All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[aja_christopher]

Making a stand with an "Against" vote is how we got to where we are now.

We're here because people like you because you didn't take a stand against Republicans in the last presidential election or the 2010 midterms.

People did take a stand in the last midterm elections, which is the only reason why Republicans are now being held accountable for their actions.

You're making excuses instead of taking a stand against Republicans -- fortunately others are far more "reasonable" in that regard than you are.

[numberthirty]

Factually, yes. It's what happened, leaving aside the fact that you're talking about the hunt for terrorist Anwar Al-Awlaki who has inspired and countinues to inspire terrorist attacks world wide. In a more sober world, we could have a serious conversation about this and the death of his son. That is not this world.

Your use of it here, however, in the context of this discussion at this moment amounts to mere concern trolling. Trump has escalated the very drone war, and the corresponding deaths of civilians, you're pretending to care about here, and pardoned a war criminal who's own team turned him in and fired warning shots at civilians to get them to run away so he couldn't murder them.

Spare me your self-righteous sanctimonious concern over 'democrats' when you can barely find a word out of your voluminous posts to point at ongoing slaughter abroad that your willing inaction, and continuing greenwald inspired nonsense, aids and abets.

One other thing here...

Politely, seriously ask yourself how much support non-combatant casualties might have cost the Democratic candidate running after Obama for the next Presidential term.

None of us just get to say "Why Don't You Set Aside How You Feel About That, And Vote 'Democrat' Anyway?"

Being the less violent version of things isn't something that everyone will go out to support.

Never mind that it's not even just that.

You could run the same math on deportations while Obama was in office.

[aja_christopher]

Being the less violent version of things isn't something that everyone will go out to support.

So instead you ignore the "more violent" actions of the Republicans and complain about the party that at least makes the attempt to give people health care.

[Tendrin]

Don't worry, 30. I'm sure that the even bigger groups of people dying in drone warfare now thank you for your Very Sincere Concern about the Democrats use of them. I'm sure their last thoughts as they die fiery deaths at the hands of emboldened war criminals who know they will never be punished under this administration are about holding those darn Democrats accountable.

When it comes to President Obama’s drone wars, President Trump has:
A. Ended them
B. Continued them
C. Escalated them
You’re forgiven for not knowing the answer. It’s C. This administration has not only surpassed the previous one’s drone strike volume overseas, it has made the drone wars even more secretive, if that’s possible.
We can cobble together some reporting on the numbers, but finding exact figures on drone strikes in the Trump administration is difficult. More on that in a minute.
According to a 2018 report in The Daily Beast, Obama launched 186 drone strikes in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan during his first two years in office. In Trump’s first two years, he launched 238.

The Trump administration has carried out 176 strikes in Yemen in just two years, compared with 154 there during all eight years of Obama’s tenure, according to a count by The Associated Press and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/20...bama-s-numbers

This is, of course, /not an endorsement/ of drone warfare, but inaction and silence over Republican transgressions, expecting nothing of them and applying no standard of 'enough is enough' and working to unseat them at every level is the real reason we got here and no amount of 'well you have to be FOR something' sanctimony will change that. I wouldn't even put 'taking a side against' as in the top 50 reasons we're in this mess now, especially not when guys like you spent two years moralizing against Hillary Clinton and pretending you couldn't know what kind of president Trump would be. We knew. We told you. I remember.

Oh and by the way....

On January 29, 2017, Anwar al-Awlaki's 8-year-old daughter, Nawar al-Awlaki, was killed in a DEVGRU attack ordered by President Donald Trump.[16][17][18][19]

[zinderel]

I forgot how there are some posters here who expect perfect, unimpeachable, flawless behavior from Democrats - and demand heads roll for every minor infraction - while shrugging and ‘whatabouting’ and JAQing off at everything Republicans do that is OBJECTIVELY SO MUCH WORSE.

[Tendrin]

I forgot how there are some posters here who expect perfect, unimpeachable, flawless behavior from Democrats - and demand heads roll for every minor infraction - while shrugging and ‘whatabouting’ and JAQing off at everything Republicans do that is OBJECTIVELY SO MUCH WORSE.

I remember some posters on this board who were screaming about Hillary's 'secret bank talks' while simultaneously pretending we 'couldn't know for sure' that Trump would be bad on gay rights and would be 'more dovish' than Hillary.

Some folks really misunderstand the nature of the situation: they see the presidency as the beginning of achieving their goals. That's not it. A movement doesn't start at the presidency.

It /ends/ there.

