• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Harriet Hageman defeats Liz Cheney in Wyoming primary

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Ex-president Trump escalated Obama's drone wars and made them more secretive:

"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..."

"Trump has peeled back all of those requirements because, well, he can. We now know more than we did about U.S. drone wars when Obama first took office, but less than when he left."

Under Donald Trump, drone strikes far exceed Obama's numbers

He used a modern bomb for the first time:

"Fourteen years after it was deemed ready to use, the U.S. unleashed the moab for the first time in combat on Thursday, at 7:32 p.m., against an isis affiliate in Afghanistan’s eastern Nangarhar Province, along the border with Pakistan."

Trump Drops the Mother of All Bombs on Afghanistan

He also expanded US nuclear weapons:

"In his single term in the White House, Donald Trump expanded America’s nuclear arsenal and undermined decades of arms-control efforts."

Donald Trump Is A Nuclear President—His Legacy Is More Nukes, Fewer Controls

Suggesting the former President "never started any wars" as if he was a peaceful President is misleading propaganda.
Drone strikes? What about conventional bombing? Obama initiated bombing in Syria. He killed thousands and contributed to the displacement of millions of refugees. Trump de-escalated Obama’s mess. Obama gave us the Arab Spring violence. Trump gave us the Abraham Accords and Peace accords throughout the Middle East.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Drone strikes? What about conventional bombing? Obama initiated bombing in Syria. He killed thousands and contributed to the displacement of millions of refugees. Trump de-escalated Obama’s mess. Obama gave us the Arab Spring violence. Trump gave us the Abraham Accords and Peace accords throughout the Middle East.
No, Obama was President during the Arab Spring violence. He did not give us that.

One of the few good accomplishments of Trump was his work in the the Abraham Accords, so you at least got one thing right. That is a rarity:

Israel, Bahrain And UAE Sign Deals Formalizing Ties At White House
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
And what is the takeaway from that supposed to be? Is supporting a war overseas and contributing to 500,000 deaths less of a problem because it happened outside the U.S.? I thought liberalism was supposed to prioritize human life over political and national identity.
If you were an adult in 2001 and was an American watching the Twin Towers fall, you were likely pretty geared up for payback. I'm a liberal and I sure as hell wanted payback. The vast majority of Americans wanted payback. It was only over many years that the invasions of Afghanistan and then later Iraq was less and less supported. Iraq was always a dubious target. But Bush/Cheney were in the White House and they claimed there was evidence Saddam was involved. Most in Congress accepted the case, which was later found to be fabricated. Did Cheney know? We can't say, but the whole story suggests there was more political motivations than justified war. I doubt we the people will ever get the whole story. We need to be careful who we nominate and who we elect. Liberals get stuck with the Bush/Cheneys and the Trumps, and we have to do the best we can. Do liberals trust republicans these days? No.

Would Liz bring us closer to war like her dad? I doubt it. Will Hageman cause problems in the House that Liz wouldn't? Likely.


I wish her as much failure in that endeavor as she has had in the midterms. I suspect that will end up being the case, too, because she's not aligned enough with mainstream Republican preferences and not appealing to liberal voters compared to Democratic candidates. She has no hold on either major voting base.
Right. But at this point I can't predict how the citizens of the USA will vote. I was happy when Trump won the nomination in 2016 because I celebrated an easy Clinton win. Watching Trump's slow rise in the polls was like being on the Titanic, and no lifeboats left.

By all standards of reason Liz should have won in her state, but she didn't because there is a strong republican base that is irrational and unpredictable. I will risk saying that the nominations for 2024 are going to be very contentious for both major parties. Get your popcorn ready for the theater.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Disagree completely, or more! Now is the time when the nation desperately needs her clear-headed honesty on what is happening to the Republican Party as it careens towards populist totalitarianism.
I said years ago that the few ethical republicans need to take over their party and let Trump start the MAGA party. Of course that would divide their base, so I understand why they didn't. But look at them now. They took a chance that Trump's influence would disappear after he lost, and the guy is like herpes. Liz and Kinzinger are both saying they are working to help ethical republicans run for office. Will it be enough? Conservatives really like the Trump vibe of grievance and authoritarianism. What can ethical republicans offer people who don't value ethics?
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Liz Cheney was
No, Obama was President during the Arab Spring violence. He did not give us that.

