Has the US government been this unstable in the past 40 years?

[Takhisis]

And even though Trump didn't do it for the right reasons, pulling out of Syria was the best move for the US in that particular situation. There is really nothing more that we can do there that will have a meaningful impact on the situation so any more lives or money we spend there is simply going to be wasted with no benefit to the US.

Maybe that last part will turn out to be true, but Trump just did it beause his handlers told him to.

 

[Commodore]

but Trump just did it beause his handlers told him to.

Of course. I'm just saying that in this particular instance, what his handlers wanted and what was good for the US as a nation just so happened to coincide with each other.

 

[Berzerker]

The Democrat media is complaining about us leaving Syria, they keep saying Russia is the big winner. Apparently we're supposed to go to war with Russia over Syria or something.

 

[Commodore]

The Democrat media is complaining about us leaving Syria, they keep saying Russia is the big winner. Apparently we're supposed to go to war with Russia over Syria or something.

Not to mention this is the same media that has been crying for 17 years now about US "military adventurism" in the Middle East. But now that a president they disagree with politically is putting an end to one of those "military adventures", all of a sudden they turn into a bunch of bloodthirsty warmongers.

Which, as an aside, is why I simply can't take the American left seriously. They base their stance on any given issue not on what is being said, but rather on who is saying it. I mean, I bet if Trump came out tomorrow and announced a plan for universal healthcare for all, all of a sudden the Democrats and the American left would start talking about how horrible universal healthcare is just to avoid agreeing with Trump on anything for any reason.

 

[Estebonrober]

Not to mention this is the same media that has been crying for 17 years now about US "military adventurism" in the Middle East. But now that a president they disagree with politically is putting an end to one of those "military adventures", all of a sudden they turn into a bunch of bloodthirsty warmongers.

Which, as an aside, is why I simply can't take the American left seriously. They base their stance on any given issue not on what is being said, but rather on who is saying it. I mean, I bet if Trump came out tomorrow and announced a plan for universal healthcare for all, all of a sudden the Democrats and the American left would start talking about how horrible universal healthcare is just to avoid agreeing with Trump on anything for any reason.

You do realize there are a lot of different lefts in America. The one rights tend to go on about the most being the "MSM", who I'm assuming you are talking about here. In their particular case they have always had a touch of warmongering, is you ask non "mainstream" lefts the "MSM" and democrats generally have been complicit in much military adventurism as you put it. So I think here you are taking a right talking point and turning it into a truth in your mind when its much more complex than you are giving it. Obama was criticized vociferously from the actual left (not the "MSM" center left), for his drones, his libyan and syrian adventures, Iraq and Afghanistan, heck even his spats with China. You are doing the old giving singular agency to a vast swath of people when there is more nuance than say republicans on a border wall. . . or on medicaid, or social security (though this is changing), etc.

Finally while I agree with you if Trump came out with Universal Healthcare there would be much questioning of it, this is more of a statement of the person involved. His purpose is to troll "librul" to get them "librul tears", so yea taking him seriously in any matter is very difficult for any honest purveyor of reality. On the other hand if a Kasich or Romney proposed something it would be given a more general form of respect. Trump just doesn't deserve respect.

 

[Tristan_C]

The Democrat media is complaining about us leaving Syria, they keep saying Russia is the big winner. Apparently we're supposed to go to war with Russia over Syria or something.

There is intersectionality between declaring Russia a winner in Syria thanks to Trump, and promoting the Mueller investigation back home. The media will fixate on anything that could potentially improve the public standing of that investigation.

At this point the media has given up on the notion that the Mueller investigation could drive a wedge between Trump and his support base, though they will keep trying. Honestly this problem should be more alarming to them than it seems to be. The fact that the media can only sell this garbage to one-half the country means that the other half doesn't believe what they say or print anymore. And supposedly, they're journalists. This is not good. This is bad.

 

[Estebonrober]

This is not good. This is bad.

Yea they believe Fox and Friends over everyone else. You're right it is bad that like 35% of the population is in denial of reality in a literal sense. It is bloody terrible.

 

[Tristan_C]

Yea they believe Fox and Friends over everyone else. You're right it is bad that like 35% of the population is in denial of reality in a literal sense. It is bloody terrible.

But this is such a canned response. You are just assuming the collusion narrative and the shilling is true "in a literal sense" and excoriating people for not believing it. This easy slide into tribalism is one of the more poisonous effects of the investigation, I think. And I am certain the GRU is happy to serve as a bogeyman to enable it.

