The Donald speaks the truth

Originally posted by normbenign
"Close" is relative. As I recall, and it is a long time ago, McVeigh was arrested about an hour's drive away from OK city, by highway patrol. Some would say that is close, to others it is considerably distant. You are a total dipstick. Your obsession with finding me wrong about anything is readily apparent. Why do you keep digging into the past, when at t ...[text shortened]... e the intellect. Please stop exposing yourself as the fool that most of us already know you for.

Sorry norm, I'm going to have to award this round to Duchess. I would also add that name calling, and other childish acts is not helping your cause.

Originally posted by normbenign
Trump is quite clever at using what others say if not to support his positions, but also to gain some support from the other side of the isle. I still think that in the end he'll just lose interest in being the candidate. He'll reason he has bigger fish to fry.

His comment at that link, ""The Trump doctrine is simple," he added. "It's strength. It's strength. Nobody is going to mess with us. Our military will be made stronger."" needs fleshing out and should be scrutinized.

Originally posted by JS357
His comment at that link, ""The Trump doctrine is simple," he added. "It's strength. It's strength. Nobody is going to mess with us. Our military will be made stronger."" needs fleshing out and should be scrutinized.

I find that problematic. Prior to WWI the US fought regional colonialist battles, but with WWI and worse with WWII, it came to pursue global hegemony, and that is now viewed as "normal" by many if not most Americans.

Originally posted by normbenign
I find that problematic. Prior to WWI the US fought regional colonialist battles, but with WWI and worse with WWII, it came to pursue global hegemony, and that is now viewed as "normal" by many if not most Americans.

The obvious analogy is to the British Empire. "The sun never sets" now means (in the minds of some people who are pipe-dreaming) there is no place on earth that cannot be politically and if necessary, militarily dominated by the US, if only we have the will and leadership. Trump's rhetoric, sincere or not, speaks to that mentality.

Originally posted by bill718
Donald Trump has just said "The world would be a better place if dictators such as Saddam Hussein and Moamer Kadhafi were still in power" If a Democrat had said such a thing, they would be demonized by the GOP as an anti American scum, deserving of a firing squad. Saddam Hussein and Moamer Kadhafi were sadistic dictators, no doubt about it, but what came aft ...[text shortened]... l.


http://news.yahoo.com/world-better-place-saddam-kadhafi-still-power-trump-150717855.html

Donald is an arrogant New York Progressive, so there is virtually no reason you should not love him. 😵

But yes, Iraq was a mistake. So was Libya. Thankfully, Obama did not surrender Syria to ISIS as well by taking out Assad, even though he wanted to do so.

You have to understand bill, these military excursions are merely a byproduct of Progressive rule. How do you create a world wide collectivist economic power and not have them use their power and wealth for military conquest around the world? As you see, both parties simply can't help themselves, despite their rhetoric.

Originally posted by whodey
You have to understand bill, these military excursions are merely a byproduct of Progressive rule.

Oh, yeah, that's why they all happened under neo-Con presidents.

Although, of course, you redefine neo-Conservatism as a form of "progressive". As you do with anything except teabaggery.

Originally posted by bill718
Donald Trump has just said "The world would be a better place if dictators such as Saddam Hussein and Moamer Kadhafi were still in power" If a Democrat had said such a thing, they would be demonized by the GOP as an anti American scum, deserving of a firing squad. Saddam Hussein and Moamer Kadhafi were sadistic dictators, no doubt about it, but what came aft ...[text shortened]... l.


http://news.yahoo.com/world-better-place-saddam-kadhafi-still-power-trump-150717855.html

Qaddafi was taken out by a popular rebellion. Sure they rebellion had some foreign assistance, but Qaddafi's time had come. So I don't agree with that part. Hussein is a different story as there's little doubt that he could have kept power indefinitely absent the US-led invasion.

Whether Hussein being ousted was a good thing is a very complex question. On the one hand, the problem in general with thinking "oh, well, a dictator can control the people and so let him stay in power" has the following problems:
1. At its bottom, it evinces a very callous disregard for the people oppressed by the dictator
2. When the dictator is eventually toppled, it's most likely to be by an even more vicious warlord who is unlikely treat the people any better. Popular uprisings do happen that topple dictators, but they don't usually work and, when they do, they don't always last.The "Arab Spring" was supposed to transform the Middle East and North Africa into a region governed by the people. Didn't exactly work out in most cases.

