This is what happens when the (Trump) Republicans side with the enemy. USA used to be unified on foreign policy...Trump and Trumpers ruined that...
You cannot name that time.
For example:
"THE foreign policy of the Government of the United States should be a national policy, not a Democratic policy, nor a Republican policy. It should be one which will bring the greatest moral and material benefits to this country, and to the world in which we have a most important stake. Unfortunately, there is today a difference in the foreign policies of the Democratic and Republican Parties. This has been brought about partly by a difference in domestic policies, but chiefly by a partisan controversy which arose more than four years ago over the ratification..."
This was written long ago and stands true today. They may align when it is completely in our best interest as a country--at that time. Or, when one of the parties convinces the other of something at the time. Or when one party is in charge and can do something they want to at that time.
The two parties are fundamentally too different. Trump did not do this -- this has been and always will be the case. You can only try to make the point that Trump exacerbated it. But there, you will give a president too much credit/blame.
Quote Originally Posted by thorpe:
This is what happens when the (Trump) Republicans side with the enemy. USA used to be unified on foreign policy...Trump and Trumpers ruined that...
You cannot name that time.
For example:
"THE foreign policy of the Government of the United States should be a national policy, not a Democratic policy, nor a Republican policy. It should be one which will bring the greatest moral and material benefits to this country, and to the world in which we have a most important stake. Unfortunately, there is today a difference in the foreign policies of the Democratic and Republican Parties. This has been brought about partly by a difference in domestic policies, but chiefly by a partisan controversy which arose more than four years ago over the ratification..."
This was written long ago and stands true today. They may align when it is completely in our best interest as a country--at that time. Or, when one of the parties convinces the other of something at the time. Or when one party is in charge and can do something they want to at that time.
The two parties are fundamentally too different. Trump did not do this -- this has been and always will be the case. You can only try to make the point that Trump exacerbated it. But there, you will give a president too much credit/blame.
Quote Originally Posted by I_Need_A_Detox: Quote Originally Posted by thorpe: This is what happens when the (Trump) Republicans side with the enemy. USA used to be unified on foreign policy...Trump and Trumpers ruined that... Ahhh the glory days when the Biden Democrats and the Bush Republicans held hands to invade Iraq because of WMD’s. That was an astute observation, so I did give you an upvote. That is the most important reason why I refused to vote for Biden.
I would be interested in who you did vote for then -- because all sorts of politicians backed that plan at the time. I do not see how you can use that as 'the most important reason' why you refused to vote for Biden? Was it his fault he believed the accepted intelligence at the time?
I would also be interested in your less important reason(s) you did not vote for Biden. Just curious.
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams:
Quote Originally Posted by I_Need_A_Detox: Quote Originally Posted by thorpe: This is what happens when the (Trump) Republicans side with the enemy. USA used to be unified on foreign policy...Trump and Trumpers ruined that... Ahhh the glory days when the Biden Democrats and the Bush Republicans held hands to invade Iraq because of WMD’s. That was an astute observation, so I did give you an upvote. That is the most important reason why I refused to vote for Biden.
I would be interested in who you did vote for then -- because all sorts of politicians backed that plan at the time. I do not see how you can use that as 'the most important reason' why you refused to vote for Biden? Was it his fault he believed the accepted intelligence at the time?
I would also be interested in your less important reason(s) you did not vote for Biden. Just curious.
is there a post where you don't use terms like SAF, Rube, or cult ? you regurgitate the same shit day in and day out. I've had this same user name and no others for years. yet, you call me an SAF because thats your go to "insult"
@DoubleUp4Life
is there a post where you don't use terms like SAF, Rube, or cult ? you regurgitate the same shit day in and day out. I've had this same user name and no others for years. yet, you call me an SAF because thats your go to "insult"
@DoubleUp4Life is there a post where you don't use terms like SAF, Rube, or cult ? you regurgitate the same shit day in and day out. I've had this same user name and no others for years. yet, you call me an SAF because thats your go to "insult"
Why are you lying about me ??
