SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Following reports of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, President Trump authorized the launch of Tomahawk cruise missiles against a base in Syria. The Russian government was notified prior to the launch as they have resources in the area that was attacked.
According to NBC News:
The United States launched dozens of cruise missiles Thursday night at a Syrian airfield in response to what it believes was Syria's use of banned chemical weapons that killed at least 100 people, U.S. military officials told NBC News.
Two U.S. warships in the Mediterranean Sea fired 59 Tomahawk missiles intended for a single target — Ash Sha'irat in Homs province in western Syria, the officials said. That's the airfield from which the United States believes the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fired the banned weapons.
There was no immediate word on casualties. U.S. officials told NBC News that people were not targeted and that aircraft and infrastructure at the site were hit, including the runway and gas fuel pumps.
Also at Al Jazeera:
The United States has launched 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles against Syrian government targets in retaliation for what the Trump administration charges was a Syrian government chemical weapons attack that killed scores of civilians, a US official says.
The targets hit from US ships in the Mediterranean Sea included the air base in the central city of Homs from which the Syrian aircraft staged Tuesday's chemical weapons attack, the US official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.
[...] He [Trump] called on "civilised nations" to join US in "seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria".
Syrian state TV said "American aggression targets Syrian military targets with a number of missiles".
The poison gas attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on Tuesday killed at least 86 people, including 27 children, according to the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
Turkey said samples from victims of Tuesday's attack indicate they were exposed to sarin, a highly toxic nerve agent.
The New York Times adds:
The Pentagon informed Russian military officials, through its established deconfliction channel, of the strike before the launching of the missiles, the official said, with American officials knowing when they did that that Russian authorities may well have alerted the Assad regime. "With a lot of Tomahawks flying, we didn't want to hit any Russian planes," he said.
[...] It was Mr. Trump's first order to the military for the use of force — other operations in Syria, Yemen and Iraq had been carried out under authorization delegated to his commanders — and appeared intended to send a message to North Korea, Iran and other potential adversaries that the new commander in chief was prepared to act, and sometimes on short notice.
The airstrikes were carried out less than an hour after the president concluded a dinner with Xi Jinping, the president of China, at Mar-a-Lago, sending an unmistakably aggressive signal about Mr. Trump's willingness to use the military power at his disposal.
Mr. Trump authorized the strike with no congressional approval for the use of force, an assertion of presidential authority that contrasts sharply with the protracted deliberations over the use of force by his predecessor, former President Barack Obama.
[...] Mr. Trump moved with remarkable speed, delivering the punishing military strike barely 72 hours after the devastating chemical attack that killed 80 people this week.
Wikipedia notes: Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war .
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:56AM (57 children)
Of course he responded rapidly, Assad gave him exactly what he needed - a distraction from failing at every single domestic policy initiative he's tried so far. He gets to act like a tough guy and all of his worshippers will cheer. FYI, old men who had military training (like military boarding school) but who never saw actual combat are the most likely type to get a country involved in military adventurism because they've only ever experienced the propaganda of war, not the actual consequences,.
BTW, all you people who thought Clinton was the war-monger and Trump wasn't, he just did exactly what Clinton said to do: [thehill.com]
"That air force is the cause of most of the civilian deaths, as we have seen over the years and as we saw again in the last few days," Clinton said at the Women of the World Summit in New York.
"I really believe that we should have — and still should — take out his airfields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:01AM (10 children)
"Yes, we prefer Clinton at war than the Donald at war".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:18AM (8 children)
"Yes, we prefer Clinton at war than the Donald at war".
Yes we do.
Don the Con is purely reactive, the guy is so ADHD that he doesn't even know the meaning of the word strategic.
Clinton is a planner. If we are going to get in a real fight, not just a twitter beef, I'd much rather have her running it because she knows how to think ahead and most importantly, consider the consequences. Nobody can seriously argue that Don has even the faintest grasp of consequences. Thus far in life he's been insulated from consequences by a big fat pile of money.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:33AM (3 children)
>Clinton
>plan
She failed to plan against a buffoon, despite all the connections, despite all the donations, despite all the favors, yet you are telling me that was her strength?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:04AM (2 children)
(other AC) The opposition party typically gets the win after 2 terms of the party in power. No mystery there.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:10AM (1 child)
Furthermore, winning a campaign doesn't mean you did everything right nor does losing a campaign mean you did everything wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @04:29AM
Clinton ran one of the most incompetent campaigns in recent history, and her whole attitude seemed to be "I'm going to win anyway so why even try?".
