Dan Rather on Right-Wing hypocrisy

[Revoltingest]

In all are previous arguments on this issue I’ve never claimed Hillary a saint but argued that Trump was not any less of a Hawk but you were hopeful. It’s a stupid comment for anyone to say, Trump certainly doesn’t get a pass because of Hillary. Trumps the one with the “bigger button”. Lol

I'm not giving Trump a pass for beating war drums.
(I've previously criticized him for this.)
I only pointed out the irony of a particular claim.

 

[Phantasman]

Trump & Reagan are very very different in their approach to foreign policy.
The USSR ultimately collapsed without threats.

"Ronald Reagan entered the White House in 1981 as a vocal opponent of the Soviet Union, calling them the “evil empire”, and making his intentions towards the Soviet Union clear.

Reagan’s leadership led to a massive increase in American military spending, as well as research into new and better weapons. Reagan supported the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which nullified the Soviet nuclear arsenal by destroying missiles as they fell and made a nuclear war theoretically winnable for the United States.

Reagan did not just attack the Soviets with military spending; he also attacked their economy. The United States isolated the Soviets from the rest of the world economy, and helped drive oil prices to their lowest levels in decades. Without oil revenue to keep their economy solvent, the Soviet Union began to crumble."

5 Reasons for the Collapse of the Soviet Union | Graduate Degrees Norwich

Trump is doing the same exact thing, from my perspective. Increasing military and attacking their economy (sanctions).

 

[Revoltingest]

"Ronald Reagan entered the White House in 1981 as a vocal opponent of the Soviet Union, calling them the “evil empire”, and making his intentions towards the Soviet Union clear.

Reagan’s leadership led to a massive increase in American military spending, as well as research into new and better weapons. Reagan supported the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which nullified the Soviet nuclear arsenal by destroying missiles as they fell and made a nuclear war theoretically winnable for the United States.

Reagan did not just attack the Soviets with military spending; he also attacked their economy. The United States isolated the Soviets from the rest of the world economy, and helped drive oil prices to their lowest levels in decades. Without oil revenue to keep their economy solvent, the Soviet Union began to crumble."

5 Reasons for the Collapse of the Soviet Union | Graduate Degrees Norwich

Trump is doing the same exact thing, from my perspective. Increasing military and attacking their economy (sanctions).

I agree with all that, but what really changed things was Reagan's becoming friendlier to the USSR.
But perhaps Trump can emulate Reagan this way.
We can hope.

 

[esmith]

Yeah, just look at the authoritarian hellhole Australia become after we tightened our gun laws

You mean when the government confiscated weapons?
Yeah, I know they didn't confiscate them they just required that they be sold back to the government.

 

[esmith]

Liberal here.

No we do not support war when democrats are in charge! Do you have some kind of evidence for this?

Oh let see
Philippine–American War
WWI
WWII
Korea
Cuba (Bay of Pigs)
Vietnam
Iraq
Afghanistan
Lybia

 

[idav]

Irony....
Had Hillary won, then she would've been the only President to annihilate an entire country (Iran).
Republicans & Democrats aren't that different.

What I was addressing is that someone claiming Dems give a pass to their side of the isle. This is not true, war is frequently opposed by citizens but like we have discussed before, what the presidents do is usually not in line with public sentiment. Obama had been the closest to actually pulling us out of wars.

 

[Revoltingest]

What I was addressing is that someone claiming Dems give a pass to their side of the isle. This is not true, war is frequently opposed by citizens but like we have discussed before, what the presidents do is usually not in line with public sentiment. Obama had been the closest to actually pulling us out of wars.

Actually, Obama violated his campaign promise to get us out.
But he gets credit for starting no new wars....a lotta credit...his greatest achievement.

 

[idav]

Actually, Obama violated his campaign promise to get us out.
But he gets credit for starting no new wars....a lotta credit...his greatest achievement.

He should get credit for pulling us out of Iraq. Then people complained about that.

 

[idav]

Oh let see
Philippine–American War
WWI
WWII
Korea
Cuba (Bay of Pigs)
Vietnam
Iraq
Afghanistan
Lybia

Your point? People do not normally support their politicians for war.