[numberthirty]

I forgot how there are some posters here who expect perfect, unimpeachable, flawless behavior from Democrats - and demand heads roll for every minor infraction - while shrugging and ‘whatabouting’ and JAQing off at everything Republicans do that is OBJECTIVELY SO MUCH WORSE.

Put simply...

I never expect it.

That said, it is hard to assemble a scenario where that party has a realistic chance at a win when anyone with a blindfold on could still see that a bunch of what they are doing only stands to hurt them with the base they would need to have said chance.

If you want any kind of a shot at being able to counter the latter, you are probably going to wind up having to contend with the former to wind up with that shot.

[SquirrelMan]

See former President Obama's use of the drone program for details on what the actual reality of what we are discussing is.

If you look at how much the use of drones has increased under Trump, and the civilian deaths, it's likely Obama was doing what his military advisers strongly suggested was the bare minimum.

[aja_christopher]

That said, it is hard to assemble a scenario where that party has a realistic chance at a win when anyone with a blindfold on could still see that a bunch of what they are doing only stands to hurt them with the base they would need to have said chance.

Completely untrue given the election and reelections of both Clinton and Obama -- Democrats win with moderates, they just don't win every election.

And it's difficult to take your advocacy of "winning" seriously when you are backing a candidate whose platform can't even win a Democratic nomination.

The dishonesty in your arguments is another reason why it's hard not to see you as a Republican supporter.

[numberthirty]

Completely untrue given the election and reelections of both Clinton and Obama -- Democrats win with moderates, they just don't win every election.

And it's difficult to take your advocacy of "winning" seriously when you are backing a candidate whose platform can't even win a Democratic nomination.

The dishonesty in your arguments is another reason why it's hard not to see you as a Republican supporter.

What's in blue...

That only makes any kind of since if we ignore Perot's involvement in how it came out.

Former President Obama?

There's an obvious difference there.

Trying to point to that pair of races like they are anything like "Usual" makes very little sense.

They are both clear anomalies.

[aja_christopher]

Trying to point to that pair of races like they are anything like "Usual" makes very little sense.

They are both clear anomalies.

Telling that you don't make that argument for the last election, which involved Russian interference (Wikileaks) FBI interference (Comey) and Jill Stein.

The fact remains that both Obama and Clinton won election and re-election -- nothing you say will change that fact.

Meanwhile, for all his good intentions, Sanders -- like most progressive candidates -- has yet to win the Democratic primary much less a national election.

If your argument is that you want Democrats to "win" then it's ridiculous to argue that moderate success is worse than proven failure.

[numberthirty]

Telling that you don't make that argument for the last election, which involved both Russian interference (Wikileaks) and FBI interference (Comey).

The fact remains that both Obama and Clinton won election and re-election -- nothing you say will change that fact.

Meanwhile, for all his good intentions, Sanders -- like most progressive candidates -- has yet to win the Democratic primary much less a national election.

Yes.

They won in particularly unusual scenarios that make them clear oddities. Races that give us no indication of anything when you account for how out of the ordinary they were.

[aja_christopher]

Yes.

They won in particularly unusual scenarios that make them clear oddities. Races that give us no indication of anything when you account for how out of the ordinary they were.

So in your world all four of those elections were "clear oddities" yet Hillary's was not -- "logic" like that simply can't be taken seriously.

Now address why you think a candidate that has yet to win a Democratic primary is a better choice than those who have won elections and re-elections.

Logic dictates that if the goal is to win, then it makes absolutely no sense to promote a strategy that never wins.

[numberthirty]

So in your world all four of those elections were "clear oddities" yet Hillary's was not -- "logic" like that simply can't be taken seriously.

Now address why you think a candidate that has yet to win a Democratic primary is a better choice than those who have won elections and re-elections.

Logic dictates that if the goal is to win, then it makes absolutely no sense to promote a strategy that never wins.

We'll take that you want to throw HRC into the "Anomaly..." pile.

Outside if the races that were seemingly an anomaly, we have Gore and Kerry in more "Normal" Presidential General Elections.

I would say that is about the chance that "Those Who Have Won Elections And Re-Elections..." stand.

[aja_christopher]

We'll take that you want to throw HRC into the "Anomaly..." pile.

Outside if the races that were seemingly an anomaly, we have Gore and Kerry in more "Normal" Presidential General Elections.

I would say that is about the chance that "Those Who Have Won Elections And Re-Elections..." stand.

You say a lot of things but few of them stand up to even basic scrutiny.

The most obvious of which is that a losing strategy should replace one that has won multiple elections.

Your claims of "oddities" are largely unsubstantiated as well -- you just say whatever is most convenient to your argument, regardless of the truth.