Trump didn't deserve to win, but Clinton deserved every bit of her loss.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday April 07 2017, @11:23AM
Planning?
"At this point, what does it matter???"
I wiped my planning... "You mean, like, with a cloth?"
Hillary plans her poops in the morning, maybe, but wtf else?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Friday April 07 2017, @12:15PM (2 children)
Neither Clinton is a planner. They're opportunists only. To be a planner you would have to have some sense of what it takes to do something, and to organize action accordingly. Bill and Hillary are lawyers and politicians and influence peddlers and have never been anything else and don't know how to do anything else. They have no clue what it takes to do the simplest tasks. True story: Bill has a posh crash pad in a penthouse on the roof of the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas. He stays there when in town. One time he wanted to hang an award somebody gave him on the wall, and had to call maintenance at 10pm to drop everything with their families at home to come over and hammer a nail into the wall.
The dude had to call a specialist to hammer in a nail.
I'll let that sink in.
Such a person is in no way a planner.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:43PM
The dude had to call a specialist to hammer in a nail.
I'll let that sink in.
Such a person is in no way a planner.
What you fail to mention is that the maintenance staff at the clinton library is unionized.
If he had hammered that nail himself it would have been a union violation.
Sure, he could have done it and crossed his fingers that no one noticed.
But if it got out that clinton himself was not honoring the contract with labor that would have been a huge scandal.
So he followed proper procedure and because he is clinton they hopped to it and took care of it post haste instead of waiting until the next day.
So yeah, unlike you and your petty invective, he absolutely did think through the repercussions of his choices.
Not that what Bill Clinton did has anything to do with what Hillary would do in office. But again, petty invective.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday April 08 2017, @02:38AM
Let me add that a "planner" has to actually have some goals. No goal, no plan. If any of our politicians have any real goals, they manage to keep those goals very secret. There are no long range goals, other than accumulating and holding power and wealth. All of our modern technology, for instance, takes politicos by surprise. All the stupid shit over "online bullying" is simple reaction to unforeseen consequences of that technology. No one had a plan, no one had a goal to make the internet "safe". Cyber security, ditto - everything we do in regards to security is reactionary nonsense, after some OTHER actor discovered how to use technology to their own advantage.
There are few if any plans in Washington, aside from acquiring personal wealth.
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Friday April 07 2017, @12:49PM
Oh Snap!
As soon as I saw the announcement of the strike I turned to my wife and said "Time to watch Wag The Dog again".
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120885/ [imdb.com]
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday April 07 2017, @03:03AM (37 children)
With Clinton, there was a 100% chance she'd be war criminal.
With Trump, there was a remote chance he would choose not to be.
In any event, both are despicable but we should never forget, the reason we have Trump is because the DNC coronated Hillary rather than run an honest contest. So of any entity, the DNC deserves the most scorn.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:14AM (36 children)
With Clinton, there was a 100% chance she'd be war criminal.
With Trump, there was a remote chance he would choose not to be.
Oh puhleeze, "100% chance" my ass.
That's nothing more than you claiming your fantasies as fact.
Grow up.
In any event, both are despicable but we should never forget, the reason we have Trump is because the DNC coronated Hillary rather than run an honest contest.
Blaming the democrats for trump is bullshit.
People voted for trump because either they were rich republicans or they were racist. [theintercept.com]
The only way the DNC fixes that is either become more racist themselves or cater even more to the rich.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:21AM (29 children)
Blaming the democrats for trump is bullshit.
Yes, why blame the democrats for putting forth a terrible candidate that managed to lose to someone as bad as Trump? Even though he won because of the electoral college, those were the rules and everyone knew it.
People voted for trump because either they were rich republicans or they were racist.
Wow, that's a false dichotomy if I ever saw one. It's so very simplistic and it Others your opponents, so it makes rabid partisans feel good to believe it.
The only way the DNC fixes that is either become more racist themselves or cater even more to the rich.
