this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
308 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10168 readers
1 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
All I see is someone who finally wants to shut down the war machine. I have waited since the Bush administration for someone to do that. Obama ran on bringing our troops home, and actually expanded foreign military involvement.
If Trump is the only one who has the balls to put an end to the American World Police, then so be it.
I don't know how or why democrats decided to be pro-war, but they'll have to fight the rest of us to keep it up. That money and those soldiers would be much better utilized locally, and with a much lower chance of dying for someone else's cause.
He was president for four years and he didnt do this at all. What are you talking about?
Sucking up to Putin and Kim Jong Il isn't anti-war. It is just picking the other side of the war machine.
Kim jong il is dead
I don't even care if I got the name wrong. That's how little respect I have. Unlike Trump.
Military spending still increased under trump. The only war machines he shut down were our allies' we were helping in local conflicts. That and showing the US is unreliable if someone like him gets office again
All I see is someone making weak excuses to put a fascist back in the White House.
You have got to be shitting me. He had his chance; he was in office for four years. Get the fuck outta here, man.
There are a lot of good responses to you here. @FatCrab raised mercenary use of U.S. forces - I am not familiar with that story but I believe Trump advisor Erik Prince did in fact offer mercenary support to the Wagner group.
Trump at one point mooted invading Venezuela. Members of the GOP (and reportedly Trump himself) are currently floating the idea of bombing Mexico. And let's not forget, Trump has famously threatened to use the military against American citizens.
So unless you want to leave the impression that you are just a right wing troll on a drive by, which would not be healthy for your long-term prospects here, perhaps you'd care to expound on the nuance of your argument?
Dumb? I thought so too, then I reread their comment and looked at their post history. Not by a long shot, they know exactly what they're doing. From their first comment posted 8 hours ago: "I’m a moderate that a lot of people confuse for a conservative."
It's textbook conservative propaganda: pose as a "moderate" with a "fair and balanced" opinion, paint the Rs as misunderstood, and poison the well with a straw man argument. I mean, really, the idea of trying to "shut down the war machine" has nothing to do at all with people's fears of what another Trump presidency would bring. That's a straw man argument. It's absolute horse shit.
In other words, just more bad faith acting from a minority party that relies on deception to make it look like they have more than 35% support nationwide. Next they'll say "Why are all crimes committed by black people? Just asking questions."
Ah, the Tim Pool strat.
Exactly! Pool is a great example.
So I took a peek based on this comment and you are surely correct.
Yeesh.
Downvote away, but your last sentence is exactly what you're making an accusation of, bad faith and strawman.
Ok, you know what? I agree. You're right, it was really presumptuous and hypocritical to say that. And disproportionately hostile. But if I had left out that last sentence, what would your reaction be? Would you have agreed, or would you have claimed it was not propaganda and that the dude was not acting in bad faith?
Oh, I'm with you, and I know it's frustrating when you want to raise the discourse and seemingly all they want to do is wallow in the mud. I was just pointing out when you join them you can be just as easily dismissed instead of getting your point made.
You made a good point but we're trying to keep the discourse civil here and have to apply the rules fairly across the board. Feel free to re-post without the color commentary and we'll see how this plays out.
The same guy who attacked protestors live on TV for a photoshoot, that's the guy who's ending war? Nah bud he's bringing the war here and going to crush us citizens again.
There are some comments on some threads that really call into question the lack of a downvote button.
When a comment is so wrongheaded, so topsy-turvy logically and morally, it is actively harmful to discourse; not being able to deemphasize it leads to a generally worsened conversation.