Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(11-29-2016, 03:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Our wonderful president whom supposed "libertarians" support, has a new proposal to violate our civil rights:
Trump suggests loss of citizenship or jail for those who burn U.S. flags
By John Wagner November 29 at 10:55 AM
President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday threatened loss of citizenship or jail for those who burn the American flag, saying such protests — which the Supreme Court has declared to be free speech — should carry “consequences.”
Trump offered his thoughts in an early-morning post on Twitter, saying, “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag.”
Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
3:55 AM - 29 Nov 2016
51,285 51,285 Retweets 142,220 142,220 likes
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...litics_pop
I hope that this is just a random twitter message, and not a considered opinion. Certainly as a conservative veteran, the freedoms I was trying to protect included free speech and expression, even if that expression involved burning of the flag.
However, this is a good reason why the liberals on the left need to help confirm Trump's initial Supreme Court nominee quickly. The list from which Trump is currently working consists of justices similar to Scalia, and Scalia was among the 5 justice majority that ruled that flag burning was constitutionally protected speech. Let's not give Trump time to shift to a supposedly more "moderate" or leftist judge like Stevens, who was willing to jettison this first amendment freedom.
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 29
Joined: May 2016
(11-29-2016, 03:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Our wonderful president whom supposed "libertarians" support, has a new proposal to violate our civil rights:
Trump suggests loss of citizenship or jail for those who burn U.S. flags
By John Wagner November 29 at 10:55 AM
President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday threatened loss of citizenship or jail for those who burn the American flag, saying such protests — which the Supreme Court has declared to be free speech — should carry “consequences.”
Trump offered his thoughts in an early-morning post on Twitter, saying, “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag.”
Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
3:55 AM - 29 Nov 2016
51,285 51,285 Retweets 142,220 142,220 likes
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...litics_pop
He's trying to bait people into actually burning US flags to protest him. Let's not take the bait and let's burn Confederate flags instead and watch all his supporters get all enraged.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 29
Joined: May 2016
(11-30-2016, 03:56 AM)Galen Wrote: (11-29-2016, 03:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Our wonderful president whom supposed "libertarians" support, has a new proposal to violate our civil rights:
Trump suggests loss of citizenship or jail for those who burn U.S. flags
My preference for Trump stems from a desire to avoid war with Russia. I have to admit watching the collective freakout from the Left is just a bonus. 
Scratch a "Libertarian", find a right-wing authoritarian more concerned with "sticking it to the Left" than anything else. 
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(11-30-2016, 03:56 AM)Galen Wrote: (11-29-2016, 03:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Our wonderful president whom supposed "libertarians" support, has a new proposal to violate our civil rights:
Trump suggests loss of citizenship or jail for those who burn U.S. flags
My preference for Trump stems from a desire to avoid war with Russia. I have to admit watching the collective freakout from the Left is just a bonus.
Vladimir Putin now has a President that he can blackmail. That is far more dangerous than a President at arm's length with Vladimir Putin.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
11-30-2016, 04:01 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-30-2016, 04:03 PM by Eric the Green.)
(11-30-2016, 07:47 AM)Odin Wrote: (11-29-2016, 03:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Our wonderful president whom supposed "libertarians" support, has a new proposal to violate our civil rights:
Trump suggests loss of citizenship or jail for those who burn U.S. flags
By John Wagner November 29 at 10:55 AM
President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday threatened loss of citizenship or jail for those who burn the American flag, saying such protests — which the Supreme Court has declared to be free speech — should carry “consequences.”
Trump offered his thoughts in an early-morning post on Twitter, saying, “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag.”
Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
3:55 AM - 29 Nov 2016
51,285 51,285 Retweets 142,220 142,220 likes
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...litics_pop
He's trying to bait people into actually burning US flags to protest him. Let's not take the bait and let's burn Confederate flags instead and watch all his supporters get all enraged.
I have to admit that would be a better idea.