What type of person says you should see Double Up's Twitter and then make up a bunch of lies ??
Just curious are you just a pathological liar who believes his own lies ??
BEST OF HEALTH, HAPPINESS,WEALTH, BLESSINGS and LUCK TO ALL !!
Quote Originally Posted by BIGDTITLE:
@DoubleUp4Life is there a post where you don't use terms like SAF, Rube, or cult ? you regurgitate the same shit day in and day out. I've had this same user name and no others for years. yet, you call me an SAF because thats your go to "insult"
Why are you lying about me ??
What type of person says you should see Double Up's Twitter and then make up a bunch of lies ??
Just curious are you just a pathological liar who believes his own lies ??
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams: Quote Originally Posted by I_Need_A_Detox: Quote Originally Posted by thorpe: This is what happens when the (Trump) Republicans side with the enemy. USA used to be unified on foreign policy...Trump and Trumpers ruined that... Ahhh the glory days when the Biden Democrats and the Bush Republicans held hands to invade Iraq because of WMD’s. That was an astute observation, so I did give you an upvote. That is the most important reason why I refused to vote for Biden. I would be interested in who you did vote for then -- because all sorts of politicians backed that plan at the time. I do not see how you can use that as 'the most important reason' why you refused to vote for Biden? Was it his fault he believed the accepted intelligence at the time? I would also be interested in your less important reason(s) you did not vote for Biden. Just curious.
Sorry for the long delay in my response.
In 1938 Hitler spoke of the alleged mistreatment of ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland as a bullshxt reason to justify the invasion of former Czechoslovakia. Per Wikipedia:
"During the German occupation, between 294,000 to 320,000 citizens were murdered (with person making up the majority of the casualties)."
Hitler did commit suicide, but he deserved to executed for crimes against humanity.
*******
In 2003 George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction as a bullshxt reason to justify the invasion of Iraq. Per Iraq Body Count:
"Documented civilian deaths from violence: 187,192 – 210,662 Total violent deaths including combatants: 300,000"
Even if Iraq DID possess WMD's, that no more justified the Iraq Attack than America's actual possession of thousands of WMD's justified the 9/11 attack. George W. Bush deserves to be executed for crimes against humanity, and HRC's and Biden's votes to support that attack displayed horrendous judgment that disqualifies them from the Presidency.
The last Democrat I supported for President was Michael Dukakis, and if Kamala Harris is the nominee in 2028 she will NOT get my vote. There are far too many accounts of her treating her subordinates like garbage and creating a hostile work environment. IMNSHO that is unforgivable.
I have no problem supporting a third-party candidate when and if the major party candidates are unacceptable.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams: Quote Originally Posted by I_Need_A_Detox: Quote Originally Posted by thorpe: This is what happens when the (Trump) Republicans side with the enemy. USA used to be unified on foreign policy...Trump and Trumpers ruined that... Ahhh the glory days when the Biden Democrats and the Bush Republicans held hands to invade Iraq because of WMD’s. That was an astute observation, so I did give you an upvote. That is the most important reason why I refused to vote for Biden. I would be interested in who you did vote for then -- because all sorts of politicians backed that plan at the time. I do not see how you can use that as 'the most important reason' why you refused to vote for Biden? Was it his fault he believed the accepted intelligence at the time? I would also be interested in your less important reason(s) you did not vote for Biden. Just curious.
Sorry for the long delay in my response.
In 1938 Hitler spoke of the alleged mistreatment of ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland as a bullshxt reason to justify the invasion of former Czechoslovakia. Per Wikipedia:
"During the German occupation, between 294,000 to 320,000 citizens were murdered (with person making up the majority of the casualties)."
Hitler did commit suicide, but he deserved to executed for crimes against humanity.
