Social A serious question for liberals in this forum

[PainIsLIfe]

So? I thought it was interesting when you said that a guy who has been strongly against the right of same-sex couples to marry would officiate a wedding, but apparently that's a false rumor that has been spread. Less interesting that he would swear in a gay guy for a gov't job.

I didnt say he officiated. The article that was posted said he attended the SS wedding of a friend.

I suggested it might be Grenel because I knew he swore him in and the 2 have remained friends.

 

[IGIT]

Obama actually said Libya was his biggest mistake and I think I agree with that.

Hiya Khabib Khanate,

*ponders*

a tough call. Cameron and Sarkozy wanted support...Mr. Obama hedged as his advisors went back and forth.

in the end Mrs. Power and Mrs. Rice won the debate, as Sec of State Clinton swung their way - and Mr. Biden and Mr. Gates lost.

- IGIT

 

[blaseblah]

No way, but I would choose her over RINO Mitt Romney.

On the basis of what policy positions? What would you actually be voting for?

 

[IGIT]

hiya GreenGorilla,

Most of these things are multilayered but the initial question was whether Hillary Clinton was a moral person which she just isn't. Her saying stuff like:" We came, we saw, he died."

*muses*

i don't know how old you are, or if you predate twitter...its strange, though. there really is a tendency for folks to compartmentalize Mrs. Clinton with a specific quote. stuff like, "We came, we saw, he died".

two things;

a) if Donald Trump said something like that, i can imagine many folks on the right masturbating joyously to his words. i mean, this is the same man who managed to rhapsodize about chocolate cake and dropping bombs in the same sentence.

b) Hillary Clinton also said this, in her concession speech; "Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans."

sounds pretty moral to me.

only a truly moral person, a humanitarian (and a good sport!), could utter such a line.

or maybe its a little more complicated than that and i'm being too simplistic?<45>

- IGIT

 

[Kid Quick]

On the basis of what policy positions? What would you actually be voting for?

The basis of who actually represents their actual position.

 

[blaseblah]

The basis of who actually represents their actual position.

Romney represents his positions much more than Trump, who you supported. Trump doesn't actually stand for anything. He used to be a Democrat and was giving money to Democrats prior to his decision to run for president.

 

[AndroidRage]

Could you ever imagine a conservative running for president that you wouldn't absolutely despise? Not that you'd ever vote for him, but if he were polite and well-spoken, and simultaneously embodied conservative values, would it be possible that you didn't completely hate his guts?

This is a totally serious question.

As long as conservatives stand for fucking over the common man in favor for the wealthiest people in the US, then no not really. Conservatism doesn't have many positives to offer. They try and take apart social safety nets, privatize things that should be government services, deregulate industry to everyone's detriment but the very wealthy, break up unions, etc etc. And then the decent things they are supposed to stand for they in reality do not stand for.

 

[GreenGorilla]

hiya GreenGorilla,



*muses*

i don't know how old you are, or if you predate twitter...its strange, though. there really is a tendency for folks to compartmentalize Mrs. Clinton with a specific quote. stuff like, "We came, we saw, he died".

two things;

a) if Donald Trump said something like that, i can imagine many folks on the right masturbating joyously to his words. i mean, this is the same man who managed to rhapsodize about chocolate cake and dropping bombs in the same sentence.

b) Hillary Clinton also said this, in her concession speech; "Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans."

sounds pretty moral to me.

only a truly moral person, a humanitarian (and a good sport!), could utter such a line.

or maybe its a little more complicated than that and i'm being too simplistic?<45>

- IGIT

I don't use twittwe, I am 24 years old, center left, and I only talk politics with 3 of my close friends who are an ivorian who came to Germany age 6, a kurdish refugee came at age 8 and a half syrian/german guy who lived here his whole life.
If you read what I wrote these little gestures mean very little to me in the face of explotation,warmongering and potential pedo scandals. Have a blessed day my bratha.

GG

 

[IGIT]

hiya there GreenGorilla,

I don't use twittwe, I am 24 years old, center left, and I only talk politics with 3 of my close friends who are an ivorian who came to Germany age 6, a kurdish refugee came at age 8 and a half syrian/german guy who lived here his whole life.

that's a little too much bio.

i was just thinking about the tendency to boil someone's political leanings and morality by citing a tweetable quote.

