It's obviously not impossible that a war may start under a Trump presidency, but as long as he keeps us out of Syria he avoids what is by far the worst case scenario. As I've already briefly explained, a better relationship with Russia directly weakens China's posture, so this is really an all around win-win. As I also said before, this flips the script on the war that was looming over the horizon, though we may also end up dodging that bullet entirely.

Compared to what we'd be facing in January had Hillary won, I think I'll take these odds.

[Opus131]

There's a difference between being a belligerent psychopath and simply standing firm and having a backbone.

Also, apropos:

[BryanM]

Why is Opus saying reasonable things and BM is saying epileptic tree things. The world truly has gone mad.

The hypothetical but probable loss of Hillary Clinton in 2020 would have been even worse. She won the popular vote by 2%, the Democratic party almost utterly collapses. Polling indicates she would have lost the popular vote against any opponent that wasn't Trump by the neighborhood of 3 to 5%. Do you know how much power that would have put in the hands of the Republicans?

They would have been able to rewrite the constitution into anything they wanted it to be.

I used to be a simple innocent kid, too. Secure in the knowledge that the Republican party is anathema to basic sanity and life. Perfectly content with the idea of a president Hillary Clinton and then a president Julian Castro. That that could be enough; a slightly less belligerent servant of the wealthy in charge of our country.

But it isn't. We have to restore the democrats back into the party of FDR and JFK, and restore the republicans back into the party of HW, Jim Webb and the Clintons. Or we'll always be a few tiny percentage points from having the constitution rewritten to serve the interests of the Kochs. That's no way to live.

And on the topic of Julian, I was pretty shocked Clinton didn't pick him. Didn't know about the deal she made with Kaine. My mistaken assumption was she wanted to win the election, not get her friend Trump elected president. Even a year ago, I was a mere naive child.

Snoop Dogg has an opinion on this matter, too.

[Opus131]

Soop Dog? Dude, what?

Ho wait, he is actually making some sense. This is the world we live now.

[MaXXX]

"ayo nigga fug dis week ass muhfugguh, bernie be a real nigga yo"

Truly profound.

[BulletMagnet]

The line in the sand is sending in air and ground troops to an allied country of theirs in order to overthrow that regime.

That's...a pretty low bar to clear. Though I seem to recall Clinton being regularly accused of "saber-rattling" just for making statements critical of Putin completely independent of any policy statements. But, y'know, whatever.

Bullet, do you know what the difference between a phone call and removing a dictator from power is?

Dude, come off it - I've already explained that this isn't even why I brought up the matter in the first place. If you need it rephrased yet again, it's because the argument all throughout the election was "Clinton wants war, Trump doesn't"; now, suddenly, it seems to have morphed into "Clinton wanted war, Trump doesn't seem to care who he pisses off as long as he doesn't have conflicts of interest with them, but hey, even if he does start a war it's a better war than Clinton would have started" (and maybe we'll get some oil too! God, what a troll ). And this is supposed to be a reason to be okay with a cabinet chock full of ideologues and fraudsters openly out to loot every public institution they can get their mitts on? This was "the lesser of two evils?" Which, by the way, brings me to...

We have to restore the democrats back into the party of FDR and JFK

I constantly hear this exact same shit from other delusional pseudo-liberals - "well, now that Trump's elected, at least now he'll have to own everything that goes wrong, and the people will demand a stronger breed of Democrat" - dude, the right doesn't own anything. It just doesn't fucking happen, and nobody seems willing to make them. They refuse to own Dubya's disastrous tenure. They refuse to own Reagan's enduring middle finger to both workers and the debt. They refuse to own Watergate. They refuse to own the Southern Strategy. They refuse to own the fucking Great Depression - every single one of those things is somehow completely the left's fault. It's conventional wisdom at this point - which, as it happens, is precisely the same reason I also call bullshit on the "if they'd run Sanders they'd have won in a landslide" armchair quarterbacking. I'll say it again: we live in a country where a sizeable portion of the electorate are constantly told, almost always without protest from people who know better, and thus honestly believe, that cutting taxes for rich people solves every single economic problem - and you think that Trump will finally be the one to snap them out of it? Jesus, and we wonder why the American left is such a hopeless mess.

