Middle east.

[mzilliox]

Nope, absolutely sincere. Believe what you want. I am sincerely shocked that folks with the ability to operate a computer, and engage in conversations like this, could be so confused by dogma that they see nothing wrong with supporting Donlad Trump.

one could easily write this quite sincerely, I think folks have actually. welcome to being confused by double standards. I still think you are grossly misinterpreting the intent of the persons words though. But carry on with your shockedness, its gonna be needed with more Trump... here's the pariah of equality:

president trump: “I think that putting a wife to work is a very dangerous thing. …I don't want to sound too much like a chauvinist, but when I come home and dinner's not ready, I'll go through the roof, okay?”
“26,000 unreported sexual assults [sic] in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?”

“It must be a pretty picture, you dropping to your knees.”

“Waterboarding is your minor form. Some people say it's not actually torture. Let's assume it is. But they asked me the question. What do you think of waterboarding? Absolutely fine. But we should go much stronger than waterboarding. That's the way I feel."

"I mean, look at Libya. Look at Iraq. Iraq used to be no terrorists. He (Hussein) would kill the terrorists immediately, which is like now it's the Harvard of terrorism. If you look at Iraq from years ago, I'm not saying he was a nice guy, he was a horrible guy, but it was a lot better than it is right now. Right now, Iraq is a training ground for terrorists. Right now Libya -- nobody even knows Libya. Frankly, there is no Iraq and there is no Libya.

"A person who is very flat-chested is very hard to be a 10.”

"Nobody’s proven that he’s killed anybody, as far as I’m concerned.”

Trump on allegations that Russian President Vladimir Putin was involved in the killing of journalists, ABC News, Dec. 20, 2015.

“You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”

“I think there is blame on both sides.…You also had people that were very fine people on both sides.…Not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch.”

Grab em by the pussy

“You were here long before any of us were here. Although we have a representative in Congress who they say was here a long time ago. They call her Pocahontas.”

"'Laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that."

"I have so many fabulous friends who happen to be gay, but I am a traditionalist,"

"You have to treat 'em like shit," Trump said in the article to friend Philip Johnson, who responded, "You'd make a good mafioso."

Trump's response: "One of the greatest."

but of course a cyclist's inconsequential and taken out of context quote is the most dangerous thing you've read. terrifying

[colker]

Wow, for a bunch of opinionated 'progressive liberal activists' I'd expect more than snarky remarks in response to this post.



Can't muster the strength to even present an opinion that might reflect negatively on Iran? Or do you simply agree with the post? Is this truly the direction 'progressiveness' is headed in?

I believe the recent US strike was questionable to say the least and i see most of the posts on the same page. You are trying to deflect w/ no success.

[mzilliox]

^^^^this^^^^. I'm a life-long republican. I'm conservative on finance, law-enforcement, and defense. I support the second amendment. I'm happy to debate policy with my liberal and democratic friends and family members. But I wouldn't vote for Trump if he was the last republican on earth. He's a 21st century Joseph McCarthy minus the raging alcoholism. I've met Mr. Trump in a private, unguarded setting. At the time, he was nothing more than a punchline. My colleagues and I had to stifle laughter at his raging ego. That he has been elected to the highest office in the United States should be frightening to anyone who values the Constitution.

Greg

Thanks for your take Greg. Your experience is much like a few of my relatives, including my Father, who shockingly voted across lines against Trump, simply because Trump.

I met Bush and Obama. Bush very briefly, seemed to at least pay the part of president. Obama i met twice, wow, the man commands a room with his smile and demeanor. Its easy to see why people like him, because hes really likable. Great handshake too. Hes a natural leader, people follow him because hes charming and genuine, not because he uses his power to demand it of them. He also considers and listens to others, something i think we sorely lack at the moment. but i digress

I guess the point is, character goes a long way, and to some (maybe most, im starting to wonder?) reigns supreme; especially when considering matters as important as those dealt with by the president. Its not a game, and Trump only does games.

cheers

[Blue Jays]

Qaesem Soleimani was, in fact, planning "imminent attacks" on U.S. personnel and interests.
While Democrats and the media quibble over its precise definition, here is a crucial point:

During the times President Obama killed Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Muammar Gaddafi, all without Congressional approval, there were NO known upcoming "imminent attacks" and Democrats did not ask or apparently care.

[mjbabcock]

Qaesem Soleimani was, in fact, planning "imminent attacks" on U.S. personnel and interests.
While Democrats and the media quibble over its precise definition...

And republicans (see Mike Lee)...this is a total WMD in Iraq do-over from a guy less savvy than Bush (I can't believe I'm saying that).

here is a crucial point: During the times President Obama killed Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Muammar Gaddafi, all without Congressional approval, there were NO known upcoming "imminent attacks" and Democrats did not ask or apparently care.