It may also be a good idea to distract Trump so he concentrates on issues like this, in the hope that he has less time to do other mischief. I dunno if that would work though. It sure worked on Bill Clinton.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(11-30-2016, 05:47 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: (11-29-2016, 03:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Our wonderful president whom supposed "libertarians" support, has a new proposal to violate our civil rights:
Trump suggests loss of citizenship or jail for those who burn U.S. flags
By John Wagner November 29 at 10:55 AM
President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday threatened loss of citizenship or jail for those who burn the American flag, saying such protests — which the Supreme Court has declared to be free speech — should carry “consequences.”
Trump offered his thoughts in an early-morning post on Twitter, saying, “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag.”
Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
3:55 AM - 29 Nov 2016
51,285 51,285 Retweets 142,220 142,220 likes
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...litics_pop
I hope that this is just a random twitter message, and not a considered opinion. Certainly as a conservative veteran, the freedoms I was trying to protect included free speech and expression, even if that expression involved burning of the flag.
However, this is a good reason why the liberals on the left need to help confirm Trump's initial Supreme Court nominee quickly. The list from which Trump is currently working consists of justices similar to Scalia, and Scalia was among the 5 justice majority that ruled that flag burning was constitutionally protected speech. Let's not give Trump time to shift to a supposedly more "moderate" or leftist judge like Stevens, who was willing to jettison this first amendment freedom.
Is it really wise to burn the American flag on a regular in front of so many Americans who value and appreciate it. You're a soldier. Soldiers are professionally trained to over look the burning of the American flag. The vast majority of Americans aren't trained professionals like our cops and soldiers. I'm not going to be surprised/shocked when a group or groups of flag burners find themselves being harshly confronted or viciously attacked by groups of angry Americans. I'm not sure if Nancy Pelosi would be able to handle situations like that if they were to begin happening all over the place.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(11-30-2016, 02:59 PM)taramarie Wrote: While America should not feel controlled by any country to the point they desire to tell them who to vote for, it is unwise to get into a war with them. So even though I despise Trump and think he is a threat to many freedoms that were fought for in your country, him winning avoided war with Russia and bloodshed. I think that is better to avoid as I value life over an unnecessary war. It is not cowardice. It is wise to avoid war...unless necessary (ww2).
Vladimir Putin did not tell Americans to vote for Donald Trump. Such would have backfired. He definitely preferred Donald Trump for reasons that might not be so safe for Americans. Donald Trump is already appeasing Vladimir Putin before Putin has demanded anything.
As when Russia was the biggest part of the now-defunct Soviet Union, I am satisfied that Kremlin leadership always preferred the weaker American leader. The ideal American President from a Soviet or now Putin's standpoint is either a fool who can be flattered into exchanging the safety of American allies for vague and unenforceable promises of peace (probably some liberal 'useful idiot' in Soviet times, ideology irrelevant now) or someone who can be blackmailed. With so many potential conflicts of interest President Trump is the biggest possible target for diplomatic blackmail in the world. President Obama was not an easy mark for blackmail of any kind and was by no means a useful idiot.
If there was any Russian tampering in the 2016 election, then any downfall of the President or the Republican majority in the Senate (which would have gone along with the Trump victory) that results from any blackmail by the Russian government would be tantamount to a coup.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
12-01-2016, 12:13 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-01-2016, 12:32 AM by Classic-Xer.)
(11-30-2016, 09:59 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: (11-30-2016, 02:59 PM)taramarie Wrote: While America should not feel controlled by any country to the point they desire to tell them who to vote for, it is unwise to get into a war with them. So even though I despise Trump and think he is a threat to many freedoms that were fought for in your country, him winning avoided war with Russia and bloodshed. I think that is better to avoid as I value life over an unnecessary war. It is not cowardice. It is wise to avoid war...unless necessary (ww2).
Vladimir Putin did not tell Americans to vote for Donald Trump. Such would have backfired. He definitely preferred Donald Trump for reasons that might not be so safe for Americans. Donald Trump is already appeasing Vladimir Putin before Putin has demanded anything.