You can admit Clinton has massive shortcomings and that this was not an easy election for everyone.

Have...have you been not only reading the same thread, but following the same election as I have? Pardon the overused internet-ism, but what the actual fuck are you talking about?

[quash]

Why do I get the feeling you still have a Gore sticker on the back of your Geo Metro?

Perhaps if liberals would stop holding age old grudges and focused on not dying on every hill imaginable, you'd still have a majority in Congress and maybe even the White House.

[BryanM]

not dying on every hill imaginable

The biggest hill there is, is the second amendment. Hillary's comments about a mandatory buyback program in the past did not win her any votes.

As this was narrow enough that a butterfly could have flipped it either way, you could say this is what cost her the election. Or the Muslims who decided to vote for the republican 3x as much as they did in 2012 because they felt he was the "lesser evil".

I'll say it again: we live in a country where a sizeable portion of the electorate are constantly told, almost always without protest from people who know better, and thus honestly believe, that cutting taxes for rich people solves every single economic problem

.....

Social Security and Medicare are the largest tax that the working class has to pay to the government.

The majority of the country agrees: "raise taxes on the rich". That's when it's in exchange for absolutely nothing.

What's the problem? Besides the democrats not running on this wildly popular platform nor explaining the benefits that would come from this. Ex: not having to get bent over a table by Obamacare premiums.

and you think that Trump will finally be the one to snap them out of it? Jesus, and we wonder why the American left is such a hopeless mess.

Why are you intentionally being obtuse. Bernie Sanders got 47% of the delegates, and will walk the primary next time short of Oprah or Michelle Obama emerging.

Not one person has ever said "herp derp, we can convince racists, partisan Republicans, and anti-abortionists to agree with us!" Rather we're much more interested in the 45% of the people who chose to stay home, and the people who voted for Obama twice and Trump once. The democrats collapsed because a sizable number of them chose to stay home or vote third party (3rd party votes tripled this season.), either because they did not consent to Hillary's coronation or because they were told it was a sure thing she'd win by the media.

Have...have you been not only reading the same thread, but following the same election as I have? Pardon the overused internet-ism, but what the actual fuck are you talking about?

Thanks for agreeing with me that better candidates would do better than worse candidates. Worse candidates like Hillary Clinton, with her -20% approval rating. As opposed to Mitt Romney, with his awesome +0% approval rating.

is precisely the same reason I also call bullshit on the "if they'd run Sanders they'd have won in a landslide" armchair quarterbacking.

Bookmarked for 2020.

Interesting broscience and weird inexplicable opinion.

Also interesting how disparaging you are about people participating in the governance of our country. I am NOT an "armchair quarterback". I was in this thing. I am a lineman. I voted for us to NOT elect Trump back in March 1st. Not only that - I got two other people to do so. Three times I rose and stood against him.

Who did you vote for in the primary, Bulletmagnet? Did you *do* anything to stop Trump?

[BulletMagnet]

What's the problem? Besides the democrats not running on this wildly popular platform nor explaining the benefits that would come from this. Ex: not having to get bent over a table by Obamacare premiums.

If you want to use the ACA as an example, a public option was there in the original proposal - if such an item would really have been so popular with the general electorate, and would have allowed the Dems to absolutely trounce the opposition's stonewalling against it, why didn't they stick to their guns and insta-win? Hell, the same goes for raising taxes on the rich; Trump, and every single Republican in a half century, openly advocates giving the rich more money at everyone else's expense; if people were really in favor of this by default (actually were, not should be), then why would you also assert that "we haven't explained the benefits enough" (which I agree with, in a vacuum) to earn the support which we...apparently already have, somehow? But stupidly threw away just by nominating Hillary (who, lest we forget, still managed to win the popular vote)? Not by repeatedly telling people "she wants WW3, her opponent doesn't" for months on end? Which, I can't help but notice, seems to have quietly disappeared from the discussion.

