The High Price of the Politics of Petulance

[repoman]

Here is what i think. I think we on the left think ourselves smarter than we are. I think we think that conservatives are children or idiots or hopelessly evil and not responsible for what they do, so we do not hold them accountable for their actions like we should. We don't understand them, so we avoid them at best and fear them at worst. We see other leftists as smart and safe and like us therefore accountable. So we attack each other and then blame each other when things go wrong (even after all the evidence says it wasn't any leftist's fault). We blame each other when the adult thing to do for each of us would be to blame ourselves.

No, that is what liberals think of blacks...

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Here is what i think. I think we on the left think ourselves smarter than we are. I think we think that conservatives are children or idiots or hopelessly evil and not responsible for what they do, so we do not hold them accountable for their actions like we should. We don't understand them, so we avoid them at best and fear them at worst. We see other leftists as smart and safe and like us therefore accountable. So we attack each other and then blame each other when things go wrong (even after all the evidence says it wasn't any leftist's fault). We blame each other when the adult thing to do for each of us would be to blame ourselves.

No, that is what liberals think of blacks...

If you are really that hungry and in a need to be fed, instead of posting on the internet, cook this

Mom's meatloaf

3/4 Cups Heinz 57 sauce
3/8 Cups Lea & Perrin Worcestershire sauce
2. LB Ground beef
1. LB Ground Pork Sausage
1/2 Cup Chopped onion
1/2 Cup Chopped Bell Pepper
1/2 Cup Chopped Celery
1 1/2 Cup bread crumbs
3 lightly beaten eggs

Combine ingredients thoroughly, but use a light hand and don't over mix.
Shape in 2 loaf pans

Brush tops with Heinz 57 Sauce.
Bake in 450 oven for 1/2 hour or until crust forms, turn down temp
Continue to bake in 350 oven for 1 hour to 1 1/4, remove from oven
Allow loaves to stand 5 minutes before slicing.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If Trump is elected, the country will be vastly different than if Clinton wins. There's just no way to logically argue that there's no difference between them.

Trump is a completely open question mark, so there COULD be no difference between them. Trump is a yuuuuge risk to take. A yuuuge gamble. For all we know he COULD sit on his golden throne and listen to the right people and they may do a better job than Clinton, not worrying about elections/politics. Or he could usher in total tyranny. We simply don't know.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Be glad I don't have a vote in your election, because I would for sure vote third party. I'm with Jill Stein, and I agree with her when she says that voting for the lesser evil gets us nowhere in the long run. Everything you voted against last election has come to pass under a DEMOCRAT president and majority in his first term. If you all vote for Hillary in a landslide vote, she will think she has a mandate to do precisely what you don't want her to do...

No. Stop voting against somebody and vote for somebody.

I wouldn't fault you for voting Gary Johnson either. He's also better than both Hillary and Trump.

 

[Deepak]

If Trump is elected, the country will be vastly different than if Clinton wins. There's just no way to logically argue that there's no difference between them.

Trump is a completely open question mark, so there COULD be no difference between them. Trump is a yuuuuge risk to take. A yuuuge gamble. For all we know he COULD sit on his golden throne and listen to the right people and they may do a better job than Clinton, not worrying about elections/politics. Or he could usher in total tyranny. We simply don't know.

There are unknowns with Trump, but he's certainly not a completely open question mark.

We do know, for instance, that he's unable to drop a petty game of quienes mas macho - in this case with a family which has a dead veteran son. So maybe his Muslim ban 'policy' is all bluster, but we do know that he's incapable of exuding enough empathy to offer condolences to the Khans and simply move on. This is dangerous for a person who is in the role of the presidency, and it's certainly not a put-on like most of the shit he throws out. He's unable to exercise the most basic level of self control, and best case this will lead to him being played like a damn fiddle on the world stage. Worst case it could lead to serious destabilization and potentially war.

Reneging on Article V of the NATO charter is intolerable and I could see him do it simply because the wife of a foreign leader is a 6, and they put the shitty soaps in the bathroom when he visited.

Policy is the least of my worries with this guy.

 

[Sarpedon]

Yes, I've been to Russia and I've seen that the bizarre politics of nationalism were taking root there. Putin does have something in common with a number of historical European leaders, including Hitler: The idea that it is acceptable to use military force to reclaim territory once held by the nation; that once territory is held by the nation, even for a short time, and even if the inhabitants are of a different sort, belongs to that nation forever. This is called 'Irredentism,' and it has been the cause of many wars.