*******
In 2003 George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction as a bullshxt reason to justify the invasion of Iraq. Per Iraq Body Count:
"Documented civilian deaths from violence: 187,192 – 210,662 Total violent deaths including combatants: 300,000"
Even if Iraq DID possess WMD's, that no more justified the Iraq Attack than America's actual possession of thousands of WMD's justified the 9/11 attack. George W. Bush deserves to be executed for crimes against humanity, and HRC's and Biden's votes to support that attack displayed horrendous judgment that disqualifies them from the Presidency.
The last Democrat I supported for President was Michael Dukakis, and if Kamala Harris is the nominee in 2028 she will NOT get my vote. There are far too many accounts of her treating her subordinates like garbage and creating a hostile work environment. IMNSHO that is unforgivable.
I have no problem supporting a third-party candidate when and if the major party candidates are unacceptable.
But I think that you are drawing a very tight comparison there. Whether the intelligence was faulty or whether it was justified even without the WMD issue and only the 'removing Saddam' issue or even the supposed support of terrorism -- there are stark differences.
There was never an intent to 'annex' Iraq like Hitler had insisted on with that region of Czechoslovakia. The insistence that most in that area were ethnically Germans was his 'reasoning' -- you can say he agitated his own folks with the accusations but they were hardly needed by that time. But he certainly wanted the area. The USA did not want Iraq and they do not have ethnic ties to that area.
On a side note. I do not know if you have ever seen the picture of Chamberlain and Hitler together in Hitler's apartment after their meetings there. But seeing the picture can make you wonder if there was any point Chamberlain suspected there was no way to 'threaten' Hitler with war at that point, if he decided to invade. Because it was a tricky dynamic at that point. Hilter knew the Allies did not want to go to war over this issue.
But I also understand the USA's sentiment was a huge factor in Bush getting their 'approval' nationally before taking it to Congress. The folks were still reeling from the 9/11 attacks and terrorism in general. Even considering other instances where this sort of thing has been done -- and others attempted and failed -- you have to ask if the USA, as the 'world's policeman' is right to remove dictators. Obviously, with perfect hindsight, the question of removing Hitler early can be easily answered. But as awful as Saddam was, would it ever be justified in this case? If so, what about the next level 'down' type of dictator in another country, and so on.
But even so, certainly Saddam did not expect his bluff to be called like that. Even after violating the UN resolution, did that justify it. Certainly Saddam did a lot of blustering to make folks think it was worth it.
For sure, the case can be made that comparing WMDs in the USA or in Iraq is very unequal for many reasons; but, on the other hand the case can be made from the other side that they feel the 'need' to be able to 'protect' themselves.
Bush did it the right way -- he got his country's folks behind him, he got the other folks in the West behind him, he got the West's world leaders to support him. Last, he got his Congress to support him.
It is not like he made the intelligence up -- faulty or not. The intelligence committee and other country's intelligence offices all looked at it and agreed with the assessment. He presented a case with multiple legs; for sure, that was a main leg though. Saddam also knew what was going on and had ample opportunities to 'adjust' and was even given chances to save face of sorts.
@DogbiteWilliams
No problem.
But I think that you are drawing a very tight comparison there. Whether the intelligence was faulty or whether it was justified even without the WMD issue and only the 'removing Saddam' issue or even the supposed support of terrorism -- there are stark differences.
There was never an intent to 'annex' Iraq like Hitler had insisted on with that region of Czechoslovakia. The insistence that most in that area were ethnically Germans was his 'reasoning' -- you can say he agitated his own folks with the accusations but they were hardly needed by that time. But he certainly wanted the area. The USA did not want Iraq and they do not have ethnic ties to that area.
On a side note. I do not know if you have ever seen the picture of Chamberlain and Hitler together in Hitler's apartment after their meetings there. But seeing the picture can make you wonder if there was any point Chamberlain suspected there was no way to 'threaten' Hitler with war at that point, if he decided to invade. Because it was a tricky dynamic at that point. Hilter knew the Allies did not want to go to war over this issue.
