United States Foreign Policy And International Affairs

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

What Should Trump Do?

  • Maintain the Status Quo (such as it is)

    Votes: 2 8.7%
  • Bomb the Shit Out of Iran But No Invasion

    Votes: 3 13.0%
  • Invade Their Asses

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • Call in Sweden to Mediate a Diplomatic Solution

    Votes: 2 8.7%
  • Get the Fuck Out of the Middle East

    Votes: 10 43.5%
  • Invade Canada as a Warning

    Votes: 2 8.7%
  • Hillary Did it!

    Votes: 3 13.0%

  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .

King Stannis

Maréchal d'Empire
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
14,711
Reaction score
20,235
Points
135
P
Sure and tulsi has her enemies and so do plenty others. Factions within factions. All the democratic candidates are trying to tear each other apart. People believe different things and see different angles and have their own motives and ambitions and constituents.

And just to be clear there are absolutely soulemeini apologists on the left so it isn't like the statement in that video is entirely unfounded. Just up to everyone to consider how extreme certain people are and how bad or good their particular arguments are, and if better ones could be made
Yes, that happens frequently; in that I mean disagreements of policy.

1) However, there is a substantial difference when it comes to this particular situation involving military use of force. It is absolutely improper for any legislator to call a fellow legislator a traitor without a solid foundation. That type of rhetoric is very divisive and in this atmosphere can lead to violence.

And it is the type of behavior that Trump supporters within Congress indulge in reflexively. Graham should know better and should be utterly ashamed of himself.

Moreover, that type of brow-beating is what leads to reckless decision-making. The same thing happened in 2003 and we don't need a repeat performance. Subjects are servile, members of Congress by constitutional definition should be questioning every step leading to armed conflict.

2) Like who? What Democrat Congressman or Governor is lamenting his loss as a person?
 

David.

Radical Centrist
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
28,487
Reaction score
22,955
Points
135
I’m not saying you are wrong but I have never heard anyone (left or right) say Soulemeini wasn’t a bad guy. To a person, ive heard Soulemeini described as a bad guy/terrorist/bad actor/etc and then they either praise the president’s actions or question why the decision was made now. Can you point to someone who is an apologist for Soulemeini?
Very first video I watched regarding the event was from Jimmy Dore saying he was fighting isis and all he did was kill people invading the middle east. I've watched alot of stuff since and will try to find the video that aggregated a good amount of similar sentiment
 

King Stannis

Maréchal d'Empire
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
14,711
Reaction score
20,235
Points
135
Very first video I watched regarding the event was from Jimmy Dore saying he was fighting isis and all he did was kill people invading the middle east. I've watched alot of stuff since and will try to find the video that aggregated a good amount of similar sentiment
Who is Jimmy Dore?
 

David.

Radical Centrist
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
28,487
Reaction score
22,955
Points
135
Who is Jimmy Dore?
Just one example, and a very influential pundit who is essentially the biggest mouthpiece for the Bernie campaign now that Cenk got canceled.

I understand that it isn't a congressman but it is a paid politician and I think of that as a disticinction without a difference. Pundits and influences are in the same arena as elected officials. You put an extra qualifier on there that I don't personally need for the statement that "people on the left say stupid things too" to be true.


And back to your last post. Yes, there is a bunch of incredibly divisive rhetoric going aroind and has been for awhile (long before this even) and I'll leave it at that.

And, back to my op before we stray too far from what it actually was, one person doesn't represent the entire party, and if anyone wants to play that game it makes your party look like dog shit and you look like dogshit by that same logic. Everyone is an individual and there are absolutel idiots on both sides.
 
Last edited:

King Stannis

Maréchal d'Empire
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
14,711
Reaction score
20,235
Points
135
Just one example, and a very influential pundit who is essentially the biggest mouthpiece for the Bernie campaign now that Cenk got canceled.

I understand that it isn't a congressman but it is a paid politician and I think of that as a disticinction without a difference. Pundits and influences are in the same arena as elected officials. You put an extra qualifier on there that I don't personally need for the statement that "people on the left say stupid things too" to be true.


And back to your last post. Yes, there is a bunch of incredibly divisive rhetoric going aroind and has been for awhile (long before this even) and I'll leave it at that.
Ok, I will keep an eye out for him.

--------------------------

Regarding your distinction without a difference, I can't agree.

Pundits are not nearly as influential because they have no power, they are paid agitators who vary in terms of influence, very different from an elected representative, which brings me to the second distinction you mentioned:

Both parties, both sides of the spectrum have crazies. That is inevitable. However, the measure of how much power the crazies have within their sphere is whether they are elected or not, or hold prominent non-elected positions within the government.

As you say, we cannot judge a "side" on its outliers, or the one for the many. Anyone can be a pundit; especially these days. Few, relatively speaking, get elected or appointed.

That said, one can judge them by those influential enough to be elected and put into a position of authority. It says a lot about the person, and the party for placing its resources at their disposal, and the temperament of the electorate to support them.
 