They can fix it by being less corporatist and pushing for more policies that actually help the people, such as single payer, free college, and no unnecessary wars. Some democrats support those things, but not nearly enough; at least that number seems to be growing, for now. Make the distinction between the two parties so great that everyone can see it.
It's not enough to simply be better than the Republicans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:34AM (23 children)
Wow, that's a false dichotomy if I ever saw one. It's so very simplistic and it Others your opponents, so it makes rabid partisans feel good to believe it.
What a simplistic dismissal of all the research, not to mention what was plain to see by anyone who bothered to pay attention.
Trump's entire campaign was about racism.
Mexicans are rapists.
Black people live in inner city wastelands.
Muslims are terrorists.
Even retweeting white genocide shit.
Quit trying to be politically correct by denying the truth. Trump voters who weren't overtly racist were still a-ok with levels of racism unlike any serious presidential candidate has campaigned on more than half a century. As long as the democrats weren't willing to co-opt some of that racism for themselves, it didn't matter who their candidate was.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:42AM (4 children)
Looks like you're the racist with a simplistic view, projecting it into everyone you disagree with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:59AM (2 children)
> Looks like you're the racist with a simplistic view, projecting it into everyone you disagree with.
Ah, the old he who smelt it delt it defense.
The Real Racists™ are the ones who point out racism!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:23AM (1 child)
Exactly, there was no racism to begin with, only racists make them up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:41AM
> Exactly, there was no racism to begin with, only racists make them up.
I honestly can not tell if you are Poe'ning me.
But if you aren't, you need to read the intercept article linked back up near the top of the thread.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:13AM
#TCM Dude!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:11AM (11 children)
Tens of millions of people voted for Trump. Are you really going to say that there are literally only two reasons to vote for Trump, that you're rich or that you're racist? What if many people mistakenly believed that Trump would bring jobs back? What if many people mistakenly believed that he would be anti-interventionist? I can at least understand those concerns, even though I disagree that voting for Trump would accomplish their goals. I don't know how you can so easily generalize the motivations of tens of millions of people; it's baffling.
And keep in mind that countless voters vote for 'the lesser evil', so a sizable portion of Trump's voters probably don't even like him.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:29AM (5 children)
> Are you really going to say that there are literally only two reasons to vote for Trump, that you're rich or that you're racist?
Racism was the number one focus of his campaign. Literally his opening statement when he announced his candidacy.
Not to mention his most popular chant, "Build the wall!"
You know what kind of person sees all that and decides it does not disqualify him?
A racist.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by rondon on Friday April 07 2017, @01:25PM (3 children)
Completely ignore Miss "Superpredator" because it is convenient. Both parties ran a racist candidate, even if one was more racist than the other.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:48PM (2 children)
Completely ignore Miss "Superpredator" because it is convenient. Both parties ran a racist candidate, even if one was more racist than the other.
Completely ignore that one candidate was ashamed of what she said 20 years ago and apologized for it [time.com] while the other reveled in what he was saying on a daily basis.
You know who wasn't fooled by your idiotic false equivalence?
Actual minorities: Trump won with lowest minority vote in decades [reuters.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Pav on Friday April 07 2017, @10:45PM
...and Clinton lost because she had a low voter turnout among ALL demographics. Seriously, Clinton previously lost to a black guy with an islamic name. Racism Did Not Decide This Election.
(Score: 2) by rondon on Monday April 10 2017, @04:50PM
Let me try again - both parties ran racist candidates, one was just much more openly, honestly, and hysterically racist than the other. That doesn't make either of them not racist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @04:39AM
People supported building the wall because they are fed up the illegal immigrants. And they don't like illegal immigrants because they are illegal immigrants aka criminals that are breaking the law, not because they are racist. People supported Trump and building a wall because finally there was a candidate out there that showed they acknowledged and the problem and would do something about it. Heck, a lot of them didn't even believe that Trump would actually literally build a wall, they just took the talk as Trump saying he was serious about doing something about it.
And besides, last time I checked Mexican was a nationality, not a race you stupid racist fuck.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:27AM
Tens of millions of people voted for Trump.
More people voted against Hillary than for Trump.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @12:23PM
yes, there was a third option: being an idiot.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 07 2017, @05:01PM (2 children)
Tens of millions of people voted for Trump. Are you really going to say that there are literally only two reasons to vote for Trump
You're right. A few of them probably voted for him because he repeatedly promised not to bomb Syria:
"AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!"
