Again, I voted against Trump as well. In any case, the person they voted for holds the same position Trump has defaulted to. If they had voted for Clinton, they would have gotten an escalation in Syria as well.
Somehow the irony of your second paragraph has eluded you.
Indeed. See Obama supporters’ hardcore willful ignorance of his mass killings.
No, I find my political assessments of presidential candidates are usually borne out by their performance.
I thought Ronald Reagan was a nice guy who lacked substance behind his surface charisma and he wouldn’t be able to control his administration.
I thought George Bush was a political insider who had experience in government but lacked charisma and vision so he would be seen as a poor follow-up to Reagan and have problems in office.
I thought Bill Clinton would be a capable political operator whose moral flaws were confined to his personal life.
I thought George W. Bush lacked wisdom and wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between good decisions and bad decisions.
I thought Barack Obama was a nice guy who was intelligent but lacked the ruthlessness a president needs.
I won’t pronounce a final assessment on Donald Trump yet because he’s only starting out his term. But so far, he’s been within my expectations.
I certainly didn’t make the mistake of thinking Trump was the peace candidate. Clinton might have fought a war during her presidency but she would have only started a war if she had an intelligent reason for doing it. Trump, as many of us anticipated, doesn’t let a lack of intelligent reasons hold him back.
And how come nobody ever talks about how Obama shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die?
But I think we were talking in this thread about how Trump was the “peace candidate”, but now that he is the “bomb countries and threaten nuclear war” president, it’s all OK. Because reasons.
Given a second chance, the irony remains elusive to you.
Maybe you’re too hip for the room?
And Obama was considered the peace candidate yet he became the “drone bomb anyone who moves president” and “destabilize regions president”. It’s ok because Reasons.
Apparently you don’t understand what I thought was obvious. That is “peace candidates” are candidates. The fact that Trump was the peace candidate was pretty obvious. Indeed the chief complaint in regards to foreign policy during his candidacy was that he was unlikely to antagonize the evil Putin. Warmongers from Bill Kristol to the hawks in this thread were very afraid that he would not start enough wars for them.
Oooooh! You meant Trump would be the peace candidate, not the peace president! Of course! That’s why you posted this so many months ago:
You clearly meant Trump would kill fewer people as a candidate than Obama was doing as President!
How silly of us to misunderstand your point. Although, if we’re just comparing candidates, recent lawsuits seem to indicate that Trump was a less peaceful candidate than Clinton, considering how many people left Trump’s rallies after being roughed up at his direction.
I am comparing the record of Peace-Candidate-turned-president Obama with Peace-Candidate-turned-president Trump. I’m noticing a similarity. Others are seeing
Peace-candidate-turned-president Trump drop bombs and so are trying to deny that he existed as the Peace Candidate. I do not deny that Obama existed as the Peace Candidate even though he dropped many bombs. That would be silly. I think others are being silly. Or, gasp, partisan.
Cut me some slack, Will. When you start posting about politics, it’s really hard to separate the parts where you’re intentionally being ironic from the parts that would be ironic if anyone else posted them but you intended seriously.
Given how well your prediction of Trump as a “peace candidate” worked out, why should anyone give any attention at all to your predictions of what Hillary would have done?
It wasn’t a prediction. He was the peace candidate. Like Obama, Trump was the “peace candidate”, and like Obama, he has been a “war president”.
“War candidates” do not go on to be “peace presidents”, so it’s pretty easy to assume Clinton would have escalated in Syria. She criticized Obama for not escalating enough, promised to escalate as a candidate, and has approved of Trump’s escalations.
I also predicted fairly early on that there was no way Clinton was going to become president. Who did you predict was going to win?