David.

Radical Centrist
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
28,487
Reaction score
22,955
Points
135
Ok, I will keep an eye out for him.

--------------------------

Regarding your distinction without a difference, I can't agree.

Pundits are not nearly as influential because they have no power, they are paid agitators who vary in terms of influence, very different from an elected representative, which brings me to the second distinction you mentioned:

Both parties, both sides of the spectrum have crazies. That is inevitable. However, the measure of how much power the crazies have within their sphere is whether they are elected or not, or hold prominent non-elected positions within the government.

As you say, we cannot judge a "side" on its outliers, or the one for the many. That said, one can judge them by those influential enough to be elected and put into a position of authority. It says a lot about the person, and the party for placing its resources at their disposal, and the temperament of the electorate to support them.
There is culture and there are politic(ian)s, they have differnt types of power. One is downstream of the other.

Lindsay Graham, who has legislative power, calling people traitors isn't as influential on society (and is separate from his legislative power altogether) as the young turks activising for their ideology and world view, AND to get a politician (they want.. Or who they are shilling for?) elected. They actually have power to essentially get legislation enacted and to influence culture. People repeat Ben shapiroisms and sentiments much more than they do Dan Crenshaw. The daily show had much more influence on ppl, who in turn end up voting a certain way, than idk, insert elected official here

And you won't see how terrible some people on your side are because you identify as part of their collective and overlap with more of their worldview but man, absolute cancer, some of the stuff. But you and I disagree on things here and there so some will seem benign to you and pretty far out to me and vice versa.
 
Last edited:

King Stannis

Maréchal d'Empire
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
14,711
Reaction score
20,235
Points
135
There is culture and there are politic(ian)s, they have differnt types of power. One is downstream of the other.

Lindsay Graham, who has legislative power, calling people traitors isn't as influential on society (and is separate from his legislative power altogether) as the young turks activising for their ideology and world view, AND to get a politician (they want.. Or who they are shilling for?) elected. They actually have power to essentially get legislation enacted and to influence culture. People repeat Ben shapiroisms and sentiments much more than they do Dan Crenshaw. The daily show had much more influence on ppl, who in turn end up voting a certain way, than idk, insert elected official here

And you won't see how terrible some people on your side are because you identify as part of their collective and overlap with more of their worldview but man, absolute cancer, some of the stuff. But you and I disagree on things here and there so some will seem benign to you and pretty far out to me and vice versa.
As Cersei Lannister once said, "power is power." That is the power that is the monopoly over force. People can influence those who wield it, but in the end it is a poor substitute because in the end they can simply say "no."

I don't have a side or collective, unless you mean devotees of the First French Empire that are also Grant Gustin fans. But I get your point regarding blindness to one's own.

And you are correct that influencers have different effects over different groups. For that reason, pundits have far more influence on the Right side of things because of the unitary nature of the GOP. Democrats are not as easy to influence because one message doesn't work. You cite Shapiro and his popularity. You could throw in Hannity, who actually has a direct line to the President. As a counter, one might cite Maddow, perhaps, and you might get a small plurality that has any idea what she has to say.

Even the Daily Show at its peak spoke primarily to white, college educated liberals and moderates. I can guarantee you that Black Democrats, or East Asian Democrats, were not as fond of him.

But good points nonetheless. But, in terms of measures of influence over national policy, I still stand by elected officials as the proper yardstick. Graham can actually write legislation that defines who is a traitor, and have people prosecuted as a result, the Young Turks cannot.
 

Tlyons

NBA Starter
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
6,367
Reaction score
4,095
Points
113
@David.

I dont know who Jimmy Dore is(I'll check him out) but The ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee just said the democrats "love Terrorists".

Loves Terrorists.

That is some shit you would find in the worst places of social media from someone who is batshit crazy.

The impeachment process also made Collins a household name so that message is reaching a lot of people who may be influenced by it. National tv on every major network this guy was featured during the impeachment process. This isn't just a random member of Congress. He's in a leadership position within the GOP.

Loves Terrorists.

Just dispecable on every level.

That's not your run of the mill rhetoric from "both sides". It is the very worst of a long list of horribly reckless things that the GOP gets away with saying.
 
Last edited:

CleveRocks

There go the Cavs!
Administrator
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
6,029
Reaction score
3,053
Points
113
Rhetoric has escalated on both sides because it works. It works by polarizing sub groups into a herd that can be manipulated..

We have to be hardened enough to look past the rhetoric and make policy judgements.

Rand Paul for example has. Baseline belief that the US has no business projecting military power outside of its own borders.. It's hugely inefficient in terms of resources and presumptive or even arrogant to believe we know better than the regional players... Our government was not elected by anyone from the middle East for example.. it's fundamental to libertarian philosophy. Live and let live.. So of course he is going to say war is bad. Every time.. He is not entirely wrong, and if the world was composed of self serving democracies his philosophy might work. But it is not. Much of the world is governed by dictators and idealogues, a lot of whom would like American to STFU about human rights... This conflict between Republicans is not new, but going on TV and calling Rand a traitor is new. And it's a symptom that we have lost our ability to.hold civil discourse..