 

[Estebonrober]

But this is such a canned response. You are just assuming the collusion narrative and the shilling is true "in a literal sense" and excoriating people for not believing it. This easy slide into tribalism is one of the more poisonous effects of the investigation, I think. And I am certain the GRU is happy to serve as a bogeyman to enable it.

Nah, other than the obvious collusion of his asking the Russians to hack Clinton and then their using it in the presidential campaign, I'm not convinced of collusion. . . o wait.

You are the pot calling the kettle black judging by your posts around here.

The last sentence I agree with whole heartedly. It matters not how this plays out, Putin wins ( I will not ascribe an entire nation to this mad mans plots).

 

[uppi]

The merits of staying in Syria are debatable. But the USA coordinating this with Erdogan and Putin instead of their supposed allies makes them look like a card-carrying member of the Axis of Evil.

 

[Estebonrober]

The merits of staying in Syria are debatable. But the USA coordinating this with Erdogan and Putin instead of their supposed allies makes them look like a card-carrying member of the Axis of Evil.

Yea and to elaborate on this from my point of view, being the one super hegemonic power of the world and then claiming America First makes us by ourselves the Axis of Evil.

 

[Gori the Grey]

one-half the country means that the other half doesn't believe what they say or print anymore

I wonder if that results from what the press prints or from what the half (sic) believes.

I am certain the GRU is happy to serve as a bogeyman to enable it.

On the proposition that Russia seeks to exacerbate American tribalism, though, we are in agreement.

 

[Takhisis]

Of course. I'm just saying that in this particular instance, what his handlers wanted and what was good for the US as a nation just so happened to coincide with each other.

Given that those handlers are the agents of a foreign power that is more or less openly out to destroy the US, I'm quite sure that they disagree with your concept of it being ‘good for the US as a nation’. The leaders of the US' allies also appear agree.

 

[Commodore]

The leaders of the US' allies also appear agree.

Of course they do. They don't want the US to pull out of Syria because then it will fall to them to actually do something for once instead of just sitting back and waiting for the US to handle it.

I'm quite sure that they disagree with your concept of it being ‘good for the US as a nation’.

Just because they disagree doesn't mean they are correct. I was one of the people stating from the beginning that we should not have become directly involved in the fighting in Syria. Funding and arming rebels and other proxies in the conflict was fine, but directly committing troops was a mistake. A mistake that is now being undone.

But the USA coordinating this with Erdogan and Putin instead of their supposed allies

Well technically Erdogan is one of our allies. As much as I don't like it, Turkey is a member of NATO, and as such is due the same level of attention and respect we give to the European members of the alliance.

 

[innonimatu]

The merits of staying in Syria are debatable. But the USA coordinating this with Erdogan and Putin instead of their supposed allies makes them look like a card-carrying member of the Axis of Evil.

The merits are debatable? By all means, "debate" in favor of american troops in Syria if you can at all. Can you? Are they really debatable at all?

And why are those allies interested in whether the US stays or leaves, why are there french soldiers in Syria? Because they are fighting "isis"? Or because France is bent on playing neo-colonial big power in all its former colonies?

Has Syria's government sponsored one, just one, act of terrorism against the US and those allies? Has it done anything at all hostile, that justified Syria being attacked, having terrorists (those "moderates", "al qaeda is on our side" remember?) continuous supported, protected and armed to destroy Syria from inside?
What are you really afraid of, that the syrians might some day want revenge for what has been done to them? I don't know about axis of evil, but there definitely is a chain of evil in this linking Riyadh, Paris, London, Washington...

Obama started two more wars (Libya and Syria), destroyed two countries and killed hunderds of thousands. He got a Nobel Peace Prize.

Trump fires a warmongering general (whom colleges denounced for imperiling the more important alliance with Turkey) and ends involvement in a war that had no cause to exist other than the US and its allies fueling it. And gets attacked for... what? That allegedly he's somehow "irresponsible"?

War is Peace and Peace is War. You've always been at war with Eastasia. And the ministry of information storied in the mainstream media are always true and reasonable. Keep believing, be a responsible citizen.

Given that those handlers are the agents of a foreign power that is more or less openly out to destroy the US, I'm quite sure that they disagree with your concept of it being ‘good for the US as a nation’. The leaders of the US' allies also appear agree.

Those handlers are as true as the bogeyman hiding underneath your bed. The collusion accusation was a political ploy to keep the new administration under pressure, unable to carry out any of the program Trump had outlined in his campaign. The method employed to do this counted with the connivance of a portion of the faithful from the previous administration who are insiders in the state apparatus. There is no collusion, not treason. There is sedition through.