While some would say that moving NATO eastwards towards Russia has 'provoked' Russia, you cannot deny that the people of Eastern Europe have flocked to NATO, out of fear of Russia. Why would they not? What had Russia to offer them? Haven't they had every reason to fear it? Yes, expanding NATO into Russia's traditional sphere of influence has provoked Russia. But the people in Russia's sphere of influence don't want to be there.

NATO is a disunified collection of nations. NATO is no threat to Russia. Literally the only thing we agree on is mutual defense in case of an attack. Until now. If Trump wins the election, NATO will crumble, and Putin will be free to reassert Russian control over whatever he feels to be his sphere of influence. You are sure of the Baltic States, are you? How did you feel about Crimea and East Ukraine?

 

[Harry Bosch]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-high-price-of-the-politics-of-petulance.html

Great article, IMHO. The Bernie or Bust crowd could give us Trump as a President. They say there's no difference between HRC and DT. Bullshit. As this guy points out, if Humphrey had been elected, there would have been no Cambodian invasion, and subsequently no Cambodian holocaust. If Nader had been willing to cede Florida to Gore in 2000 (or if the liberals in Florida had realized what they were doing), there would have been no iraq war, no ISIS, and Afghanistan would be a boring country once again.

If Trump is elected, the country will be vastly different than if Clinton wins. There's just no way to logically argue that there's no difference between them. Whatever similarities are dwarfed by their differences. But I fear that we are in for a repeat of 2000, and those on the left will just fail to show up for Clinton, despite Sanders' endorsement and support.

I say, beat Trump. Beat him at almost all costs.

SLD

I appreciate the sentiment you are trying to express but Hillary is the bigger warmonger among the two candidates. Donald Trump has a lot of negatives but warmongering hasn't been one of them.

That's crazy talk! The big difference that is emerging is that Republicans (Trump) tend to favor unilateral invasion, US boots on the ground to hold and govern the area. Trump has fooled many into thinking that he's not a "warmonger" because he was against the Iraq invasion. First off, this is bullshit. He favored it. Anyone who disagrees, please just use google. Secondly, just read what Trump says. He wants to bomb the Jihadist's families (how would we identify their family's anyway?), he wants to take their oil fields and hold them with American troops, he wants to directly attack ISIS and occupy their holdings with American troops.

HRC, for all her faults, favors a more collaborative approach. She doesn't want to send in US troops to hold areas. She prefers that locals who are our allies hold and rule their own lands. She wants to attack ISIS, but allow locals to occupy their own land.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I appreciate the sentiment you are trying to express but Hillary is the bigger warmonger among the two candidates. Donald Trump has a lot of negatives but warmongering hasn't been one of them.

That's crazy talk! The big difference that is emerging is that Republicans (Trump) tend to favor unilateral invasion, US boots on the ground to hold and govern the area. Trump has fooled many into thinking that he's not a "warmonger" because he was against the Iraq invasion. First off, this is bullshit. He favored it. Anyone who disagrees, please just use google. Secondly, just read what Trump says. He wants to bomb the Jihadist's families (how would we identify their family's anyway?), he wants to take their oil fields and hold them with American troops, he wants to directly attack ISIS and occupy their holdings with American troops.

HRC, for all her faults, favors a more collaborative approach. She doesn't want to send in US troops to hold areas. She prefers that locals who are our allies hold and rule their own lands. She wants to attack ISIS, but allow locals to occupy their own land.

And to reiterate my point in another thread, we have no reason to trust what Trump says on anything. At all.

 

[barbos]

Yes, I've been to Russia and I've seen that the bizarre politics of nationalism were taking root there. Putin does have something in common with a number of historical European leaders, including Hitler: The idea that it is acceptable to use military force to reclaim territory once held by the nation; that once territory is held by the nation, even for a short time, and even if the inhabitants are of a different sort, belongs to that nation forever. This is called 'Irredentism,' and it has been the cause of many wars.

That's ironic thing to hear from american, former British Empire subject
He did not use military force to reclaim the territory. He used military force to let them have their referendum. of which by the way they were illegally and undemocratically robbed around 1992

While some would say that moving NATO eastwards towards Russia has 'provoked' Russia, you cannot deny that the people of Eastern Europe have flocked to NATO, out of fear of Russia. Why would they not?

Yes, I can and will deny it, and I have on many occasions. What you just said is patently false. Some of the eastern europe countries which are now in NATO had majority of their people against joining NATO. And these who did have majority for NATO had been subjected by huge amount of propaganda by their pro-US governments, and even then the reason for joining are mostly economic ones.

What had Russia to offer them?

Russia is a relatively poor country and does not have much to offer but it did use money to buy loyalty, yes.