There are factions in both parties. I personally see those factions eventually becoming fractures, and one or more new parties emerging.. it's not a sustainable coalition any more..
 

Out of the Rafters at the Q

Out of the Rafters
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
5,855
Reaction score
8,118
Points
113
1) The enlightened centrism and false equivalency stances are a fun new spin we haven't seen in here in a bit
2) I think it's more likely that faction/fracture/whatever takes over the mantle of the already established party. Our culture is too entrenched in the two-party system that a new party won't ever catch on unless there's election reform.
3) David's absolutely right that the human tendency to paint attributes across entire groups of people is a real problem. It isn't just a political one either. It's also not even a solely external problem--we define ourselves with labels and groups as well.
 
Last edited:

pr26

All-Star
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
3,258
Reaction score
6,191
Points
113
Don’t really have time to post right now (crunch time at work), but just wanted to throw out some kudos. Good friendly discussion/disagreement between rational beings who disagree going on right now. Hooray!

Also, as a hardcore Bernie guy, I’ve maybe watched Dore once in my life. However, I’ve never been a big young Turks guy myself.
 

-Akronite-

All-Star
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
8,282
Reaction score
7,188
Points
113
@David.

I dont know who Jimmy Dore is(I'll check him out) but The ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee just said the democrats "love Terrorists".

Loves Terrorists.

That is some shit you would find in the worst places of social media from someone who is batshit crazy.

The impeachment process also made Collins a household name so that message is reaching a lot of people who may be influenced by it. National tv on every major network this guy was featured during the impeachment process. This isn't just a random member of Congress. He's in a leadership position within the GOP.

Loves Terrorists.

Just dispecable on every level.

That's not your run of the mill rhetoric from "both sides". It is the very worst of a long list of horribly reckless things that the GOP gets away with saying.
You are right. There has certainly been polarization across the political spectrum. The Democrats and the left are not innocent in the war of rhetoric, but this argument is bullshit both sidesing, plain and simple.

Doug Collins is in congress. He's a leading voice for the Republican Party on the impeachment fight. He serves a role in government and is supposed to represent the people in his district, not just Trump. And he goes on TV and takes rhetoric that carries over from at latest the Iraq War era (DEMS HATE FREEDOM AND THE TROOPS! WE'LL CALL EM FREEDOM FRIES CUZ THE FRENCH ARE TRAITORS! YOU DON'T LIKE BLOWING UP BROWN PEOPLE? YOU HATE AMERICA!), to lie to the American people about the party he opposes. Mostly because he knows he can get away with it and the Dems will STILL try to work with the GOP regardless of how they treat them (see: USMCA, NDAA, court appointees).

And the first/best/maybe only example of a "Soleimani apologist" (you know that guy most of the country hadn't heard of before we blew him up) on the left is... Jimmy Dore. I've been a Bernie supporter since 2016 and I had no idea who that was. Turns out he's a COMEDIAN that supports Sanders, someone we know for a fact isn't even embraced by the Democratic establishment. Give me a fucking break with this false equivalence bullshit. You apparently can't have any sort of standard today because you can just both sides it away.



The Wall Street Journal has reported that Trump struck at Soleimani because of pressure from potential allies in the impeachment trial. Once again, Trump's personal political interests direct our foreign policy and warmongering. WSJ is behind a paywall but multiple outlets are discussing the report.


So, why did we kill Soleimani? Here are some of the reasons we've been given by the pathological liars that run our executive branch...

1) Iranian backed militias attacked our embassy. So it was retaliation. Most would consider it disproportionate, but does anything matter?
2) There was an imminent threat. We didn't know precisely where or when and you can't see the evidence and the Senate shouldn't even debate it, but TRUST US.
3) Soleimani was a terrorist. Can someone back this claim up? I assume he's probably led some terrorist attacks in the region, and you could probably classify the attack on the embassy as terrorism, but usually people say he's a terrorist who's killed "hundreds of Americans" without acknowledging that the Americans he killed are soldiers. AKA enemy combatants that should never have been sent to the middle east. Are we gonna start using our wars to justify new wars until we've hopped across the whole continent? To be clear, I don't give a shit about this man being dead. Doesn't seem like a great guy. I'm just analyzing these BS post-mortem explanations.
OR
4) "He was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate," the Journal writes...

Something tells me 4 was a non-zero factor. 2/3 are after-the-fact justifications rather than a real motive, especially when you consider the timing. I'm sure Trump loves that he can kill people across the planet, so he doesn't need much prodding when he gets an excuse to do it. 1 made it really easy. Thank God it didn't lead to full-blown war... yet, this wasn't exactly a consequence free spat with a burgeoning nuclear power (thanks Trump diplomacy!).

TL;DR: Trump brought us toward the brink of war because he can't handle being impeached.
 
Last edited:

Radio

Top