Good lord, this ignorant-as-fuck moral equivocation is exhausting. Gaddafi was killed by his own people. Congress authorized the pursuit of Osama using an authorization of force. al-Awlaki's assassination faced intense scrutiny, including a critical editorial from the NYT (Democrats) and a finding from the Court of Appeals that required a release of the justification for the killing.

This sandbox is increasingly devolving into reasoned arguments being countered with dipshit what-about-ism and blatant falsehoods.

[Dallas Tex]

I believe the recent US strike was questionable to say the least and i see most of the posts on the same page.. You are trying to deflect w/ no success..

This is a 282 post thread. Did you really expect it to not drift and not explore related themes and not vary from your single sentence topic overview. Hardly deflection.

My surprise is that I always believed that there was a base level of absolute core beliefs that we all shared. I am sincerely surprised that there is not.

Those absolute bedrock foundational understandings have been replaced moral relativism with the main pillar being ‘opposite of trump’.

[Cookietruck]

Qaesem Soleimani was, in fact, planning "imminent attacks" on U.S. personnel and interests.
While Democrats and the media quibble over its precise definition, here is a crucial point:

During the times President Obama killed Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Muammar Gaddafi, all without Congressional approval, there were NO known upcoming "imminent attacks" and Democrats did not ask or apparently care.

Tommy Vietor, the former National Security Council spokesman under Obama, replied to Gidley online, writing that bin Laden and Anwar Al-Awlaki "were senior, operational Al Qaeda leaders" and that "Congress authorized war against [Al Qaeda] back in 2001." Former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi "was killed by members of the [Libya's National Transitional Council] - not by US forces," he wrote.

Pompeo insists Soleimani threat was 'imminent' despite blowback - POLITICO

from what i understand, many of the lawmakers briefed on the intelligence that an attack from Soleimani was imminent, think it's bullshit.
but you know, trump said on twitter that they were gonna bomb four of our embassies so i guess it's true.

[Blue Jays]

"...Good Lord, this ignorant-as-f**k... with dipshit..."

We are all friends here. No feed for profanity directed at fellow VSalonistas.

[theflashunc]

Qaesem Soleimani was, in fact, planning "imminent attacks" on U.S. personnel and interests.
While Democrats and the media quibble over its precise definition, here is a crucial point:

During the times President Obama killed Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Muammar Gaddafi, all without Congressional approval, there were NO known upcoming "imminent attacks" and Democrats did not ask or apparently care.

He's been "planning imminent attacks" against the United States in the region for 40 years. That in an of itself is not justification for killing the top military leader of another nation, enemy or not. More than one US administration came to the conclusion it wasnt worth killing him, and allies in region all reached the same conclusion over the last few decades.

The administration has presented nothing so far to justify this kind of escalation.

[Blue Jays]

"...The administration has presented nothing so far to justify this kind of escalation..."

My anticipation is that for operational security reasons we will likely never be apprised of the full details.
My own wish is that it could somehow be accomplished coupled with a big helping of plausible deniability.

[mjbabcock]

We are all friends here. No feed for profanity directed at fellow VSalonistas.

I am way more profane with my friends, and I'm assuming everyone here is over 17 years of age...as for what I said, I believe both were directed at the quality of the arguments being presented and not the individuals presenting them.

[colker]

This is a 282 post thread. Did you really expect it to not drift and not explore related themes and not vary from your single sentence topic overview. Hardly deflection.

My surprise is that I always believed that there was a base level of absolute core beliefs that we all shared. I am sincerely surprised that there is not.

Those absolute bedrock foundational understandings have been replaced moral relativism with the main pillar being ‘opposite of trump’.

You want to show liberals w/ double face moral standards. The attack on Iraq may put other lives in danger. The attack raised the fear level and made it harder for slowing down the nuclear race in Iran. You don´t need a higher morality ground to point that out.

[BBB]

There is no direct flight from Iran to Canada and the connection via Ukraine is a popular (low cost) option.

I'm Canadian and this hurts.

Thanks for that.

Accident or no accident, it is certainly hard to make sense of when innocents get caught in the cross-fire of a larger dispute. A similar thing happened with MH-17 (which had a number of Australians as passengers), so I understand how you feel.

[Cookietruck]

looks like the Trump admin tried to kill another Iranian General on the same day they assassinated Suleimani.
this instance in Yemen.

U.S. Military Unsuccessfully Targeted Second Iranian Official - The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The American military unsuccessfully tried to kill a senior Iranian in Yemen on the same day a drone strike took out Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, one of Iran’s most important commanders, according to American officials.

The disclosure of a second mission indicated that the Trump administration was attempting to target a larger set of Iranian military and paramilitary leaders than was previously known.