My Favorite: "Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate."
"What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval."
"Be prepared, there is a small chance that our horrendous leadership could unknowingly lead us into World War III."
-- Donald Trump
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @07:32PM
My Favorite: "Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate."
Last week his gallup approval ratings hit the lowest mark yet - 35% - which is lower than Obama ever got through his entire time in office.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:35PM
My Favorite: "Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate."
How is that your favorite, when there is this [twitter.com]:
Are you allowed to impeach a president for gross incompetence?
It won [nytimes.com] the Daily Show Third Month Mania :D
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Friday April 07 2017, @02:05PM (5 children)
As I commented just after the election [soylentnews.org], this was a fairly typical election in terms of results.
The real differences were that:
1. Older, blue collar Americans who had previously voted Democratic felt ignored by the Democratic party and voted for Trump in the mistaken belief that he was on their side;
2. African-Americans voted in smaller numbers than in 2008 and 2012.
The difference in the election was ~70,000 votes out of ~130,000,000 total votes cast (0.05%) to swing the electoral college.
It was never about "draining the swamp." Both houses of Congress had incumbent re-election rates of > 90% This was a pretty normal election cycle in terms of voting patterns and polling. Just about all the polls (within the margins of error) turned out to match the election results.
The issues are complex and the electorate is diverse, but in the end in came down to partisan politics for the vast majority.
We could be better than this, but I'm not holding my breath.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:56PM (4 children)
Why are you and so many others so determined to turn away from the actual research?
Its like you don't want to admit that america is full of racism.
I can understand politicians not wanting to call a turd a turd because they need votes from some of those turds who have decided that the r-word is an insult to whites equivalent to the n-word for blacks. But fuck that stupid political correctness. The r-word is actually a description of thought and behavior. The people who take it as an insult are fragile little snowflakes who can't stand to look in the mirror.
The #1 predictor of whether or not an obama voter switched to voting for trump was not economics, it was racial insecurity.
Perceiving growing racial diversity as a threat strongly predicts Obama to Trump vote switchers, and more positive attitudes towards diversity predict the probability that a Romney 2012 voter would defect from the Republican nominee in 2016.
— Fear of Diversity Made People More Likely to Vote Trump [thenation.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday April 07 2017, @03:20PM (2 children)
Why are you and so many others so determined to turn away from the actual research?
Its like you don't want to admit that america is full of racism.
There's plenty of prejudice in the US, including racism, sexism and religious intolerance. Please show me where I said otherwise?
The numbers are the numbers. Blacks didn't vote for Clinton in the numbers that they voted for Obama. Older, white, blue-collar men voted for Obama and then for Trump. That smacks more of sexism than racism, friend.
Regardless, the election results clearly show that the 2016 elections were pretty typical R vs. D affairs. There's no doubt that the manufactured divisions between Rs and Ds (we have much more in common than we have differences) have complex admixtures of motives and "reasoning." Some of that is undoubtedly related to prejudice. But as the numbers show, the 2016 election cycle was pretty typical of the last four or five presidential election cycles.
Please show me where any of the above is incorrect.
I'll also note that since many of those who voted for Trump to give him his electoral college victory apparently voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. That gives the lie to your statement, don't you think? You know, since Obama is African-American and Hillary Clinton is lily white.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:59PM (1 child)
? Older, white, blue-collar men voted for Obama and then for Trump. That smacks more of sexism than racism, friend.
The #1 predictor of switching from Obama to trump was racism.
The #1 predictor of switching from Romney to Clinton was anti-racism.
Friend.
the election results clearly show that the 2016 elections were pretty typical R vs. D affairs.
This is to ignore the fact that since LBJ the parties have gradually self-sorted into the party of racists and the party of anti-racists. Trump just finished what the dixiecrats started.
In other words, what a "typical R vs D affair" actually represented in terms of beliefs is very different today than it was even in 2000. Hell, in 2000 more muslims voted republican than voted democrat. Now it isn't even close.
I'll also note that since many of those who voted for Trump to give him his electoral college victory apparently voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. That gives the lie to your statement, don't you think? You know, since Obama is African-American and Hillary Clinton is lily white.
