Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

US Politics Thread: Year 2 of 1000 of the TrumpenReich


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Toxn said:

It does, unfortunately.

 

Quick question for the US crowd: would any major foreign policy events of the last 30 years have been different if the other guy had been president? Off the top of my head I can think of maybe Gore not invading Iraq (he'd still have invaded Afghanistan though).


Off the top of my head, I think the timing of certain policies might have changed, but I don't think that the overall bullet points list would have changed much, and certainly not the overall direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Here's the thing, most conservatives I know are ardent anti-racists and have been their whole life. Judging others as individuals is a core part of their morality since they were young, imparted to th

Finally,  a Trump proposal I can support.

I am saying that.  If the Democrats want to remain competitive, they need to dig out decades worth of Chicago machine apparatchiks and Clinton lackeys and send them to the salt mines.  If the Republic

55 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Gore would have invaded Iraq.

I love watching liberals catch up to conservatives. The right has known that Republicans are all Scooby-Doo-style Democrats in a fucking mask for years. It's such common knowledge that there are multiple terms for it, which have changed with the generations. RINOs, cuckservatives, etc.

See I think the US left would argue that it's the other way around (ala neoliberals) :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

There's no Republican FDR.

Edit: I thought about it a bit more and I think I get your point.

 

Wilson was also a Democrat (just checked it) and one of those presidencies that could be said to have completely changed the course of your nation's history.

 

The last 30 years though? I feel like there's no massive differences between which team is in charge in terms of US foreign policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Edit: I thought about it a bit more and I think I get your point.

 

Wilson was also a Democrat (just checked it) and one of those presidencies that could be said to have completely changed the course of your nation's history.

 

The last 30 years though? I feel like there's no massive differences between which team is in charge in terms of US foreign policy.

 

Yes, and the reason for that is the bureaucracy has been exerting its power through the executive. Who set up the modern US bureaucracy?

FDR.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Yes, and the reason for that is the bureaucracy has been exerting its power through the executive. Who set up the modern US bureaucracy?

FDR.

 

The hardest part about going through such a stressful time is not loosing ones soul to become the unthinking machine to get through the stress; it’s finding your soul again after you’re done. 

 

I dont think the US gov has managed to do that, after the Great Depression, WWII, Korea, and all the threats of nuclear war afterwards, it’s become a huge, gluttonous machine, where any semblance of a soul is quickly squashed between its gears. Trump manages to keep his soul (however black it is) despite the huge pressures of the machine; actually quite remarkable, if I’m to be fair. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

I really would like to know what evidence you are basing this on.  

 

You think the Beltway parasites couldn't manipulate Gore as well as Bush? Don't forget the Iraq War had bipartisan support. Biden, Clinton (Gore's First Lady), Kerry, Edwards, Feinstein, Schumer, Lieberman (Gore's running mate), and Reid all voted for the war. Surely you don't believe Gore falls somewhere close to them.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gore's foreign policy platform in 2000:
 

Quote

KEEP OUR DEFENSE STRONG AND PROTECT AMERICANS ABROAD

Al Gore believes the United States must remain actively engaged in the world through a strategy of Forward Engagement - addressing problems early in their development before they become crises, addressing them as close to the source of the problem as possible, and having the forces and resources to deal with those threats as soon after their emergence as possible. To support and sustain that strategy, America will have to maintain the best trained, best equipped, most agile military force in the world. As President, Gore will devote part of the surplus to make reasonable increases in military spending - targeted to improve benefits and quality of life for servicemen and women, improve force readiness and provide the most modern equipment. Gore will also ensure adequate funding for an effective and secure foreign policy presence abroad, and address emerging security.

  • Al Gore believes we must ensure that our men and women in uniform are rewarded as they pursue a rewarding military career. This means continuing to increase military pay and quality of life benefits for soldiers and their families - to ensure that our all volunteer force can continue to recruit the most capable young men and women in America.
  • Al Gore also understands the need to focus on military readiness for the wide array of missions our forces will carry out. As President, he will increase funding to restructure forces to meet new needs, as well as for troop training and exercising and the maintenance and repair of military equipment and installations.
  • Al Gore will ensure a defense budget adequate both to provide our forces with the next generation of defense equipment, without missing a beat, and to invest significantly in the revolutionary defense technologies emerging over the horizon. And he will ensure the Pentagon is managed in a businesslike, efficient way, through appropriate management reform and innovation, which will release further funds for the needs of people, readiness and modernization.
  • America needs to ensure that its overseas foreign policy engagement is adequately funded and secure from hostile attack. Al Gore will commit funds to improve embassy protection and security, meet our international obligations, and carry out new initiatives to confront emerging global security threats such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, global environmental degradation, refugee flows, terrorism, international drug trafficking and crime and the spread of infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS.

 

Bush's foreign policy platform in 2000:
 

Quote

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

 

I think it's pretty obvious that the Deep State wanted to invade Iraq, and - if anything - Gore would have facilitated that better than Bush.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

You think the Beltway parasites couldn't manipulate Gore as well as Bush? Don't forget the Iraq War had bipartisan support. Biden, Clinton (Gore's First Lady), Kerry, Edwards, Feinstein, Schumer, Lieberman (Gore's running mate), and Reid all voted for the war. Surely you don't believe Gore falls somewhere close to them.