The unsuccessful airstrike in Yemen was aimed at Abdul Reza Shahlai, an official with Iran’s Quds Force, a potent paramilitary organization. He was known as a key financier for Iran’s proxy wars.

President Trump approved the strike against Mr. Shahlai at the same time as he authorized the strike against General Suleimani, although it is unclear if the American attack in Yemen occurred at precisely the same time.

[animalarmament]

Iran needs to hurry up and get a nuke

[theflashunc]

My anticipation is that for operational security reasons we will likely never be apprised of the full details.
My own wish is that it could somehow be accomplished coupled with a big helping of plausible deniability.

If we are going to make war with another country, the American people deserve to know why, in explicit detail. Not the wild ravings of a clearly fabulist President. Actual evidence. And I don't want us acting the way Iran acts with "plausible deniability." If we're going to ever argue we hold some sort of moral authority in the world, our actions need to match the rhetoric.

[ides1056]

Negative. On Tinder I'm 6'6, a billionaire and hung like an elephant.

My wife has a horse, and when the vet came to see him for the first time he said, "even for a horse" etc. Very funny moment.

[theflashunc]

Iran needs to hurry up and get a nuke

Adam Entous had a very insightful and long piece on North Korea last year, including several visits to the country and interviews with senior officials. They made abundantly clear the over-riding belief of the regime in NK is that the US efforts at nonproliferation are part of a comprehensive attack strategy by the country. They highlighted Libya and Iraq as two prime examples where nuclear disarmament was demanded -- and given -- by the country, with the regimes overthrown by US military intervention within years.

To them, the ask to give up nukes is the first step towards inevitable invasion. And given the evidence, I can't say that view is wrong. Nuclear weapons certainly serve as a deterrence to invasion.

[ides1056]

We are all friends here. No feed for profanity directed at fellow VSalonistas.

I agree.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind. We are riding in echelon and trying to make sense of the world.

[Corso]

So at the end of the day, if you are on board with these things, and they are important and like a "Gem" why Trump? how do you see us getting there under the current administration faster than say an administration who tends to focus on these kinds of things, like services for Americans, using taxation for schooling instead of war, considering existential crises like nuclear war, climate change, and automation/AI??
Do you really think Trump is a faster way to get to these ideals than another person?

Honestly, does anyone actually read what people are replying to, or does everything I post have a filter that says: Maga hat wearing Trump fanatic? - when it's totally not the case. And you ASSUME the list of YOUR priorities " services for Americans, using taxation for schooling instead of war, considering existential crises like nuclear war, climate change, and automation/AI" are everyone's. So how can I agree or disagree that Trump is the best when your list may not align with mine? Or others who voted for Trump?

This what I was agreeing on: the USA's long history of getting involved in other nations.

>>I think you're missing the larger point. We have become one of the "bad guys". We're so wrapped up in thinking that we're correct and that we have the right to interfere in the affairs of other countries that we can't see it. And from a practical perspective we're being stupid; were squandering our resources and whatever time is left to evolve our infrastructure and expectations to a world that's accelerating into a number of exestintial crises.

We didn't have the right to help knock over Iran's government, for oil, in 1953. We didn't have the right to train South and Central American death squads in our "School of The Americas" at Ft Benning. We didn't have the right to get involved in Viet Nam in what was a civil war related to throwing off the French colonial yoke, ironically after ignoring Ho Chi Minh's earlier entities for assistance in developing a democratic government. The list of our transgressions is depressingly long.<<

So how do you twist all of the above to say TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP??????


in any case,

This was my reply on the impeachment thread. It applies here.

(why vote for Trump) "I've stated why many times in the past: Because he wasn't Hillary. I dislike her as much as you dislike the President. Is that simple enough for you?

And if the Democrats or 3rd party can't put a candidate who I can get behind, I'll vote with my party.

So is supporting your party wrong? Before he was President, Obama never voted across the aisle once. Not once. Does it sound like some here have ever voted for a Republican? They are free to vote the way they wants and although I may not fully understand it, I'll respect it.

So as the Dems have banded together to "get" Trump from day one, Republicans have rallied in support. It's not a difficult concept to accept. Look at the impeachment vote.

Voting for any candidate is NOT a statement that you are in agreement with everything he or she may have done in their past. It's like saying voting for Bill Clinton is saying you also agree with being a serial cheater and (accused) rapist. It's saying folks who voted for Warren in my state, agree that lying about your minority status is "ok" to get ahead.

Sounds silly, correct?"


I still stand behind what I posted.

So, until I have an option to vote for that I feel aligns with my - not yours or anyone else here - MY ideals of Conservative views, I'll continue to support my party. And right now, unfortunately, I don't see anyone rising up from the Democratic Party that going to get that done.