No, I don't think. And if you had bothered to read the linked article it explained that your simplistic binary understanding of how racism actually works in life is wrong you'd understand why your claim is just reductive foolishness.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Friday April 07 2017, @11:08PM
I'm an Australian, but I was interested in the election, and somehow got pulled into the racist angle and watched a lot of US black media online. BOTH the black electorate and the white working class didn't show up for Clinton, and it could be argued BECAUSE Clinton failed to commit to strong policy on race (or any policy for that matter).
It seems the black electorate weren't inspired by Clinton and figured she would just put a nicer face on the racism, and some were actually happier with Trump just leaving it out in the open. The more educated were more likely to vote for Clinton, but had no illusions about her racial credentials. The Clintons had presided over the legislation responsible for the vast increase in the "prison industrial complex", and other legislation which disadvantaged African Americans in a practical sense. There was also a sense of betrayal because Obama didn't roll back these measures. Apparently Clinton didn't even have any black staffers (before Donna Brazile, and she was definitely problematic)... with Trump at least having some.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @09:02PM
I can understand politicians not wanting to call a turd a turd because they need votes from some of those turds who have decided that the r-word is an insult to whites equivalent to the n-word for blacks. But fuck that stupid political correctness. The r-word is actually a description of thought and behavior. The people who take it as an insult are fragile little snowflakes who can't stand to look in the mirror.
Given that the word "Racist" covers everything from cowardly cross-burnings and lynchings at midnight to insufficiently checking one's privilege, it's no wonder that people take it as an insult. There's no way to tell what point on the scale is being talked about. Even the KKK has trouble identifying itself with the term. [cnn.com]
Calling someone racist derails the conversation the same way the question "when did you stop beating your wife?" does. Neither affirmation nor denial is useful as a rebuttal. It demonizes the accused to the point of social isolation. It puts the accused one step up the social ladder from pedophiles. There is no reason to expect this to change in the near future. Not wanting to take any part in such a conversation does not make someone a fragile snowflake.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 07 2017, @03:41AM (1 child)
The Democratic Party has almost half a century of this corporatist horseshit backed up in it. As I've said many times before, they sold their soul after McGovern lost in '72, and since then, *no one* has been on the side of the poor. The GOP makes some shallow, cynical attempts to pretend it resonates with their values, while the Dems don't even bother with that demographic.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Friday April 07 2017, @04:53PM
No, the dems sold their soul when they nominated Humphrey in '68 over Eugene McCarthy, who had a huge majority of votes. The party of Camelot died with Kennedy.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:39AM
People voted for trump because either they were rich republicans or they were racist.
Wow, that's a false dichotomy if I ever saw one. It's so very simplistic and it Others your opponents, so it makes rabid partisans feel good to believe it.
Hip hip! Truely, people voted for Trump because they were both rich Republicans and racist. It is only the margins of poor, stupid, racist, hillbilly whites that put him over the Electoral Collage vote. And yes, Rich Rabid Republicans are Others to everyone else. It is almost as if they were lizard people. . . . Just saying.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 07 2017, @05:43PM
Effects can have more than one cause.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @09:55PM
I seem to recall when Obama's ACA was being rammed through Congress that single payer was briefly considered then quickly rejected as "socialized medicine". In this very forum I once suggested that college should be free because it was a public good to have an educated populace; I had some asshat respond that I was a moron who had a bleeding heart for little kiddies who lived all their lives getting "participation awards". And every political campaign I can recall people have turned a rather jaundiced eye toward anyone who did not enthusiastically beat the war hawk drum; people just don't seem to like their politicians to be peaceniks. I don't know what parallel Universe you are posting from but it sure ain't mine.
As for those who voted for Trump, I can't really say if they all are racist but they sure did know what they were voting for. Trump made no bones at all about where he stood, and it wasn't at all pretty or nice. Those who say otherwise are living in denial.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:25AM
How about all those who believe that the US has a two party system, and voting third-party is throwing your vote away?
There were a lot of people who didn't vote for a candidate, but against one. A log of people voted against Hillary (and a lot of people voted against Trump, but not enough to make a difference).
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Gaaark on Friday April 07 2017, @11:26AM
A lot of people voted against Hillary because she scared da fuck!