Haven't they had every reason to fear it? Yes, expanding NATO into Russia's traditional sphere of influence has provoked Russia. But the people in Russia's sphere of influence don't want to be there.

You are naive if you think that eastern Europeans are really afraid of Russia.

NATO is a disunified collection of nations. NATO is no threat to Russia.

That's not true. According to leaks NATO IS a threat,

Literally the only thing we agree on is mutual defense in case of an attack.

Not the only thing, you agree to have US nukes near Russian border and more importantly you agree on having missile defense against Russia. Nobody who saw maps believes they are against Iranian nukes. Even Obama did not believe that. NATO was lying.

Until now. If Trump wins the election, NATO will crumble, and Putin will be free to reassert Russian control over whatever he feels to be his sphere of influence. You are sure of the Baltic States, are you? How did you feel about Crimea and East Ukraine?

Crimea had referendum and Trump is right about one thing, these people did not want to be in Ukraine and left fair and square.
East Ukraine is a last thing Putin wants. Even if Ukraine asks Putin to take it he would think twice before doing so.

 

[laughing dog]

You are naive if you think that eastern Europeans are really afraid of Russia.

Then why do they wish to join NATO?

 

[barbos]

You are naive if you think that eastern Europeans are really afraid of Russia.

Then why do they wish to join NATO?

Reading comprehension problems again?

 

[ksen]

I appreciate the sentiment you are trying to express but Hillary is the bigger warmonger among the two candidates. Donald Trump has a lot of negatives but warmongering hasn't been one of them.

I just don't understand this stance even a little bit. It's completely illogical based on what I see.

Re: Iraq - Clinton was crystal clear in all of her statements that her vote was to give weight to negotiations and _NOT_ a blank check for war. She was QUITE CLEAR on this to those of us listening at the time.

Meanwhile Trump is egging Putin on.

I just don't understand what evidence you are claiming for this statement at all.

Iraq
Libya
Syria
Iran
Guatemala

At least five examples of areas where Hillary Clinton enabled war/violent coup, or in the case of Iran threatened war.

Trump, as far as I know has only beat the drums of war for one place, where ISIS is located.

eta: Has there been an American conflict since Hillary has been in the national spotlight where she has not supported the war option?

 

[laughing dog]

Then why do they wish to join NATO?

Reading comprehension problems again?

Admitting your problem is the first step to recovery. If Eastern Europeans were not afraid of Russia, why
1) did some (Poland, Romania and the Baltics) join NATO,
2) did some want a stronger NATO response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and
3) do others wish to join NATO?

Please try to present a disinterested and fact-based response instead of your usual Russian propaganda and half-baked conspiracy theories.

 

[laughing dog]

Iraq
Libya
Syria
Iran
Guatemala

At least five examples of areas where Hillary Clinton enabled war/violent coup, or in the case of Iran threatened war.

Trump, as far as I know has only beat the drums of war for one place, where ISIS is located.

eta: Has there been an American conflict since Hillary has been in the national spotlight where she has not supported the war option?

To be fair, Trump was way too focused on scamming people "establishing his brand" during those times to be involved with making pronouncements about foreign policy, so we really have no idea what, if anything, he was thinking about those situations in real time.

 

[ksen]

Iraq
Libya
Syria
Iran
Guatemala

At least five examples of areas where Hillary Clinton enabled war/violent coup, or in the case of Iran threatened war.

Trump, as far as I know has only beat the drums of war for one place, where ISIS is located.

eta: Has there been an American conflict since Hillary has been in the national spotlight where she has not supported the war option?

To be fair, Trump was way too focused on scamming people "establishing his brand" during those times to be involved with making pronouncements about foreign policy, so we really have no idea what, if anything, he was thinking about those situations in real time.

Yep, that's fair to say.

 

[Elixir]

Then the Trump supporters are the biggest group of offenders. Should not these attacks be directed at them?

That would be like someone dropping a brick on their own foot, and blaming the brick. Trump supporters are collectively a non-sentient lump of clay. It's not like they have a mind to change.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-high-price-of-the-politics-of-petulance.html

Great article, IMHO. The Bernie or Bust crowd could give us Trump as a President.
SLD

Why?

Because they won't vote for HRC?

People who are voting for Trump also are not voting for HRC and are ACTUALLY VOTING FOR TRUMP.

Wouldn't a Trump preisidency be the fault of people who voted FOR Trump?

As someone else said, because your vote matters. Or, taken in the context of the 2000 election, it's probably more accurate to say that your vote has consequences.

If people truly want a third party, then we would be seeing a significant number of Greens and Libertarians in Congress and the Senate. We'd see at least a few of the same in State Governorships.