Hillary Clinton doesn't seem any more (or less) moral than most folks in DC. Seditionists like Trump, Cruz, Hawley, etc, notwithstanding.

Have a blessed day my bratha.

you too, homie!

- IGIT

 

[GreenGorilla]

hiya there GreenGorilla,



that's a little too much bio.

i was just thinking about the tendency to boil someone's political leanings and morality by citing a tweetable quote.

Hillary Clinton doesn't seem any more (or less) moral than most folks in DC. Seditionists like Trump, Cruz, Hawley, etc, notwithstanding.



you too, homie!

- IGIT

Just thought you were insinuating that I am a qannon nut or whatever so made sure to make it very clear I neither have a western view on things nor do I entertain twitter politics or other utter bullshit.
And I don't really care about behavior or scandalous comments I care about the hard facts and about the way majority of the planet has been treated by the US government nomatter their PR team or lack there of.

All good bro.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It was realpolitik mixed with some idealism I think. People like Obama hoped that form the ashes a democracy could emerge and as I said for others it was just a golden opportunity to get rid of an international trouble maker. Gaddafi has had a target on his back for a while and its largely his own fault really.

Obama actually said Libya was his biggest mistake and I think I agree with that. Wasn't an amazing country before but by third world standards it was actually fairly decent. Lots of oil wealth with a small population meant that it wasn't hard for Gaddafi to establish a decent floor when it comes to living standards. Now its just perpetual fighting and chaos, a real shame and it undermined American authority globally. I remember I once chatted with this gorgeous Russian chick and when she found out I was Muslim she mentioned Gaddafi and how he was a great leader and how it was a shame that the US toppled him given what Libya turned into. Clearly regurgitating Russian propaganda but unfortunately in this case there's a lot of truth to it.

To be more specific, he said that preventing a massacre was the right thing to do, but failing to plan for the aftermath was his biggest mistake. I think it's fair to criticize that (and effects generally) but the wildly implausible theories about motives are irksome. I think that kind of thing lands with dumb partisans better than a critique of planning and execution so it gets spread more.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I didnt say he officiated. The article that was posted said he attended the SS wedding of a friend.

I suggested it might be Grenel because I knew he swore him in and the 2 have remained friends.

OK, still seems more surprising (and thus interesting) than what the truth appears to be.

 

[Andy Capp]

ROFL

 

[Hollywood Jack]

To be more specific, he said that preventing a massacre was the right thing to do, but failing to plan for the aftermath was his biggest mistake. I think it's fair to criticize that (and effects generally) but the wildly implausible theories about motives are irksome. I think that kind of thing lands with dumb partisans better than a critique of planning and execution so it gets spread more.

I think there are bad motives when it comes to the neocons specifically. Their belief in noble lies and such (predecessor to the Trump era alternative facts, in some ways they're just as postmodern despite their protestations). They sell these presidents on going in under false pretenses and/or convince them that a favorable endgame is going to come and come quick, when in all actuality it rarely comes to fruition and becomes a quagmire and there are vast unintended consequences (on the president's end at least). It's happened too many times for me to think it's just a coincidence. I see a clear pattern in foreign policy.

I think Obama had good intentions, but he was stretched too thin, foreign policy wasn't really his strong suit and he was preoccupied with his domestic agenda, where the Republicans were obstructing him at every turn. I'll credit him for getting Obamacare done, even if it was a half measure, because I think a lot of people in his position wouldn't have even been able to get that done. I highly doubt Biden could have got it done. I see Biden making marginal improvements on Obamacare at best. But of course that is much preferred to Trump or another Republican continuing to dismantle it and replace it with nothing.

 

[IGIT]

To be more specific, he said that preventing a massacre was the right thing to do, but failing to plan for the aftermath was his biggest mistake. I think it's fair to criticize that (and effects generally) but the wildly implausible theories about motives are irksome. I think that kind of thing lands with dumb partisans better than a critique of planning and execution so it gets spread more.

hiya Jack again!

i get that if one applies the Noam Chomsky measuring stick to the conduct of our Presidents, they'd all be in a jail cell under the Hague - but all in all i thought Mr. Obama did pretty good when it came to foreign policy.