If they'd run Sanders, I'm guessing he would have won. They shoulda dropped the pig.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday April 07 2017, @12:40PM (2 children)
Hillary voted to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. She voted for the PATRIOT Act. She voted for every military intervention and overreaching government infringement of our liberties when a Senator, and supported the same while Secretary of State. So voters had actual data points to use in evaluating whether or not Hillary was going to be a warmonger. (That's even if you discount her aggressive campaign rhetoric, which you could be forgiven for discounting because she's a pathological liar who can't even admit to having a cold.) None of those data points indicated she was a champion of negotiation or peaceful resolution, so 100% is pretty close to true by rhetorical standards.
Hemocyanin was blaming the DNC, not the rank-and-file. The DNC is certainly to blame for rigging the primary contest wildly for Hillary. They rigged it from the state party committees to the consultants every campaign relies on to run get-out-the-vote efforts to campaign materials to buying air time on local TV affiliates. That Bernie even came close to winning the nomination is a testament to the one-sided support he had among the rank-and-file vs. the rigged game of the Democratic party machinery. I would parenthetically add that if you believe the party machinery is not so rigged then you really ought to volunteer for a real campaign some time and go see it for yourself.
Rich Republicans in fact wanted anybody but Trump, because his populist, anti-globalist rhetoric rattled them. They gave massive piles of money to Jeb Bush, and anyone else they could to try to stop Trump. Racists did want Trump, but the kind of racists you're thinking of are a small, single-digit percentage of the Republican base. Soft racists (the kind that would tell a black joke) might elevate that number over 10%, but they don't have enough traction even in the Republican party to command a primary by themselves. To win, Trump had to attract the Tea Party faction, which he did, with his populist themes.
I, as a progressive, voted for Trump because he promised to shut down the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an existential threat to the American middle class. Hillary had promised in her campaign to shut it down, too, but had previously strongly supported it for many years, had negotiated it while Secretary of State; she's also a proven pathological liar so I surmised it would take her all of 15 seconds to reverse her campaign rhetoric on that subject after winning the Whitehouse. We will never know 100% for sure if that surmise was correct, but Trump instantly killed the TPP upon taking office so my gamble there paid off. For everything else Trump is, on that he was sincere and effective and it's in fact the only time in my life that a politician has ever actually done what he promised to do while campaigning. So that's great.
In short, you're are pushing a rhetorical line here that is absurdly reductionist. The world is not so two dimensional and cartoonish as you make it out to be. Whether that is because you're intellectually lazy or naive or simply malicious is between you and your god.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:44PM (1 child)
She voted for every military intervention and overreaching government infringement of our liberties when a Senator,
Nice way to gloss over the details.
There was exactly one military intervention to vote on while she was in the senate.
Rich Republicans in fact wanted anybody but Trump, because his populist, anti-globalist rhetoric rattled them.
You are being deceptive again. Rich republicans may have preferred others in the primaries. But they were happy to vote for trump in general. And they got exactly what they wanted when he loaded up their gold mansacks. The stock market's trump rally wasn't because the rich thought they were about to get their comeuppance.
To win, Trump had to attract the Tea Party faction, which he did, with his populist themes.
Dude, the tea party was all about racism. 68% of teagoppers think anti-white bias is at least as big a problem as anti-black bias. [mintpressnews.com] There are many kinds of populism and tea party populism is clearly the racist kind.
The world is not so two dimensional and cartoonish as you make it out to be.
Oh please, spare me the "I'm a deeper thinker than you are" bullshit.
Yes, plenty of people just vote on party because of mental inertia.
But people who chose to vote for trump, rather than abstain, chose to do so because they were OK with his unapologetic racism.
Ignoring the fact that racial security for members of the dominate racial group is more important than economic security is how we will continue to lose as long as whites are still a majority of the population. If you listen to trump voters [motherjones.com] they aren't so worried about their own economic insecurity as they are the chance that "undeserving" people are getting government help with their economic insecurity. They are all about lazy blacks on welfare and mexicans with anchor babies on welfare.