As when Russia was the biggest part of the now-defunct Soviet Union, I am satisfied that Kremlin leadership always preferred the weaker American leader. The ideal American President from a Soviet or now Putin's standpoint is either a fool who can be flattered into exchanging the safety of American allies for vague and unenforceable promises of peace (probably some liberal 'useful idiot' in Soviet times, ideology irrelevant now) or someone who can be blackmailed. With so many potential conflicts of interest President Trump is the biggest possible target for diplomatic blackmail in the world. President Obama was not an easy mark for blackmail of any kind and was by no means a useful idiot.
If there was any Russian tampering in the 2016 election, then any downfall of the President or the Republican majority in the Senate (which would have gone along with the Trump victory) that results from any blackmail by the Russian government would be tantamount to a coup.
I think he would have preferred Clinton myself. Did all the damaging information that he supposedly played a role in leaking do anything to change your vote and the votes of Democratic supporters here? If Putin knew that about the Democratic side going in, knew what was leaked wouldn't have much of an impact on the Democratic/Clinton base and knew what he leaked could be beneficial for her to turn around and use as a political tool as she did against Trump during the election to sway/flip/secure RW voters like X_84 for Hilary Clinton.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
I simply think that Vladimir Putin wanted Donald Trump to be President for all the wrong reasons.
Guessing their intellectual levels, Obama plays chess. Clinton and Putin play bridge. Trump plays slot machines.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(11-30-2016, 09:58 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: (11-30-2016, 09:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (11-30-2016, 05:47 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: (11-29-2016, 03:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Our wonderful president whom supposed "libertarians" support, has a new proposal to violate our civil rights:
Trump suggests loss of citizenship or jail for those who burn U.S. flags
By John Wagner November 29 at 10:55 AM
President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday threatened loss of citizenship or jail for those who burn the American flag, saying such protests — which the Supreme Court has declared to be free speech — should carry “consequences.”
Trump offered his thoughts in an early-morning post on Twitter, saying, “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag.”
Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
3:55 AM - 29 Nov 2016
51,285 51,285 Retweets 142,220 142,220 likes
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...litics_pop
I hope that this is just a random twitter message, and not a considered opinion. Certainly as a conservative veteran, the freedoms I was trying to protect included free speech and expression, even if that expression involved burning of the flag.
However, this is a good reason why the liberals on the left need to help confirm Trump's initial Supreme Court nominee quickly. The list from which Trump is currently working consists of justices similar to Scalia, and Scalia was among the 5 justice majority that ruled that flag burning was constitutionally protected speech. Let's not give Trump time to shift to a supposedly more "moderate" or leftist judge like Stevens, who was willing to jettison this first amendment freedom.
Is it really wise to burn the American flag on a regular in front of so many Americans who value and appreciate it. You're a soldier. Soldiers are professionally trained to over look the burning of the American flag. The vast majority of Americans aren't trained professionals like our cops and soldiers. I'm not going to be surprised/shocked when a group or groups of flag burners find themselves being harshly confronted or viciously attacked by groups of angry Americans. I'm not sure if Nancy Pelosi would be able to handle situations like that if they were to begin happening all over the place.
Here's a new game. The name of the game is smoke out the faux "Nationalists." Here's how it works. Real Nationalists stream some video of a flag burning. This is kinda like geocaching. Along with the video stream there are hints given. Some pan-National Bolshevik / White Nationalist / Alt-Right types get wound up and decide to track it down and go punch out some untermensch. The Real Nationalists lie in wait. In come the Faux "Nationalists" guns a blazing. They then discover being on the wrong end of sniping.
Faux news broadcasters or the Enzige's of our world? The bulk of the Faux "nationalists" wouldn't know what to do with a gun in their hand. Me, I know what to do with a gun in my hand. I assume that you'd know what to do with one as well. I assume we'd both use our guns to help defend our nation.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(12-01-2016, 01:22 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I simply think that Vladimir Putin wanted Donald Trump to be President for all the wrong reasons.
