Not to mention pulling out of a huge trade deal that was supposed to help even the playing field against China, slapping tariffs on steel imports from allies saying that was a security risk, pulling out of a nuclear arms treaty thereby allowing Russia to develop more nuclear missiles that can hit our European allies, and pulling out of a worldwide treaty to try to reduce climate change, etc, etc…
Hmmm, maybe this is just the thing where the young Turks of the Justice Democrats can make their presence known.
The Democrats have been the more fiscally responsible party since the 1980s, and I’d like to see them continue to be. However, I don’t think a problem so long in the making can be corrected in a single year. I’d like to see the deficit be lower next year, and lower again the year after that, etc. It’s like dieting or exercise; we’d all like a quick fix, but success comes from having sound habits and making good choices over years or even decades.
Yes – Trump signed it into law the same day that he signed the bogus border emergency declaration.
If you go back and re-read my post that caused this little snit, you’ll see that I specifically mentioned Trump as being the major problem here.
It’s a fringe position in the U.S. that we should move back from our overseas commitments. It just so happens that one of that fringe is in the Oval Office today, but you shouldn’t kid yourself that the left doesn’t have similar ideas. Jill Stein called NATO “gangster states” or some such bullshit, which isn’t far off the mark from where Chomsky is. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Tulsi Gabbard had a roughly similar position.
it just so happens that some of the left’s criticism of NATO – which again is a position on the fringe – appears to be moderated in order to make Trump look worse. (Or, to make Trump look as bad as he is, might be the better way to state it.)
You’re right, of course; I am wishing for a unicorn, too. 
It’s time to call the Republicans’ bluff; let them propose how to pay for their priorities. They need to be tarred as “Borrow and Spend Republicans” until they decide to become fiscally responsible.
You’ve nailed it – climate change – we will need a significant military capability to both cope with the effects of climate change on our military itself (logistically and operationally), as well as to prepare for the world-wide unrest and forced migration due to the wide ranging effects of climate change on the world.
It would be cheaper to spend money to prevent climate change, but if we aren’t going to do that, then we will need a military prepared to defend our country against it.
Il Douche would send an armored division to Florida to defend against a hurricane. If its Puerto Rico, its thoughts and prayers.
I call BS on it being a fringe position of the GOP. The GOP control the Senate and have gone along with practically every Trump ally undermining move. They may grumble, but the Senate GOP votes are not there or Mitch second-traitor-in-chief McConnel won’t bring items to a vote.
This is the GOP dominated Congress, not a Jill Stein fringe loon. Jill Stein has virtually zero power or influence on how the US treats NATO. Trump and the GOP Congress are in the driving seat, threaten and could destroy NATO. False equivalency.
In July 2018 the Senate voted 97-2 to express its support for NATO in a resolution authored by a Democrat. Link.
I think your posts are just examples of your anger at Republicans, and aren’t really reflective of the actual state of affairs.