Where do you get that idea? The Trump admin has only been in place for five months. The strike the US just carried out took years of planning. Trump’s attack on Iran was just a continuation of Biden admin policy.
All the evidence I’ve seen my whole adult life is that the Democrats, or at least the Democratic leadership structure, are just as bloodthirsty and warmongering as the Republican leadership.
We don’t actually know that Dems wouldn’t have been pushing an Iraq war. Ultimately the real push for the war came from the Israeli leadership, and the Israelis control both the Democratic and Republican parties. Israel ultimately decides US Middle East policy, not the American citizens. What party you vote for has very little impact on it. That’s the conclusion you reach if you look at the actual evidence, not just the vibes that each party likes to portray. The Dems like to portray themselves as some 1960s peace-nicks, but both parties let Israel control their entire Middle East policy. Israel wanted to invade Iraq, and that was going to happen regardless of what party was in power.
Maybe the Dems would have handled the Iraq war a little more competently, but Saddam had been a villain in the US media for years. People were talking about invading Iraq while the bodies at ground zero hadn’t even cooled off.
Gore supported invading Iraq. The majority of Democrats in the US Senate supported Iraq. What evidence do you have that a Democratic president wouldn’t have invaded Iraq? I think the only case is vibes-based.
Militaries work on plans for everything. I would be surprised if they didn’t have a plan to invade nearly every country on Earth. It’s what the military does. The decision is made by the politicians. Vastly different things that you’re trying to hammer together.
Israelis control both the Democratic and Republican parties.
Thank you for showing me you’re nuts. No point in real discussion, this will be my only reply.
But to address
Most damning of all? Al Gore supported military intervention in Iraq.
That reads nearly like an academic discussion on the topic and that he was actually focused on WMDs. Sounds like he wouldn’t have done it without people/nations researching and agreeing that Saddma Hussein had WMDs (or was trying to make them), which would have lead to international cooperation and support. Not quite to the point of wanting UN agreement (because vetos) but he keeps discussing the UN. And sounds like if he didn’t have both the domestic and international agreement, it wouldn’t have happened. This is just another thing you’re trying to hammer together. I thought this part was cool “the president is publicly taunting Democrats with the political consequences of a ‘no’ vote”, he was obviously not a fan of Bush’s browbeating - which along with Bush’s lies is how the Iraq war went through. And the whole thing is just ripping Bush’s administration and approach apart.
That you keep trying to hammer different things together shows me you either can’t separate them yourself, or that you’re discussing in bad faith. So ciao.
In the rare cases a Democrat I vote for wins they’re either hamstrung by Republicans winning everywhere else or have a stroke and turn into Republicans.
Let me introduce you to group known as the ‘Obama-Obama-Trump’ voters.
Confusing on the face of it no? How can someone vote for Barack twice, and then pull the lever for Trump? And the map is not clear either; counties in New England, the Rust Belt, southwest, and northeast. All over the country, red and blue states. So what happened?
These 206 counties cast 7.5 million votes in 2016, which accounts for 5.5 percent of all votes cast in the election.
Between 2012 and 2016, the Democratic popular vote margin declined by 2.1 million votes. Even though these 206 counties make up only 5 percent of the total votes cast, they accounted for 51 percent of that decline.
Low propensity voters, now disillusioned with politics. These are the people who got sold a vision of hope and change after the Great Recession in 2007-2008, and while yes things changed, not in a fundamental way. They still drive on crumbling roads to take their kids to the same underfunded schools. Still watch their taxes fund overseas wars, for nebulous ‘foreign policy’ reasons that aren’t clear. Still paying out the ass for their dialysis care. Watching standards of living regress around them, knowing their kids will be worse off regardless of a college degree.
You see, there’s a part 3 that you’re forgetting that needs to happen, otherwise another opportunist grifter can slide in with false promises and spam-abuse the populism cheat code:
Deliver results for the people who voted for you - or don’t be in power when it goes bad
Obama had a majority for 2 years. And he got through major healthcare reform. Part 3 accomplished. His reward? To lose the majority for the next 6 years and the gop blocking everything. Part 3 was accomplished and the voters did not turn out.
So we’re back to asking, what’s the solution? 1. Vote for Dems and give them majorities.
The tragedy here is that so many people are uniformed and think he had 8 effective years when he only had 2.
I feel you’re missing the point I’m making; Obama did have legislative victories yes. Did usher in an economic recovery from the precipice and a (relatively) speaking soft landing. But what fundamentally changed in healthcare? Especially for the low propensity and/or information voter? Nothing from their perspective, unfortunately. The reality delivered did not match the marketing, and though childish and petulant the reaction may be because of real issues like thin majorities or constitutional limits on power, that is the perception. And that is all that matters.
I don’t see Trump’s rise as being caused by his unique policy stances, white nativism, or better electoral strategy than the Democrats. He’s mediocre-to-awful, but has no institutional fealty or cogent ideology which is what makes him uniquely suited to the current populist vibe. Trump is a bomb that voters sent to blow up the established order in Washington, and in 2016 they got what they asked for. The palace coup that is MAGA, ate the Republican Party from the inside out, within a single four year cycle. Now you’re seeing the base souring on him as his second term has has been co-opted by capital and power structures, and is abandoning the ‘maverick outsider’ policies like “no new wars” or “I want to sell off the national parks to foreign nations”.
Lots of people benefited. Your own step 3 was completed. That’s basically all there was to it. And Obama’s reward was to lose congress for the next 6 years. I’ve already said it all.
Iraq War resolution vote in the Senate.
Dem President wouldn’t have been pounding the war path, with lies, and pretty much the entire nation pushing their representatives for it.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-israeli-militaries-jointly-drilled-iran-strike-during-biden-administration-report/
Where do you get that idea? The Trump admin has only been in place for five months. The strike the US just carried out took years of planning. Trump’s attack on Iran was just a continuation of Biden admin policy.