But I also understand the USA's sentiment was a huge factor in Bush getting their 'approval' nationally before taking it to Congress. The folks were still reeling from the 9/11 attacks and terrorism in general. Even considering other instances where this sort of thing has been done -- and others attempted and failed -- you have to ask if the USA, as the 'world's policeman' is right to remove dictators. Obviously, with perfect hindsight, the question of removing Hitler early can be easily answered. But as awful as Saddam was, would it ever be justified in this case? If so, what about the next level 'down' type of dictator in another country, and so on.
But even so, certainly Saddam did not expect his bluff to be called like that. Even after violating the UN resolution, did that justify it. Certainly Saddam did a lot of blustering to make folks think it was worth it.
For sure, the case can be made that comparing WMDs in the USA or in Iraq is very unequal for many reasons; but, on the other hand the case can be made from the other side that they feel the 'need' to be able to 'protect' themselves.
Bush did it the right way -- he got his country's folks behind him, he got the other folks in the West behind him, he got the West's world leaders to support him. Last, he got his Congress to support him.
It is not like he made the intelligence up -- faulty or not. The intelligence committee and other country's intelligence offices all looked at it and agreed with the assessment. He presented a case with multiple legs; for sure, that was a main leg though. Saddam also knew what was going on and had ample opportunities to 'adjust' and was even given chances to save face of sorts.
But I fully understand your viewpoint because there were many protests and people that definitely did not want to go in. But there are always people that will say no on war for any reason. For example, the Congresswoman that voted against WWI AND WWII.
So, I do not think you can hold that against Biden. I get that a lot of folks are single issue-voters or that one issue is overwhelmingly a dealbreaker with them.
But in order to find someone that did not vote for it, or at least support it at that time, would be very hard. Especially, ones that would actually be running for President.
But I get it if that is a complete dealbreaker for you. I can respect sticking to your principles on voting.
I understand when people say they can support a thirdparty candidate also. But it is unrealistic. At least for now. Then it seems every election is more important and are very close. So, in a sense it can be considered an almost 'wasted' vote.
But I can make a very good case for a need for four or five viable parties.
I can also respect not voting for anyone at all if they do not align with what you think is best. But I think a case can always be made for voting for the 'lesser of two evils'.
Thank you for taking the time to answer.
Also, I get why not to vote for Harris. But would you consider Newsome if he were to run?
If not, who would you like to see run that you might support?
@DogbiteWilliams
But I fully understand your viewpoint because there were many protests and people that definitely did not want to go in. But there are always people that will say no on war for any reason. For example, the Congresswoman that voted against WWI AND WWII.
So, I do not think you can hold that against Biden. I get that a lot of folks are single issue-voters or that one issue is overwhelmingly a dealbreaker with them.
But in order to find someone that did not vote for it, or at least support it at that time, would be very hard. Especially, ones that would actually be running for President.
But I get it if that is a complete dealbreaker for you. I can respect sticking to your principles on voting.
I understand when people say they can support a thirdparty candidate also. But it is unrealistic. At least for now. Then it seems every election is more important and are very close. So, in a sense it can be considered an almost 'wasted' vote.
But I can make a very good case for a need for four or five viable parties.
I can also respect not voting for anyone at all if they do not align with what you think is best. But I think a case can always be made for voting for the 'lesser of two evils'.
Thank you for taking the time to answer.
Also, I get why not to vote for Harris. But would you consider Newsome if he were to run?
If not, who would you like to see run that you might support?
I live in California; I am free to support a third-party presidential candidate without jeapordizing its electoral votes.
It's not just because I am from Ohio, but Sherrod Brown would be my #1 choice. He is a folksy liberal that I have never seen lose his temper. He has plenty of support from blue collar voters in increasingly red Ohio; the latest poll I've seen puts him 5 points up vs. his Republican opponent, conservative businessman Bernie Moreno.
@Raiders22
I live in California; I am free to support a third-party presidential candidate without jeapordizing its electoral votes.
It's not just because I am from Ohio, but Sherrod Brown would be my #1 choice. He is a folksy liberal that I have never seen lose his temper. He has plenty of support from blue collar voters in increasingly red Ohio; the latest poll I've seen puts him 5 points up vs. his Republican opponent, conservative businessman Bernie Moreno.