But we don't see that. At best they show up once every four years like a spiteful toddler and try to turn a Presidential election. And all they do is convince a certain number of people to throw away their vote. Then they disappear from the scene until about four years later.

And in this election, where disaster looms, and just 16 years ago we all saw what can happen, it is not only a wasted vote, it's an irresponsible vote.

We couldn't reasonably foresee what would happen with the Bush/Cheney administration--at least not the full extent of it. But with Trump, bad things are easily foreseeable. I'd list them but it would be redundant as they've been well-documented here and everywhere else.

 

[Rhea]

I just don't understand this stance even a little bit. It's completely illogical based on what I see.

Re: Iraq - Clinton was crystal clear in all of her statements that her vote was to give weight to negotiations and _NOT_ a blank check for war. She was QUITE CLEAR on this to those of us listening at the time.

Meanwhile Trump is egging Putin on.

I just don't understand what evidence you are claiming for this statement at all.

Iraq
Libya
Syria
Iran
Guatemala

At least five examples of areas where Hillary Clinton enabled war/violent coup, or in the case of Iran threatened war.

Trump, as far as I know has only beat the drums of war for one place, where ISIS is located.

eta: Has there been an American conflict since Hillary has been in the national spotlight where she has not supported the war option?

Why did you ignore what I posted about her Iraq vote?
She did not want that war. She wanted Bush to negotiate. She said so. In writing. On camera.
If you believe, despite the evidence, that she was "for" that war, what else that's not true are you believing despite evidence to the contrary? Should I bother to look up the other things for you when you got the first one so obviously wrong?


I don't understand this desire to pin on her things she did not say or do while ignoring what Trump does say and do.

I mean, I can see that you believe it, but I'm surprised and I can't figure out why you're happy using bad conclusions.

 

[ksen]

Iraq
Libya
Syria
Iran
Guatemala

At least five examples of areas where Hillary Clinton enabled war/violent coup, or in the case of Iran threatened war.

Trump, as far as I know has only beat the drums of war for one place, where ISIS is located.

eta: Has there been an American conflict since Hillary has been in the national spotlight where she has not supported the war option?

Why did you ignore what I posted about her Iraq vote?
She did not want that war. She wanted Bush to negotiate. She said so. In writing. On camera.
If you believe, despite the evidence, that she was "for" that war, what else that's not true are you believing despite evidence to the contrary? Should I bother to look up the other things for you when you got the first one so obviously wrong?

I didn't really ignore it. I read it and considered it and decided it really made no difference. She voted to enable CheneyBush to go to war. Her letters and statements trying to justify or mitigate that vote doesn't change that fact. If she really was surprised that a neo-con administration used the war option she helped give them then her judgment should be called into question. When, to a neo-con, everything looks like a nail and you give them a hammer should you really be surprised that they used the hammer despite any clarifying letters you also sent them about not wanting to use the hammer?

I don't understand this desire to pin on her things she did not say or do while ignoring what Trump does say and do.

I mean, I can see that you believe it, but I'm surprised and I can't figure out why you're happy using bad conclusions.

I did not say she wanted war. I said she has enabled it and supported it whenever it's been brought up as an option. That's not a bad conclusion, it's a statement of fact.

Also, this isn't me supporting Donald Trump. It's me questioning who is more warmongery. Apart from fighting ISIS, Trump talks continually about keeping us out of unnecessary wars, which, as LD has pointed out, may or may not be what he does once in office. But that's been his rhetoric so far. And in Clinton we have someone who has cast votes to go to war (regardless of letters she wrote at the time), who talked Obama into deposing Ghadaffi, who made decisions about Syria that has made the situation worse, who supported a coup in Guatemala against a friendly, leftist government and who threatened Iran with war.

To me that potentially makes her more dangerous . . . at least to brown people that live outside of the United States.

 

[Elixir]

It's me questioning who is more warmongery.

Shouldn't that be "who is warmongerier"?
As you note, Trump wants to bomb and obliterate ISIS, and keep us out of unnecessary wars. That's his rhetoric anyhow. His rhetoric is also "I have a relationship with Putin" and "I have no relationship with Putin", and thousands of other flat-out self contradictions. He's fucking insane. I'll take the known warmonger over someone who will likely "get us out of unnecessary wars" by turning entire regions into glowing glass the next time he has a bad day.
More important - Hillary is under considerable pressure to nominate Supreme Court justices that will tend toward getting money out of politics and stop eroding civil liberties. She could turn out to be a Bush in disguise, but I think she's canny enough to know that it is in her interest to at least keep up the appearance of honoring campaign platform promises.