Guessing their intellectual levels, Obama plays chess. Clinton and Putin play bridge. Trump plays slot machines.
Once again, I think you have given Obama way more credit than he deserves.
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(11-30-2016, 07:47 AM)Odin Wrote: (11-29-2016, 03:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Our wonderful president whom supposed "libertarians" support, has a new proposal to violate our civil rights:
Trump suggests loss of citizenship or jail for those who burn U.S. flags
By John Wagner November 29 at 10:55 AM
President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday threatened loss of citizenship or jail for those who burn the American flag, saying such protests — which the Supreme Court has declared to be free speech — should carry “consequences.”
Trump offered his thoughts in an early-morning post on Twitter, saying, “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag.”
Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
3:55 AM - 29 Nov 2016
51,285 51,285 Retweets 142,220 142,220 likes
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...litics_pop
He's trying to bait people into actually burning US flags to protest him. Let's not take the bait and let's burn Confederate flags instead and watch all his supporters get all enraged.
I am pretty certain that he is baiting the left with that tweet. You can try burning Confederate flags if you like but it won't do you much good. The Trump will just take it as more evidence that the left is a bunch of spoiled brats.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
12-01-2016, 06:25 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-01-2016, 06:25 AM by Galen.)
(11-30-2016, 07:50 AM)Odin Wrote: (11-30-2016, 03:56 AM)Galen Wrote: (11-29-2016, 03:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Our wonderful president whom supposed "libertarians" support, has a new proposal to violate our civil rights:
Trump suggests loss of citizenship or jail for those who burn U.S. flags
My preference for Trump stems from a desire to avoid war with Russia. I have to admit watching the collective freakout from the Left is just a bonus.
Scratch a "Libertarian", find a right-wing authoritarian more concerned with "sticking it to the Left" than anything else.
I said it was a bonus because simply making lefties freakout is not a goal. Now that I think about it, they do it all on their own and so any effort on my part would be a waste. I have more important things to do.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(11-30-2016, 09:05 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: (11-30-2016, 03:56 AM)Galen Wrote: (11-29-2016, 03:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Our wonderful president whom supposed "libertarians" support, has a new proposal to violate our civil rights:
Trump suggests loss of citizenship or jail for those who burn U.S. flags
My preference for Trump stems from a desire to avoid war with Russia. I have to admit watching the collective freakout from the Left is just a bonus.
Vladimir Putin now has a President that he can blackmail. That is far more dangerous than a President at arm's length with Vladimir Putin.
What evidence do you have that Trump can be blackmailed?
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(12-01-2016, 06:29 AM)Galen Wrote: What evidence do you have that Trump can be blackmailed?
As far as I can tell, in America one doesn't need evidence to assume the worst of someone who holds a conflicting political view. Seems to be a First Amendment right?
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(12-01-2016, 06:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (12-01-2016, 06:29 AM)Galen Wrote: What evidence do you have that Trump can be blackmailed?
As far as I can tell, in America one doesn't need evidence to assume the worst of someone who holds a conflicting political view. Seems to be a First Amendment right?
Truth is, the cloud of scandal that has surrounded Hillary and Bill since the seventies is more suggestible of blackmail opportunities. In my own life I tend to avoid people like that because there is usually, but not always, something behind it. That said, Hillary's open animosity toward Russia and tendency to support the wars of the neocons is a matter of concern.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
12-01-2016, 07:51 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-01-2016, 07:54 AM by Bob Butler 54.)
(12-01-2016, 06:55 AM)Galen Wrote: (12-01-2016, 06:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (12-01-2016, 06:29 AM)Galen Wrote: What evidence do you have that Trump can be blackmailed?
As far as I can tell, in America one doesn't need evidence to assume the worst of someone who holds a conflicting political view. Seems to be a First Amendment right?
Truth is, the cloud of scandal that has surrounded Hillary and Bill since the seventies is more suggestible of blackmail opportunities. In my own life I tend to avoid people like that because there is usually, but not always, something behind it. That said, Hillary's open animosity toward Russia and tendency to support the wars of the neocons is a matter of concern.