Trump has finally found the balls to ram through his own wishes. I hope he finds the balls to fire and prosecute those that have been hounding hi,m with false accusation.

If the americans don't like the man, and there is plenty not to like, they should fight him politically on those points they pretend not to like*. Not make up phony accusations in a (futile!) attempt to undermine him. It got him off-balance for a year or so but he has taken the measure of Washington establishment by now. It has ceased working.

* I say pretend not to like because the Democrats, the official opposition, are mostly "phony left". They care more for the health care services sellers (insurance, pharma and for-profit clinics) that for building affordable health care for the population. They care more for donations from large banking corporations that for preventing financial crisis. They care more for big investors than for the unemployed and underemployed wage-laborers. They're in politics for the money and prestige even more than Trump. Frankly, those deserve to be crushed electorally. Better to be robbed and exploited by a transparent oligarch than by the sanctimonious agents of oligarchs.

 

[innonimatu]

One final thought: it's always through the aides that the allegedly reformist presidents are neutered and aligned with special interests.

Clinton was elected with a "left" program, only to quickly turn around and claim that the state deficit was too high (a lie, as subsequent presidencies proved) and he could not fulfill his promises. He was "persuaded" by the bankers he brought in as advisers. And lifted the restrictions on commercial and investment banks mixing, which led directly to the kind of finance that would blow spectacularly in 2008, and then saddle the state with a huge debt. He also made the US the number one country in incarcerations because being seen as "though on crime" was good according to his PR advisors. And he wasn't ruling for the benefit of the citizens, he was ruling for his own reelections and the increase of his prestige and power...

Obama was elected as the president of "change", went on to destroy Libya and attempt to destroy Syria before having a fit of courage to oppose his handlers (as in "national security advisors"...) in that last one. And protected the bankers, following in the footsteps of Clinton. There was money to save the banks, but there was no money to build a decent health care system? Priorities... It was constitutional to create a "tax-like" new law to enforce payments to private insures, but it was inconceivable to create a tax to finance direct public provision of health care services? The president of continuity...

Trump won also because people got sick of all these betrayals. I dare guess that if he stands firm and forces his demands to execute what was foremost on his electoral promises, he'll win again. Just on the novelty of one finally doing (or doing his best to do) what he promised!
And if that is useful to demonstrate that the office has extremely broad powers, and that those establishment voices who insist that changes are impossible are lying to serve their own self-interest, then his years in power will have been useful. Whatever damage he does along, that alone is worth it: putting and end to the lie that there are no political choices to be had. That whomever is elected, he won't follow through on promises made, that reality cannot be altered or shaped by democratic choices. What is at stake, really, is whether or not democracy has a future, in the most influential country in the world. For it to have a future, for trust in politics to be restored, Trump had better continue to behave as he's been doing. Let him continue to fire the alleged "grown-ups" and do what he promised he'd do! It took someone who is stubborn and narcissist and prejudiced, so be it. In the future think about electing other stubborn people who support what you want done and are not willing to "compromise" or be "grown-ups".

 

[Broken_Erika]

Next you'll be saying that David Duke is neither Racist nor Anti-Semitic........

 

[Berzerker]

...or Trump should be allowed to murder people on 5th Avenue

 

[innonimatu]

Next you'll be saying that David Duke is neither Racist nor Anti-Semitic........

I know you wish Trump replaced by someone better, both in vision and in competence. But doing politics in the US, promoting someone better as a candidate against him, and it's obvious he'll run for reelection, requires understanding Trump for what he is. Not for any of a number of attempted mockeries of him. The guy is not dumb, he's a political animal who knows the psychology of people attracted to power, and the power-plays within organizations. And he plays that very well. He's survived all that was thrown against him and that would have destroyed any other politician. The caricature of Trump as an ignorant buffoon made those people who wanted to support someone different entirely blind in their strategy.
Mocking Trump as ignorant, attacking him as an alleged racist (he's not any more racist that your average citizen), calling him senile or decrying the chaos in his administration, all seem to be "coping mechanist" for dealing with the fact that he won, and is still winning. You want him replaced, offer a real vision of an alternative for his country, offer a credible candidate to stand against him. Work on preparing that, don't waste your time laughing at caricatures of your adversary.

 

[tetley]

What exactly did Trump "win"? If he can't win the election, then he sells out the U..S. to the Russians and guts the democracy.