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure most of the Democrats, as well as Gore, would have preferred to continue with Clinton's policy of containment regarding Saddam.  It was Cheney and his neo-con ilk that were the driving force behind the Iraq invasion.  The democrats that you list were not enthusiastic about the idea, but were too weak-willed to actually vote against it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

I'm pretty sure most of the Democrats, as well as Gore, would have preferred to continue with Clinton's policy of containment regarding Saddam.  It was Cheney and his neo-con ilk that were the driving force behind the Iraq invasion.  The democrats that you list were not enthusiastic about the idea, but were too weak-willed to actually vote against it.  

 

After 9/11? Are you kidding?

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

I hope that America's descent into being a corrupt, oppressive and stagnant oligarchy run by the heads of cynical business conglomerates will help Russians and Americans to better understand each other's countries.

Living in Russia is not that bad if USA descends to that kind of level, still x10 better than the rotten shit show what was the Soviet Union.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pascal said:

Living in Russia is not that bad if USA descends to that kind of level, still x10 better than the rotten shit show what was the Soviet Union.

   Strange that a lot of Russians think otherwise about RF and USSR, heh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean I don't doubt that you were paying attention to politics at the time, Walt, but you seem to have more internalized the rhetoric of time period than what actually happened. Keep in mind, escalation between Iraq and the US had continued throughout Clinton's presidency, including cruise missile strikes in 1993 and 1996, and troop deployments to the border. WMDs, the excuse supposedly made up by Republican warhawks, was actually a pre-existing issue that Clinton even mentions in his 1998 State of the Union address:
 

Quote

Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire gulf war. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

I mean I don't doubt that you were paying attention to politics at the time, Walt, but you seem to have more internalized the rhetoric of time period than what actually happened. Keep in mind, escalation between Iraq and the US had continued throughout Clinton's presidency, including cruise missile strikes in 1993 and 1996, and troop deployments to the border. WMDs, the excuse supposedly made up by Republican warhawks, was actually a pre-existing issue that Clinton even mentions in his 1998 State of the Union address:
 

 

 

Sure, Democrats had serious concerns about Iraq.  That said, there was very tepid democratic support for an invasion and occupation of the country.  Particularly without support from the UN or most of our European allies.  The Iraq war of 2003 actually represented a pretty big shift in US policy, and happened in some regards in spite of the "deep state", not because of it.  The differences in goals and means represented in Papa Bush's 1991 Gulf War are pretty stark compared to Bush Junior's War.  Remember, Cheney had to bully and browbeat the intel community to give him the "evidence" he needed to support the war, going so far as to set up his own "Office of Special Plans" to bypass the intel community. 

 

Check out the votes for the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

 

House - 82 (39.2%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.

 

Senate - 29 (58%) of 50 Democratic senators voted for the resolution. 

 

Pretty obvious from the votes that the Democrats were not excited about a war in Iraq.  This despite all the pressure from the White House and post 9-11 sentiment.  The Iraq war of 2003 was totally a creation of the Bush Jr administration, particularly Cheney and his Neocon brethren. Certainly there were Democrats who supported the effort, but the notion that a Democratic Presidency would have urged a full blown invasion of Iraq is simply not believable.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Belesarius
      https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28613/everything-we-know-about-irans-claim-that-it-shot-down-a-u-s-rq-4-global-hawk-drone
       
      Might as well start a thred for this shit.  Looks like there is gonna be enough stuff to keep a solo thred going.
       
    • By Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect
      After seeing the rampant crack down on speech in the UK, I decided that more should be done than just Thoughts and Prayers. 
       
      I know that it's a scary time for our UK members. Knowing that what you say on the internet can put you on the wrong side of a Bobby's nightstick, well, I find that despicable. 
       
      So I've created this place for all your impure or degenerate thoughts. Here's how it works. 
       
      Perhaps you want to say something "offensive". Instead of saying it yourself, you can message any US member of this forum and have them act as your avatar of avarice. 
       
      For example, say you had a particularly heinous fish and chips at the local pub. You may want to say, "Oi, that cheeky fucker Barnaby William can't do a proper chip if he had a fryer for hands!"
       
      This on it's own could send you straight to jail for defamation. Moreso, if instead of chips that sent you reeling it happened to be a kebab from Omar down the street. 
       
      Now your crime has gone from offensive to racially insensitive!
       
      Anytime such an urge comes along, call on your ex colonial friends. We will translate and post your complaint for all the world to revel in, free of charge!
       
      I personally think Omar should learn to pull the fucking kebab off heat before it's crisper than his wife's crotch and blacker than his beard. That tosser!
       
      See? Don't you feel better? And now, no one will be knocking on your door, serving you with a summons for being a racist git. 
       
    • By T___A
      Might as well make a new thread now that the election is over.
    • By Tied
      Yes
       
      i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)   a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples     what do you think of this news?

×
×
  • Create New...