There are also scandals around Trump, of similar merit. How meaningful a scandal is depends on one's political values. Both parties are very ready to assume the worst of the other. Both sides will demonize the other while being ready to forgive one's own.
I occasionally indulge in wishful thinking, wishing for more emphasis on issues, less on scandals, but ad-hominum attacks are a big part of the extreme partisan atmosphere.
***
The word 'neocon' seems to have changed its meaning. It was originally applied to the military and oil aspects of the Bush 43 administration. The manifesto was Rebuilding America's Defenses. It was thought that high technology gave the US a tremendous edge on the battlefield, that short victorious wars were there for the fighting. The strategic goal as stated in Rebuilding America's Defenses was to put troops near the oil. The geopolitical center of gravity was no longer in Europe, but in the Middle East.
Many of the authors and signers of Rebuilding America's Defenses were pulled into the Bush 43 administration. Many saw the Iraq invasion as an implementation of Rebuilding America's Defenses, an attempt to put troops near the oil, noting that the invasion forces pushed to secure the oil fields rather than the population centers in the early days when the US has some good will among the Iraq population. The building of huge US bases and embassy facilities was seen as a build up for the invasion of the next oil rich country after Iraq was secured.
Of course, Iraq was never secured. The US technological advantage works very well in a conventional war with tanks, front lines and large units of uniform wearing regular forces. The high tech stuff didn't help against insurgent tactics and proxy wars. We are attempting to adapt. Drones, smart munitions and the tactics to use them have come a long way since the Iraq invasion. Still, the notion that putting high tech troops near the oil would make invasion cost effective never panned out.
The political debate of the decade was Republican neocon 'stay the course' as championed by McCain against Democratic 'cut and run' as championed by Obama. Late in the 2008 election campaigns, Bush 43 cut McCain's legs out from under him with a decision to adapt Cut and Run, as well as by revealing that his economic policies were leading to a major collapse. The Republican plan of putting troops near the oil was not cost effective. The ruinous cost of the military intervention combined with a reluctance to raise taxes brought the Bush 43 administration, and the United States, to its knees.
Thus, the Obama / Hillary policy of getting the boys home, of avoiding occupation forces, of reducing the number of boots on the ground is the exact opposite of the original Republican neocon doctrine: serial unilateral preemptive nation building.
The Democrats are still trying to oppose the Middle Eastern factions performing terrorist acts in the West. This was originally Al Qaida, but has become more recently ISIS. They are primarily using drones, special forces and precision munitions... but they are avoiding occupying territory, they are avoiding large numbers of boots on the ground. During the recent campaign Trump disparage this approach, claiming he knew the situation better than the generals, vaguely suggesting a more aggressive decisive policy without getting very specific. We shall have to see what comes of it. I can't really comment on Trump's approach as he hasn't been specific enough. I suspect he was saying stuff that would appeal to the Republican base, that he hasn't got any specific plans yet. This could change easily and soon enough.
Anyway, yes, neocon has become a dirty word. Neocon policies have been discredited. Neocons should not be allowed into the halls of power. For the past eight years the original neocons have been exiled into Republican think tanks and academic posts. I haven't seen any news stories saying Trump is bringing them out of retirement, or that his military doctrines will reprise Rebuilding America's Defenses. If I see any sign of that I'll push some panic buttons. To soon to push panic buttons. Enough people are pushing panic buttons.
But you are using 'neocon' in a sense quite opposite of its original meaning. Your memories of the Bush 43 years seem to be missing.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(12-01-2016, 07:51 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Thus, the Obama / Hillary policy of getting the boys home, of avoiding occupation forces, of reducing the number of boots on the ground is the exact opposite of the original Republican neocon doctrine: serial unilateral preemptive nation building.
This isn't accurate, though, at least as applied to "the last 8 years". Bush was beginning to draw down forces in Iraq when he left office; Obama redirected those forces into a massive buildup in Afghanistan. It wasn't until Clinton was no longer Secretary of State that we left Afghanistan.