@searchwarrant I agree, but not months. I think they'll wait to see the election results. If it's Biden they can build for another 4 years. If it's Trump I'd expect Russia to ramp up in Ukraine forcing our hand there while China makes their play on Taiwan between election / inauguration. Round about the same time some shit will kick off in the Middle East and Biden will pardon Hunter.
Check the date on his post. It's from 2022
Quote Originally Posted by unplucked_gem:
@searchwarrant I agree, but not months. I think they'll wait to see the election results. If it's Biden they can build for another 4 years. If it's Trump I'd expect Russia to ramp up in Ukraine forcing our hand there while China makes their play on Taiwan between election / inauguration. Round about the same time some shit will kick off in the Middle East and Biden will pardon Hunter.
Yes sir. He is in a dogfight over there. He has a reasonable lead now. I think it has increased a bit in the last few weeks. But that is a very key race for control of the Senate. He long has been known as running his campaigns on pertinent issues to his constituents and not as much the more national issues. But local politics may start to be less of a concern to the folks there if the economy has not started to turn around a bit the closer to election time we get.
He may be even-keeled and have a cool temperament. I will take your word for that. But he is far too Liberal for me to even consider. But you might have a point on him being a good candidate for the Democrats. He would not bring the 'baggage' or whatever that Newsome would bring, simply because he is not as well-known. Maybe the only think I can recall I maybe could like is he was against the Patriot Act. But his stances are very far-left leaning.
But he has been able to maintain good support in a far less Liberal area than California. I forget exactly why he decided not to run the last time.
But I wonder if he would be more likely to generate some 'Independent' support than Newsome would. I had to look up how old he is --he is 71. That is not too old now but might be in 4 years.
But since there does not seem to be any decent young candidates for either side that want to run, or would draw enough interest -- maybe he could be a decent choice.
He could for sure get the Far-Left vote and if he is even-tempered, as you say, he could unite a lot of others.
I wonder if Biden does get replaced if the Democrats might consider him.
Very interesting name you bring up.
But as far as third-party candidates. Yes, for sure in CA it is comforting to know your vote will matter to you and not affect the outcome -- in a way.
But I really think it would be so much better to have a solid 3-4-5 parties that are fairly viable. I think the sentiment has ebbed and waned some over time.
There were times in the past, like with Perot and then with the Tea Party. Then lately with Trump and Sanders. My contention is that a lot of folks are disenchanted with the same old politicians. That is why from time to time the non-politicians get so much interest.
But, even for the major parties -- where are the young Sherrod Browns.
@DogbiteWilliams
Yes sir. He is in a dogfight over there. He has a reasonable lead now. I think it has increased a bit in the last few weeks. But that is a very key race for control of the Senate. He long has been known as running his campaigns on pertinent issues to his constituents and not as much the more national issues. But local politics may start to be less of a concern to the folks there if the economy has not started to turn around a bit the closer to election time we get.
He may be even-keeled and have a cool temperament. I will take your word for that. But he is far too Liberal for me to even consider. But you might have a point on him being a good candidate for the Democrats. He would not bring the 'baggage' or whatever that Newsome would bring, simply because he is not as well-known. Maybe the only think I can recall I maybe could like is he was against the Patriot Act. But his stances are very far-left leaning.
But he has been able to maintain good support in a far less Liberal area than California. I forget exactly why he decided not to run the last time.
But I wonder if he would be more likely to generate some 'Independent' support than Newsome would. I had to look up how old he is --he is 71. That is not too old now but might be in 4 years.
But since there does not seem to be any decent young candidates for either side that want to run, or would draw enough interest -- maybe he could be a decent choice.
He could for sure get the Far-Left vote and if he is even-tempered, as you say, he could unite a lot of others.
I wonder if Biden does get replaced if the Democrats might consider him.
Very interesting name you bring up.
But as far as third-party candidates. Yes, for sure in CA it is comforting to know your vote will matter to you and not affect the outcome -- in a way.