All the evidence I’ve seen my whole adult life is that the Democrats, or at least the Democratic leadership structure, are just as bloodthirsty and warmongering as the Republican leadership.
We don’t actually know that Dems wouldn’t have been pushing an Iraq war. Ultimately the real push for the war came from the Israeli leadership, and the Israelis control both the Democratic and Republican parties. Israel ultimately decides US Middle East policy, not the American citizens. What party you vote for has very little impact on it. That’s the conclusion you reach if you look at the actual evidence, not just the vibes that each party likes to portray. The Dems like to portray themselves as some 1960s peace-nicks, but both parties let Israel control their entire Middle East policy. Israel wanted to invade Iraq, and that was going to happen regardless of what party was in power.
Maybe the Dems would have handled the Iraq war a little more competently, but Saddam had been a villain in the US media for years. People were talking about invading Iraq while the bodies at ground zero hadn’t even cooled off.
Most damning of all? Al Gore supported military intervention in Iraq. He just wanted a more international effort than what Bush did.
Gore supported invading Iraq. The majority of Democrats in the US Senate supported Iraq. What evidence do you have that a Democratic president wouldn’t have invaded Iraq? I think the only case is vibes-based.
Militaries work on plans for everything. I would be surprised if they didn’t have a plan to invade nearly every country on Earth. It’s what the military does. The decision is made by the politicians. Vastly different things that you’re trying to hammer together.
Thank you for showing me you’re nuts. No point in real discussion, this will be my only reply.
But to address
That reads nearly like an academic discussion on the topic and that he was actually focused on WMDs. Sounds like he wouldn’t have done it without people/nations researching and agreeing that Saddma Hussein had WMDs (or was trying to make them), which would have lead to international cooperation and support. Not quite to the point of wanting UN agreement (because vetos) but he keeps discussing the UN. And sounds like if he didn’t have both the domestic and international agreement, it wouldn’t have happened. This is just another thing you’re trying to hammer together. I thought this part was cool “the president is publicly taunting Democrats with the political consequences of a ‘no’ vote”, he was obviously not a fan of Bush’s browbeating - which along with Bush’s lies is how the Iraq war went through. And the whole thing is just ripping Bush’s administration and approach apart.
That you keep trying to hammer different things together shows me you either can’t separate them yourself, or that you’re discussing in bad faith. So ciao.
Winning is binary, so me voting doesn’t make Trump any less the president.
I’ve been trying to do that too and people are too stupid to convince and I’m bad at it.
In the rare cases a Democrat I vote for wins they’re either hamstrung by Republicans winning everywhere else or have a stroke and turn into Republicans.
So we’re back to 1. More GOP wins means it would have been even worse and 2. Convince your fellow voter and non voter to vote.
Seriously what is the purpose of your moaning.
Confusing on the face of it no? How can someone vote for Barack twice, and then pull the lever for Trump? And the map is not clear either; counties in New England, the Rust Belt, southwest, and northeast. All over the country, red and blue states. So what happened?
Low propensity voters, now disillusioned with politics. These are the people who got sold a vision of hope and change after the Great Recession in 2007-2008, and while yes things changed, not in a fundamental way. They still drive on crumbling roads to take their kids to the same underfunded schools. Still watch their taxes fund overseas wars, for nebulous ‘foreign policy’ reasons that aren’t clear. Still paying out the ass for their dialysis care. Watching standards of living regress around them, knowing their kids will be worse off regardless of a college degree.
You see, there’s a part 3 that you’re forgetting that needs to happen, otherwise another opportunist grifter can slide in with false promises and spam-abuse the populism cheat code:
Obama had a majority for 2 years. And he got through major healthcare reform. Part 3 accomplished. His reward? To lose the majority for the next 6 years and the gop blocking everything. Part 3 was accomplished and the voters did not turn out.
So we’re back to asking, what’s the solution? 1. Vote for Dems and give them majorities.
The tragedy here is that so many people are uniformed and think he had 8 effective years when he only had 2.
I feel you’re missing the point I’m making; Obama did have legislative victories yes. Did usher in an economic recovery from the precipice and a (relatively) speaking soft landing. But what fundamentally changed in healthcare? Especially for the low propensity and/or information voter? Nothing from their perspective, unfortunately. The reality delivered did not match the marketing, and though childish and petulant the reaction may be because of real issues like thin majorities or constitutional limits on power, that is the perception. And that is all that matters.
I don’t see Trump’s rise as being caused by his unique policy stances, white nativism, or better electoral strategy than the Democrats. He’s mediocre-to-awful, but has no institutional fealty or cogent ideology which is what makes him uniquely suited to the current populist vibe. Trump is a bomb that voters sent to blow up the established order in Washington, and in 2016 they got what they asked for. The palace coup that is MAGA, ate the Republican Party from the inside out, within a single four year cycle. Now you’re seeing the base souring on him as his second term has has been co-opted by capital and power structures, and is abandoning the ‘maverick outsider’ policies like “no new wars” or “I want to sell off the national parks to foreign nations”.
Sounds like a “n n not good enough” response.
Lots of people benefited. Your own step 3 was completed. That’s basically all there was to it. And Obama’s reward was to lose congress for the next 6 years. I’ve already said it all.
So your solution is to keep trying the thing that I’ve already indicated doesn’t work.
Unless you’re advocating for me committing interstate voter fraud to flip half the Republican districts blue.
Because we’ve already established that I’m shit at convincing people to vote because I’m a whiny asshole.
I’m gonna leave this conversation because I just keep saying the same thing and you keep moaning the same thing.
If the GOP having control of all three branches of government is the system working then we need a new system.