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(12-01-2016, 09:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: (12-01-2016, 07:51 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Thus, the Obama / Hillary policy of getting the boys home, of avoiding occupation forces, of reducing the number of boots on the ground is the exact opposite of the original Republican neocon doctrine: serial unilateral preemptive nation building.
This isn't accurate, though, at least as applied to "the last 8 years". Bush was beginning to draw down forces in Iraq when he left office; Obama redirected those forces into a massive buildup in Afghanistan. It wasn't until Clinton was no longer Secretary of State that we left Afghanistan.
True enough. The neo-con doctrine, though, was troops near the oil, which is Iraq. Afghanistan was more about fighting factions that export terror. The Democrats in my opinion stuck with troops on the ground too long in Afghanistan, but Obama seems reluctant to concede Afghanistan to the Taliban.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(12-01-2016, 06:29 AM)Galen Wrote: (11-30-2016, 09:05 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: (11-30-2016, 03:56 AM)Galen Wrote: (11-29-2016, 03:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Our wonderful president whom supposed "libertarians" support, has a new proposal to violate our civil rights:
Trump suggests loss of citizenship or jail for those who burn U.S. flags
My preference for Trump stems from a desire to avoid war with Russia. I have to admit watching the collective freakout from the Left is just a bonus.
Vladimir Putin now has a President that he can blackmail. That is far more dangerous than a President at arm's length with Vladimir Putin.
What evidence do you have that Trump can be blackmailed?
What do people get blackmailed on?
1. Sex. Mercifully, homosexuality itself has been stricken from that list because people very conservative on sexuality and family life (like me) can accept homosexuality as innocuous. I became sympathetic to gays and lesbians on the ground, of all things, law and order -- after being threatened with gay-bashing. The problem wasn't that some violent dolt thought (I am not sure that anything to do with the verb think applied in that instance except on my part -- get out of the situation fast) I was gay; it was that that violent dolt thought that gay men are fair game for violent assaults.
We have a President whose sex life does not fit my standard. If fornication (premarital sex) is excusable today (to find out whether someone is desirable? Use suitable protection and you are not so shaky), adultery remains damnable. The husband-wife relationship must not be violated. Grabbing women by their crotches without their consent is close to rape, and it is sexual assault. Walking into female changing rooms with women present is both unconventional and unacceptable.
Children out of wedlock, jilted lovers, and serial philandering are all unacceptable to most devout Christians. If Donald Trump has paid for an abortion, then that could be used against him. A divide between moral pretensions and personal behavior makes one vulnerablt to people who know and can take revenge.
2. Crime. Obviously any criminal deed from the most violent (including murder, rape, kidnapping, terrorism, and armed robbery) to tax evasion and drunk driving discredits one. Any one of those is good for a long prison term. But aside from doing the criminal act (which includes being an accessory or conspirator), involvement with figures of organized crime in knowledge of the criminal figures in anything other than a function of law enforcement or prosecution is shady. Casino development often involves organized crime in some aspect of operations. It is difficult to develop property without being involved in dealings with Mob-controlled labor unions.
3. Business. Shady bankruptcies, involvement in questionable enterprises, and sticking it to suppliers and subcontractors do not look good once exposed. Dealings with vicious tyrants? Those who sleep with dogs can expect fleas. We have yet to see the last. One can get away with treating employees badly because such is the American way of life for economic elites.
Bribes or extortion? Somebody knows.
You can trust that Russian intelligence agencies are as effective now as were the KGB and GRU in older times. I understand how it works: cultivate a dishonest operator, entice him to get in progressively deeper, and make getting away with his bad deeds dependent upon his cooperation. Then when the dishonest operator has become so corrupt that any exposure of the truth shatters the credibility and social position of the wretch, exploit the power that the wretch has for all that is possible. An engineer working on defense projects might trade secrets for quiet -- but commit espionage in the process. Now what harm could the President do?
I hope that you have not just had a heavy meal before you have read this.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
|
