Will a new war win the next election for Trump?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I rather think that Donald Trump might be looking at Venezuela with a rather jaundiced eye...suspecting that invading that country in the name of "upholding democracy" could work wonders for a campaign in 2020. Many Americans are, whether they admit it or not, quite fond of their wars, especially now that there's no draft.

Well, will he or won't he? And might it work?

 

[Twilight Hue]

What. Something like Obama did with Libya?

 

[Woberts]

I don't think so.

 

[Kenny]

I rather think that Donald Trump might be looking at Venezuela with a rather jaundiced eye...suspecting that invading that country in the name of "upholding democracy" could work wonders for a campaign in 2020. Many Americans are, whether they admit it or not, quite fond of their wars, especially now that there's no draft.

Well, will he or won't he? And might it work?

I don't think a new war is the trump-card (pardon the pun). I think its the continual "Russia Collusion " and now the "Obstruction" along with the socialistic mantra that will be what pushes Trump to the forefront.

Most Americans don't like wars. IMV.

 

[Audie]

I rather think that Donald Trump might be looking at Venezuela with a rather jaundiced eye...suspecting that invading that country in the name of "upholding democracy" could work wonders for a campaign in 2020. Many Americans are, whether they admit it or not, quite fond of their wars, especially now that there's no draft.

Well, will he or won't he? And might it work?

Nope nope nope and nope.

 

[Watchmen]

At the rate things are going, Trump won’t need a “war” with Venezuela to win in 2020.

 

[Stanyon]

Trump has been the one urging caution, not sure where you are getting these ideas.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Trump has been the one urging caution, not sure where you are getting these ideas.

Have you considered that I believe anything Trump says about as much as I believe the guy trying to sell me a bridge in Brooklyn? And I base that on a history of what he has said, which has far too often borne little resemblance to the truth.

Do you know why defense lawyers try to convince Jury's that witnesses against their clients have told lies in the past? It's because there's a perception, probably based in reality, that those who are willing to lie on some matters are likely willing to lie on others. And it often works getting creeps who molest women off the hook. And I do not need any news feed to tell me how often he's lied...I have listened to quite enough myself, during the campaign and after, to know that he really has a very tenuous relationship with truth.

So he can "urge caution" all he wants, and I will continue to not believe that he wouldn't use such a strategy if he thought for even an instant that it could benefit him. And the cost in other lives (as the cost in the livelihoods of those he's bilked out of millions before) will not play even a bit part in his scenario.

 

[Audie]

I rather think that Donald Trump might be looking at Venezuela with a rather jaundiced eye...suspecting that invading that country in the name of "upholding democracy" could work wonders for a campaign in 2020. Many Americans are, whether they admit it or not, quite fond of their wars, especially now that there's no draft.

Well, will he or won't he? And might it work?

Are you sure you are using your "jaundiced eye"
idiom correctly?

 

[Shiranui117]

Trump's already set to win 2020 in a landslide, with the Democrats split hard between the moderates and the far-left progressives.

 

[dianaiad]

I rather think that Donald Trump might be looking at Venezuela with a rather jaundiced eye...suspecting that invading that country in the name of "upholding democracy" could work wonders for a campaign in 2020. Many Americans are, whether they admit it or not, quite fond of their wars, especially now that there's no draft.

Well, will he or won't he? And might it work?

War or no war....that won't win the election for Trump.

Who was it who said 'it's the economy, stupid?'

 

[Audie]

Trump's already set to win 2020 in a landslide, with the Democrats split hard between the moderates and the far-left progressives.

Huh. I thought they were split among third rate
loser candidates, like last time. Only this time
the fix wont be in for one of them. We hope?

And you guys want to spread democracy.

 

[Shiranui117]

Huh. I thought they were split among third rate
loser candidates, like last time. Only this time
the fix wont be in for one of them. We hope?

And you guys want to spread democracy.

I was mainly referring to the Democratic voting base. We can leave the 25-something Democratic candidates to another time...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Are you sure you are using your "jaundiced eye"
idiom correctly?

You caught me! I actually had to look that up, and my long time gut definition was wrong.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I rather think that Donald Trump might be looking at Venezuela with a rather jaundiced eye...suspecting that invading that country in the name of "upholding democracy" could work wonders for a campaign in 2020. Many Americans are, whether they admit it or not, quite fond of their wars, especially now that there's no draft.