 

[Revoltingest]

He should get credit for pulling us out of Iraq. Then people complained about that.

Someone's always complaining about something.
So he's not necessarily a victim here.
But are we really no longer at war in Iraq?
Trump: US troops fighting 'like never before' in Iraq - CNNPolitics

 

[Shaul]

Not really, most people oppose wars from all presidents but no president, except Trump, has gone as far as threatening to annihilate an entire country.

Trump ended Obama’s war in Syria (which caused literally millions of refugees) within his year in office. Now the North Koreans have said they will begin direct talks with South Korea, in no small part because of Trump, lessening world tensions. Trump no warmonger and deserves a Nobel Peace Prize far more than Obama who was a disaster for the cause of peace.

 

[Shaul]

Yes, in the narrow minds of his sycophantic enablers.

So then why are the North Koreans now willing to begin talks with the South Koreans? They never did before Trump.

 

[Falvlun]

Trump ended Obama’s war in Syria (which caused literally millions of refugees) within his year in office. Now the North Koreans have said they will begin direct talks with South Korea, in no small part because of Trump, lessening world tensions. Trump no warmonger and deserves a Nobel Peace Prize far more than Obama who was a disaster for the cause of peace.

“Obama’s war in Syria”.

Never let facts get in the way of a good soundbyte, I suppose.

 

[Shaul]

No, not really. Clinton had normal politician flaws, but was otherwise a highly experienced public servant with actual policies. There is honestly no comparison with that and the completely inexperienced mess we put in charge of our country.

LOL

I’m sure you actually believe this. That is hilarious!

 

[Falvlun]

LOL

I’m sure you actually believe this. That is hilarious!

The sad part is the many people who were brainwashed into believing Hilary Clinton was the devil. Despite years of scrutiny, a litany of false conspiracy theories, endless investigations, and decades in public service, Clinton has never been charged with anything. You were groomed to be frightened of a boogie (wo)man, that never existed except in the gleeful imaginings of her political opponents.

 

[Shaul]

Actually, Obama violated his campaign promise to get us out.
But he gets credit for starting no new wars....a lotta credit...his greatest achievement.

What about the US involvement in Syria that Obama started? That was a war.

 

[idav]

Trump ended Obama’s war in Syria (which caused literally millions of refugees) within his year in office. Now the North Koreans have said they will begin direct talks with South Korea, in no small part because of Trump, lessening world tensions. Trump no warmonger and deserves a Nobel Peace Prize far more than Obama who was a disaster for the cause of peace.

Obama’s war? Lol
Trumps full of hot air, there negotiations with n Korea is a bust. Press secretary says it not going to happen.
Trump under pressure over chaotic approach to North Korea nuclear talks
No Trump doesn’t need a peace prize for aggrevating tensions and saying he as a “bigger button”. Do you guys care about anything he says jeez?

 

[Shaul]

The sad part is the many people who were brainwashed into believing Hilary Clinton was the devil. Despite years of scrutiny, a litany of false conspiracy theories, endless investigations, and decades in public service, Clinton has never been charged with anything. You were groomed to be frightened of a boogie (wo)man, that never existed except in the gleeful imaginings of her political opponents.

Far from being a credit, that she hasn’t been charged underscores how bad she is. Despite incontrovertible evidence she has not been indicted for gross crimes because of massive corruption. She isn’t the devil. She is simply a high functioning plutocrat.

 

[Shaul]

“Obama’s war in Syria”.

Never let facts get in the way of a good soundbyte, I suppose.

Yeah that war he got the US involved with inSyria. Look it up, it was in the papers.

 

[esmith]

Liberal here.

No we do not support war when democrats are in charge! Do you have some kind of evidence for this?

Oh let see
Philippine–American War
WWI
WWII
Korea
Cuba (Bay of Pigs)
Vietnam
Iraq
Afghanistan
Lybia

Your point? People do not normally support their politicians for war.

Well one must think that the liberals (or whatever they were called prior the the late 1950's) supported the Democrat during the elections.
In addition I was giving Kuzcotopia a little history lesson.