Obama was reluctant to get engaged in a third endless military adventure; he was trying to disengage himself and the country from the two he inherited.

the lack of planning regarding the aftermath was by design; it wasn't Obama's show; it was being run by the French and the British, who were going to ultimately go in with or without the United States.

Obama wanted a strictly defined role for the US, with absolutely no new commitments to nation building projects (he was tiring of Iraq as it was), and that's what he did - while honoring geopolitical commitments that the US has shared with the UK and France for more than a century.

remember all the flak President Obama was getting for "leading from behind", when it came to Libya?

that wasn't an accident, and the people who criticized Obama for doing so would have been grousing no matter what he did.

a) sit on the sidelines while Cameron and Sarkozy intervene in Libya? "Obama is abandoning the Arab Spring!"

b) lead the intervention? "Obama is just another neocon!"

c) play a support role in the intervention? "Obama is leading from behind!"

in terms of how to proceed, it was a difficult needle to thread and i think Mr. Obama split the difference.

pragmatic. cautious.

i'm good with it.

- IGIT

 

[Islam Imamate]

I think there are bad motives when it comes to the neocons specifically. Their belief in noble lies and such (predecessor to the Trump era alternative facts, in some ways they're just as postmodern despite their protestations). They sell these presidents on going in under false pretenses and/or convince them that a favorable endgame is going to come and come quick, when in all actuality it rarely comes to fruition and becomes a quagmire and there are vast unintended consequences (on the president's end at least). It's happened too many times for me to think it's just a coincidence. I see a clear pattern in foreign policy.

I think Obama had good intentions, but he was stretched too thin, foreign policy wasn't really his strong suit and he was preoccupied with his domestic agenda, where the Republicans were obstructing him at every turn. I'll credit him for getting Obamacare done, even if it was a half measure, because I think a lot of people in his position wouldn't have even been able to get that done. I highly doubt Biden could have got it done. I see Biden making marginal improvements on Obamacare at best. But of course that is much preferred to Trump or another Republican continuing to dismantle it and replace it with nothing.

I actually think some neocons really believe it, they have that much faith in American power and statecraft that they think that the next time it really will work. In the case of Libya there was an organic uprising so they must've hoped that would make it different from Iraq where we just stormed in despite no real opposition to Saddam since the revolts of the Shia and Kurds in the 90s.

Often they are lead astray by people they see as insiders like exiled opposition politicians or actors within the country who assure them that it'll work out. Happened both in Iraq and in Libya and its because these actors hope that the US will give them privileged positions in the new regime.

 

[Blayt7hh]

John McCain, the guy they put up for sacrifice when Obama was running

 

[luckyshot]

Could you ever imagine a conservative running for president that you wouldn't absolutely despise? Not that you'd ever vote for him, but if he were polite and well-spoken, and simultaneously embodied conservative values, would it be possible that you didn't completely hate his guts?

This is a totally serious question.

Based on how he's shown a spine and stood up to Trump, I actually have a level of respect for Mitt Romney that I NEVER thought I would have.

 

[IGIT]

I actually think some neocons really believe it, they have that much faith in American power and statecraft that they think that the next time it really will work.

hi Khabib Khanate,

i think thats true.

really, nobody on the left or the right begins a military adventure hoping it gets drawn out over a decade or two.

the neocons were believers.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

Based on how he's shown a spine and stood up to Trump, I actually have a level of respect for Mitt Romney that I NEVER thought I would have.

hi lucky,

Mitt was always a reasonable, pretty normal Republican, just like his dad.

its true, he had to debase himself when he running for POTUS, saying ridiculous stuff like, "i am severely conservative", because the GOP base is full of wingnuts - but at heart i think he was the same guy who was Governor of Massachusetts.

good for Mitt.

let me ask you (since this thread is wandering a bit, and i can't start new ones), should President Biden cut the deal with the ten GOP senators (Romney is among them) who will meet Biden 1/3 of the way or should the Democrats just implement the aid in the manner they desire and ditch getting help across the aisle and go for broke?

what do you think?

- IGIT