Well, will he or won't he? And might it work?

I certainly hope not. My opinion is that 1) politicians who support wars should be required to fight in them on the front lines, and 2) The draft and selective service should be abolished, HOWEVER, a survey should be sent by the federal government to all American adults asking if they support or oppose a war. Those that declare their support for the war should be placed into a pool from which the government chooses eligible combatants. Those who oppose the war are excluded from the pool and run no risk of being drafted. I think that with a system like this, wars would rarely be fought, because few people (politicians and the general public) would want to fight in wars and many lives would be saved. On the rare occasion that wars would occur, only those who support the war would be required to participate in it.

 

[dianaiad]

I certainly hope not. My opinion is that 1) politicians who support wars should be required to fight in them on the front lines, and 2) The draft and selective service should be abolished, HOWEVER, a survey should be sent by the federal government to all American adults asking if they support or oppose a war. Those that declare their support for the war should be placed into a pool from which the government chooses eligible combatants. Those who oppose the war are excluded from the pool and run no risk of being drafted. I think that with a system like this, wars would rarely be fought, because few people (politicians and the general public) would want to fight in wars and many lives would be saved. On the rare occasion that wars would occur, only those who support the war would be required to participate in it.

That would only work if everybody ELSE did it too.

And I see no hint, either in the present or in the past, that such an idea would work.

EVERY time a nation preached 'peace' to the point that it messed with its military, someone else did something, er...mean spirited to them.

Pearl Harbor
Bombing London
Oh....you can look these things up.

Not that I think your idea is a bad one, actually. It's just....while we fiddle around with it, someone will, oh....fly planes into our buildings, bomb our naval bases, hack our infrastructure....like that.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

That would only work if everybody ELSE did it too.

And I see no hint, either in the present or in the past, that such an idea would work.

EVERY time a nation preached 'peace' to the point that it messed with its military, someone else did something, er...mean spirited to them.

Pearl Harbor
Bombing London
Oh....you can look these things up.

Not that I think your idea is a bad one, actually. It's just....while we fiddle around with it, someone will, oh....fly planes into our buildings, bomb our naval bases, hack our infrastructure....like that.

I believe that my idea would work, even in the cases you allude to. For instance, after 9/11, a record number of people voluntarily enlisted in the military, so that a draft did not even need to be considered. In scenarios when war is truly justified, many people would step up to fight. Many would not, but not everyone would need to.

 

[Stanyon]

Have you considered that I believe anything Trump says about as much as I believe the guy trying to sell me a bridge in Brooklyn? And I base that on a history of what he has said, which has far too often borne little resemblance to the truth.

Do you know why defense lawyers try to convince Jury's that witnesses against their clients have told lies in the past? It's because there's a perception, probably based in reality, that those who are willing to lie on some matters are likely willing to lie on others. And it often works getting creeps who molest women off the hook. And I do not need any news feed to tell me how often he's lied...I have listened to quite enough myself, during the campaign and after, to know that he really has a very tenuous relationship with truth.

So he can "urge caution" all he wants, and I will continue to not believe that he wouldn't use such a strategy if he thought for even an instant that it could benefit him. And the cost in other lives (as the cost in the livelihoods of those he's bilked out of millions before) will not play even a bit part in his scenario.

The current situation goes far beyond Trump, as we all know the U.S. has a long history of meddling in Latin America and forceful regime change around the world often with very poor results. What would Trump gain? Most people are against wasting even more money and American lives in a war that would be pretty much useless with very little to gain.

What would we be fighting for exactly?

 

[Audie]

You caught me! I actually had to look that up, and my long time gut definition was wrong.

We of the ESL persuasion spent long hours
with lists of idioms, memorizing them and
trying them out in conversation, hoping not
to sound too ridiculous as we variously
misapply them.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I rather think that Donald Trump might be looking at Venezuela with a rather jaundiced eye...suspecting that invading that country in the name of "upholding democracy" could work wonders for a campaign in 2020.

That, and the fact the Democrats seem hellbent on fielding candidates with absolutely no redeeming qualities other than name recognition.

I'm surprised American regular troops aren't on the ground in Venezuela already, frankly. Stand by for a heapin' helpin' of "I told you so" when it happens, though.