George W. Bush (putting aside the question of whether he intentionally lied about WMD's - that's really a different issue) believed (or was influenced by those who believe) that the people fundamentally want democracy and that if he swept away the dictator and installed a democracy, the people would welcome it and sustain it. This is a very humanist point of view, putting aside whether you think the invasion was a good idea. He obviously miscalculated. Maybe he was wrong only in the case of Iraq because of the polyglot and sectarian nature of the country or maybe because of the culture of that particular group of people or maybe he was simply wrong all together. But I'm not ready to throw in the towel on the idea that people fundamentally want freedom and self-governance.

So, no, I'm not really to agree that it would have been better for Hussein to still be in power. Moreover, frankly, I think that the opinion that the Iraqis would have been better off to remain under the heel of what nearly everyone agrees was a brutal and bloodthirsty dictatorship, is a borderline racist opinion.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Oh, yeah, that's why they all happened under neo-Con presidents.

Although, of course, you redefine neo-Conservatism as a form of "progressive". As you do with anything except teabaggery.

Progressivism is all about bigger and better government. They will find the best qualified, best educated, most intellectual human being on the face of the earth to run everything.

That's what we hear Donald say time and again, is it not? That is how Obama was sold to us, was it not?

Originally posted by sh76
Qaddafi was taken out by a popular rebellion. Sure they rebellion had some foreign assistance, but Qaddafi's time had come. So I don't agree with that part. Hussein is a different story as there's little doubt that he could have kept power indefinitely absent the US-led invasion.

Whether Hussein being ousted was a good thing is a very complex question. On th ...[text shortened]... arly everyone agrees was a brutal and bloodthirsty dictatorship, is a borderline racist opinion.

Gaddafi would still be in power had it not been for US involvement.

ISIS would also not be as powerful in Libya had he not been removed.

The US ambassador would still be alive.

Do you dispute this? If not, why in the hell did the US need to get involved?

Originally posted by whodey
Gaddafi would still be in power had it not been for US involvement.

ISIS would also not be as powerful in Libya had he not been removed.

The US ambassador would still be alive.

Do you dispute this? If not, why in the hell did the US need to get involved?

You're looking at this too simplistically, IMO. You can't always look at what they call in law, "but for" causation.

First of all, I'm not convinced that Qaddafi would still be in power but for US intervention. But even if so, US intervention was just one factor of many. Perhaps it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, but it's not like the US led the coup, as in Iraq. Qaddafi's fall cannot be attributed directly any more to US action than can the AIDS patient's death can be attributed to the common cold that administered the coup de grace. Qaddafi's regime was sick and tottering. The US only helped administer the final blow.

The link between Qaddafi and the Benghazi attack is extremely tenuous. You can't just history based on but-for causation of isolated incidents. How do you know Qaddafi would not have taken down another passenger airline since then, or started war? Qaddafi was no Saint and certainly he was no friend of the United States. Helping to take him out can hardly be considered a mistake merely because of a single incident.

The same exact argument you make with Qaddafi, incidentally, can also be made regarding ISIS. ISIS being in a powerful position also helps keeps "peace" of a sort. Is ISIS worse than Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein? I don't know. ISIS leaders are certainly brutal thugs and religious nut jobs, but so far, they've kept their holy war to the Middle East and haven't bothered anyone on US soil. The perpetrators of the Paris supermarket attack may have pledged allegiance to ISIS, but I don't see evidence that the Middle Eastern ISIS leadership planned the attack.

Originally posted by whodey
Progressivism is all about bigger and better government. They will find the best qualified, best educated, most intellectual human being on the face of the earth to run everything.

That's what we hear Donald say time and again, is it not? That is how Obama was sold to us, was it not?

I've read that progressivism operates by setting and enforcing regulations, and liberalism operates by redistributing money.

"The answer, in my opinion, is no - there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional "liberals" in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A "progressive" are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules. "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-betw_b_9140.html

What we have in the Democratic party is an amalgam.