Bernie Sanders got 47% of the delegates, and will walk the primary next time short of Oprah or Michelle Obama emerging.

Bookmarked for 2020.

Perhaps if liberals would stop holding age old grudges and focused on not dying on every hill imaginable, you'd still have a majority in Congress and maybe even the White House.

This from the bunch who are still citing Robert Fucking Bork to deny Merrick Garland even a hearing, let alone a vote. By the by, if what happened to Gore had happened to Bush, there would have been fucking pogroms, and you and the rest of the plutocrats would be cheering them on right down to this day.

[Durandal]

In the meantime, Trump picks Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, longtime friend of Chinese president Xi Jinping, as China Ambassador, who has already accepted the position

[Mischief Maker]

Well the list of "Hamilton Electors" pledging not to vote for Trump in the Electoral college is growing.

I'm rather irritated they insist it's gotta be a Republican, even though Clinton got a 2.5 million majority of votes, but at this point I'd rather pick a president from the public at random than give the wheel to Captain Kickbacks and his nazi ship of fools.

If ever there was a time for the electoral college to justify its existence by acting as a buffer against an incompetent, that time is now.

On a lighter note, #trumpgrets!

[Rob]

The EPA pick is as heinous as anyone could have predicted.

[Domino]

My 401k is doing good. Thanks Trump.

But lets keep watching it.....................

[quash]

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN13W2SI

How could Drumpf be so insensitive? Poor, oppressed peoples of third world nations could have used these jobs. Ugh. I can't even #notmypresident

[Mischief Maker]

The EPA pick is as heinous as anyone could have predicted.

Yes, but voting for the lesser evil is STILL EVIL!

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN13W2SI

How could Drumpf be so insensitive? Poor, oppressed peoples of third world nations could have used these jobs. Ugh. I can't even #notmypresident

That article states they give no timeline and no promises.

Hey, did you know 9,965,000 jobs were created under eight years of Obama? 3412 jobs per day. Equivalent to four times the jobs saved by Trump's sweetheart deal to Carrier per day.

You know, when Ross Perot said that jobs would finally return to the US under global free trade when the living standard of American citizens evened out with third world competition, he wasn't saying that was a desirable solution as Trump seems to think, he said that would wreck the country!

[quash]

Gonna go out on a limb here and say that a good portion of these jobs are going to be skilled labor of some sort, and that it's likely just the beginning. $1 trillion of new infrastructure isn't going to build itself.

[BulletMagnet]

I love how the linked article specifically states that US Steel's job losses, like most such companies' job losses of recent years, have nothing to do with illegal immigration or even foreign outsourcing. But hey, tax cuts for rich people solve everything! In any event, prepare for the trifecta - less jobs than promised/expected, lousy pay for whatever does come back, and a taxpayer-funded blowjob for executives on top.

$1 trillion of new infrastructure isn't going to build itself.

No, but whatever actually does get built (I'm salivating to find out how much of that trillion actually ends up going to anything on the ground) is going to be, of course, privatized to hell (y'know, just like the office itself!), and when the municipal shortfalls inevitably hit resurrected as proof that government doesn't work.

[Opus131]

I think America turning into a third world shithole is proof enough that something isn't working, and in that something i would certainly include the government, among other things.

[Mischief Maker]

Gonna go out on a limb here and say that a good portion of these jobs are going to be skilled labor of some sort, and that it's likely just the beginning. $1 trillion of new infrastructure isn't going to build itself.

Yeah, remember a couple days ago when the Chicago Tribune published an article where it mentioned someone at Boeing being mildly critical of Trump's policies and within minutes of the article being published Trump went to twitter threatening to cancel billions of dollars worth of Boeing government contracts?

Gonna go out on a limb here and say that a good portion of the jobs threatened by Trump's tantrum were skilled labor of some sort, and that's likely just the beginning. An entire lifetime of deep insecurities, petty vendettas, and failed business sense isn't going to resolve itself.

Thank god President-elect Joffrey is an obese old man in his 70s and not an energetic young man in his 30s.