As long as trump or some other demagogue is willing to exploit that racial anxiety and animus, no amount of giving them more economic security will change their minds that undeserving brown people are getting free stuff. In europe, a larger welfare state actually corresponds to increased far-right activity. [vox.com] In the US, 60% of the white working class think that discrimination against whites is the biggest problem with race relations despite there being no evidence in outcomes to support their feelings of persecution. [mintpressnews.com] Those are trump voters.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday April 08 2017, @02:32AM
She voted for Iraq. Before voting for Iraq, she almost gave herself an orgasm talking about the former Yugoslavia (remember, that place she helicoptered into under sniper fire (proven lie)). She was instrumental in Libya. She was in the chain of command for drone strikes. She lobbied hard and long to attack Syria.
You can try to revise history, but a lot of it is on video (including my comment about her creaming her pants over Yugoslavia while cheerleading for the Iraq war):
synopsis:
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday April 08 2017, @02:48AM
Unfortunately for you, Hillary harped on invading Syria for years before the election. Hillary ranted agains Assad, again and again. Had Hillary been elected, she would already have been in Syria. Worse, Hillary would be in direct confrontation with the Russians, insisting on punishing them, and maybe even instigating a war with Russia.
Hillary is an out-and-out warmonger.
(Score: -1, Troll) by jmorris on Friday April 07 2017, @04:35AM (5 children)
Assad gave him exactly what he needed..
Please tell us you don't actually believe something so retarded. Russia (the ones holding Assad's leash) assured the world they had handled the chemical weapon problem and taken them all out of the country. Do you really think that now, when Assad was virtually assured of winning and staying on his throne, he would embarrass Putin by some pointless exercise? Remember, he can roll all the barrel bombs he wants, which are about as nasty, and at most a few harsh words are said on Western TV. Magic 8-ball sez ISIS did this one and the usual suspects are willfully ignoring it because they see so much opportunity in this. The only question is whether Trump is doing the minimal needed to defuse this or has fallen hook line and sinker for such an obvious trap.
a distraction from failing at every single domestic policy initiative
Go on thinking that. The SCOTUS problem will be solved tomorrow, which will allow dropping the hammer on the lower courts defying his immigration orders. The repeal of OCare is going about as fast as I expected; again, you didn't really think any Conservative had any intention of reversing an entitlement, right? They are going to have to be beaten into submission first, a project that is going nicely. Tax reform is the same, Trump wants far more than the usual cut a few rates, eliminate a few deductions to balance it and call it good. Getting the Rs to sack up and do something meaningful is going to take some work.
Meanwhile Obama's regulatory legacy is being quickly rolled back and bids are coming in for the Wall. The Deep State fears their treason being revealed. The economy is starting to believe prosperity is possible and attitude often drives the economy. Yellen has other plans of course so there is still danger.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @07:14AM (3 children)
When most people write a post its to convince the readers of ideas the writer believes.
But when j-mo posts its usually in response to something that challenges the legitimacy of the alternate reality that's been constructed for him by the alternative press.
You can tell the only person he's trying to convince is himself. The act of typing it out makes it seem more true in his own head.
Is it possible to brainwash yourself? J-mo is proof it can be done!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @09:43AM (2 children)
You strawman too much?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @01:30PM
We have a lot of straw men around here, but I don't think that's one of them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @05:36PM
If you're not sure its a straw man maybe you shouldn't be name-calling! Maybe he's just a really skinny dude?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday April 08 2017, @02:52AM
I've spent hours reviewing what is known, what is claimed, what is not known. I'm becoming convinced that this is a false flag operation. Remember when the "rebels" fucked up, and released biochemical agents in Aleppo? Same thing here, I think. Except, Saudi Arabia actually provided the Sarin to these "rebels" this time around. Rather than an accidental release, the sarin containers were destroyed by Assad's air strike.
I'm not 100% convinced of this story line, but I'm a hell of a lot more than half convinced. Assad had nothing to gain with the use of NBC warfare - absolutely nothing - and he had a lot to lose.
So, the Powers That Be decided to stage an NBC attack by Assad.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @06:30AM (1 child)
Trump's Twitter feed is the gift that keeps on giving:
Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.
2:39 PM - 9 Oct 2012
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/255784560904773633 [twitter.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:17PM
Sean Hannity @seanhannity (verified)
Glad our arrogant Pres. is enjoying his taxpayer funded golf outing after announcing the US should take military action against Syria
6:42 PM - 3 Sep 2013
https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/375071259643879425 [twitter.com]