Indeed. That is the problem with democracy. I applauded the candidate who was least likely to antagonize Russia, then he antagonizes Russia because the media and the opposition won’t stop bleating about how he won’t antagonize Russia. Of course they, along with his vanquished foe, applaud the foolish move.
Yes but thanks to him, it is ok to be anti-war on the right again. See the treatment of a Rand Paul or Ann Coulter(who criticized the attack) and then see the treatment of Tulsi Gabbard.
Rand Paul and Ann Coulter have never looked for validation from anyone. They are insane ideologues who revel in the disdain that people have for them. Trump didn’t change this at all.
He also didn’t change the status quo of attacking Islamic extremists.
Reports are he’s also thinking of launching a preemptive military strike against North Korea to prevent nuclear testing.
So… How many of y’all are draft age…?
If only we could have known that Trump would care very very deeply about how he’s portrayed in the media sometime before the election. But there’s no way we could have known that in advance, of course.
We didnt know the extent to which the media was rotten with neo-McCarthyites, though, or maybe we did.
If we are going to start calling people who are alarmed by Russia “neo-McCarthyites,” can we also start calling Russian apologists “neo-pinkos?”
Considering the group that favors improved relations with Russia overlaps considerably with solid free-marketers, that would be a bit odd. That may work for the alt-right who favors nationalized medicine, though. Try it out.
So what? It isn’t like the people you accuse of “neo-McCarthyism” have anything in common with traditional McCarthyists. For example, a good number of so-called neo-McCarthyists are in favor of gay rights and national health care, and are against actual McCarthyism.
Well which is it?
You didn’t know the media would be this gosh-darn anti-Russian, or not?
Donald Trump has been Donald Trump for the last 40 years, you’d have to be insane to somehow think he wouldn’t be Donald Trump if he somehow got elected president.
Same with the media. If you think the mainstream media is some giant biased left-wing propaganda machine, then why exactly would you think this would change just because Donald Trump got elected president?
And if you think that free-market conservative Republicans are Russophiles, you must be talking about some other conservative Republicans than any that I’ve ever met. Sure, you had Donald Trump during the election. And that’s about it. And Donald Trump isn’t some free market evangelist, he’s a crony capitalist who’s absolutely fine with authoritarian government interference in commerce, if that benefits him personally.
There are a few Russia-admiring conservatives out there, but they’re all authoritarian social conservatives who admire Putin because of how he’s cracking down on the gays and using the Russian Orthodox church as an arm of state power.
Gee, somehow propagating fake news propaganda via a state controlled media while jailing and assassinating reporters who say bad things about you turns the actual free media against you. Who woulda thunk.
Sure, you could blame everyone but Trump for his Presidential decisions. Or you could accept the fact that you got conned.
Yes, that’s what I meant when I mentioned the problem with democracy.
Wait–the problem with democracy is that easily conned people like yourself get to choose our government?
Trump may very well be the peace candidate, it’s too soon to tell since he hasn’t done anything Clinton wouldn’t have. Obama was the peace candidate and he ended up bombing seven or eight countries. It’s America, you grade on a curve.
According to the Russia CT, the Syria strike was orchestrated between Trump and Putin to make the Russia connections go away because people would say “see, he acted against Russia’s interest!” Wheels within wheels.
The ex-conned? (Somehow, given The Beltway at present, that almost sounds almost right…)
I don’t think I was conned personally because I didn’t cast a vote for him nor support Trump in any way, but yes that is one problem with democracy. When a politician cons the voters, there is no practical recourse. When you choose the person who says he is against war over the person who says she is for war and the person who is against war turns out to be for war have you lost anything? This is all assuming your vote matters, which it most certainly does not.
I wish I could make this claim in order to save face but I don’t believe it is accurate so far. Clinton would not be antagonizing North Korea. I think that outweighs the slight advantage Trump still holds on Syrian and Russian relations.
So did he appoint McMaster and Haley for the same reasons? I don’t know if I buy that.
Have you considered that maybe it’s your problem and not democracy’s? Most of the voters saw through Trump and voted against him.
When your political beliefs leads you to a place where you didn’t want to be, you should stop and re-examine those beliefs. You should consider the possibility those beliefs don’t work in the real world.
You are correct of course, but this would call for thoughtful self-analysis, which is a quality that is all too often lacking.
It would seem that many people are loathe to admit ANY mistake, to the point where they will start off saying that their candidate is “the peace candidate”, and then never deviate from this, even when this candidate drops bombs on multiple countries, and leads us closer to nuclear annihilation than we’ve been for years.
It would seem that rather than say those three little words (“I was wrong”), they would rather go for the tried and true “I’m right and you’re an idiot”.