But I really think it would be so much better to have a solid 3-4-5 parties that are fairly viable. I think the sentiment has ebbed and waned some over time.
There were times in the past, like with Perot and then with the Tea Party. Then lately with Trump and Sanders. My contention is that a lot of folks are disenchanted with the same old politicians. That is why from time to time the non-politicians get so much interest.
But, even for the major parties -- where are the young Sherrod Browns.
Raiders22, it's highly unlikely, but if comes down to a two-man race for the DEM nomination in 2028, as a betting man I'd have to give the edge to Newsom (no E). Governors have a much better track record per this link (yes, it's from 2011 and therefore does not include Biden's Presidency, but the overall record is solid for govs):
I highly doubt that Sherrod Brown will seek the nomination in 2028.
Raiders22, it's highly unlikely, but if comes down to a two-man race for the DEM nomination in 2028, as a betting man I'd have to give the edge to Newsom (no E). Governors have a much better track record per this link (yes, it's from 2011 and therefore does not include Biden's Presidency, but the overall record is solid for govs):
Generally blue states' residents have a significantly greater life expectancy than red states' residents, and the difference in not measured in mere weeks. California is in the very top tier.
@ABooksNightmare
Bullshxt!
Here is proof that life is mostly better in blue states than red states:
Generally blue states' residents have a significantly greater life expectancy than red states' residents, and the difference in not measured in mere weeks. California is in the very top tier.
I live in California and have seen what has happened with this clown in my State...so I speak from experience when I say this...I have so many California comments in the Political forum....Newsom is trash on so many levels...Pelosi 2.0...this guy will ruin us....see you in 2028 and in 2029 when I say I told you so...
And a friggen life expectancy chart
COVERS allows u to tell someone they are sexually frustrated so long as ur hands are clean
I live in California and have seen what has happened with this clown in my State...so I speak from experience when I say this...I have so many California comments in the Political forum....Newsom is trash on so many levels...Pelosi 2.0...this guy will ruin us....see you in 2028 and in 2029 when I say I told you so...
Yes absolutely. I have said they should encourage Newsom (yes, autocorrect insists on 'fixing' it for me - Haha!) to run because I feel fairly certain he would win.
But I would still think it would be more interesting if they would 'draft' someone that is not as well known.
For sure, traditionally, Governors have done well mainly because they are seen as running a whole state, etc.
But look at the last 3 -- a young Senator, a longterm blasé Senator, and a businessman. Part of it is nowadays with the mass media and 24 hour news you can run a campaign for someone that is not as well known outside of their state, etc much more effectively.
Plus a lot of Governors have run and failed too.
But I say someone like Brown might be able to draw interest from some more independent people than Newsom would. He is not going to draw any Right-leaning folks because people see him as very Left and divisive and CA is always perceived a certain way. Maybe Ohio and Brown would be better. Plus a lot of Presidents already have been from Ohio.
I thought Kucinich was interesting. I know a lot of folks I talked to at that time liked him.
@DogbiteWilliams
Yes absolutely. I have said they should encourage Newsom (yes, autocorrect insists on 'fixing' it for me - Haha!) to run because I feel fairly certain he would win.
But I would still think it would be more interesting if they would 'draft' someone that is not as well known.
For sure, traditionally, Governors have done well mainly because they are seen as running a whole state, etc.
But look at the last 3 -- a young Senator, a longterm blasé Senator, and a businessman. Part of it is nowadays with the mass media and 24 hour news you can run a campaign for someone that is not as well known outside of their state, etc much more effectively.
Plus a lot of Governors have run and failed too.
But I say someone like Brown might be able to draw interest from some more independent people than Newsom would. He is not going to draw any Right-leaning folks because people see him as very Left and divisive and CA is always perceived a certain way. Maybe Ohio and Brown would be better. Plus a lot of Presidents already have been from Ohio.
I thought Kucinich was interesting. I know a lot of folks I talked to at that time liked him.
You cannot name that time.
Hot Forum Topics