One of the few good accomplishments of Trump was his work in the the Abraham Accords, so you at least got one thing right. That is a rarity:

Israel, Bahrain And UAE Sign Deals Formalizing Ties At White House
In case you forgot, President Obama traveled to the Middle East during the period and made speeches, such as in Cairo, that directly fomented unrest.

Then there is the whole Iran nuclear deal which even Obama admits provided a path that would allow Iran to get nuclear weapons.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I said years ago that the few ethical republicans need to take over their party and let Trump start the MAGA party. Of course that would divide their base, so I understand why they didn't. But look at them now. They took a chance that Trump's influence would disappear after he lost, and the guy is like herpes. Liz and Kinzinger are both saying they are working to help ethical republicans run for office. Will it be enough? Conservatives really like the Trump vibe of grievance and authoritarianism. What can ethical republicans offer people who don't value ethics?
Given your repeated demonstrated hatred of Republicans I think they would find any advice you have for them to be highly suspect. :cool:

I think Republicans can figure what is ethical without your advice. Maybe you could go help Biden and the Democrats with their ethics. Lord knows they need the help.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
If you were an adult in 2001 and was an American watching the Twin Towers fall, you were likely pretty geared up for payback. I'm a liberal and I sure as hell wanted payback. The vast majority of Americans wanted payback. It was only over many years that the invasions of Afghanistan and then later Iraq was less and less supported. Iraq was always a dubious target. But Bush/Cheney were in the White House and they claimed there was evidence Saddam was involved. Most in Congress accepted the case, which was later found to be fabricated. Did Cheney know? We can't say, but the whole story suggests there was more political motivations than justified war. I doubt we the people will ever get the whole story. We need to be careful who we nominate and who we elect. Liberals get stuck with the Bush/Cheneys and the Trumps, and we have to do the best we can. Do liberals trust republicans these days? No.

Would Liz bring us closer to war like her dad? I doubt it. Will Hageman cause problems in the House that Liz wouldn't? Likely.

If you had been an Arab adult back when the U.S. invaded Iraq and news starting surfacing of civilian killings, war crimes, and torture, you would have probably wanted payback too. I know I still view the U.S. as a global bully and hypocritical pseudo-peacemaker because of its involvement in various wars of aggression.

That's the thing with unjustified, disproportionate use of violence: it's a cycle that never ends. Many believe the death penalty should be abolished because it is based on retribution rather than rehabilitation. Killing 500,000 people as "payback" for the Twin Tower attacks was disproportionate, cruel, and downright criminal. It didn't even curb terrorism; the Taliban are now in charge of Afghanistan, and ISIS sprung up long after the American invasion of Iraq.

Right. But at this point I can't predict how the citizens of the USA will vote. I was happy when Trump won the nomination in 2016 because I celebrated an easy Clinton win. Watching Trump's slow rise in the polls was like being on the Titanic, and no lifeboats left.

By all standards of reason Liz should have won in her state, but she didn't because there is a strong republican base that is irrational and unpredictable. I will risk saying that the nominations for 2024 are going to be very contentious for both major parties. Get your popcorn ready for the theater.

Out of all decisions of Republican voters that I've disagreed with, voting against Liz Cheney is among the least of my concerns. I would go so far as to commend them for keeping her out of office if not for the fact that I know many of them voted against her out of Trump worship rather than concern about her criminal, blood-stained record.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
She was part of Bush's administration and their dangerous cult-like beliefs on war. I see no substantial difference.



Praise and support for Bush and Cheney concern me just as much, if not more. For all of his faults, Trump didn't start two wars. There is no measure by which Bush and Cheney are any better.
One problem with ditching Cheney is that Hageman
will be serving Trump. This could be especially bad
in 2024. Do you see a risk of enabling Trump's return
to enhanced power?
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The deaths from J6 and the evidence revealed in the ongoing hearings indicate you're wrong.
Since President Trump didn’t instigate any violence on January 6th and no hearings have found any evidence of this I am not wrong, you are.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
If you had been an Arab adult back when the U.S. invaded Iraq and news starting surfacing of civilian killings, war crimes, and torture, you would have probably wanted payback too. I know I still view the U.S. as a global bully and hypocritical pseudo-peacemaker because of its involvement in various wars of aggression.

That's the thing with unjustified, disproportionate use of violence: it's a cycle that never ends. Many believe the death penalty should be abolished because it is based on retribution rather than rehabilitation. Killing 500,000 people as "payback" for the Twin Tower attacks was disproportionate, cruel, and downright criminal. It didn't even curb terrorism; the Taliban are now in charge of Afghanistan, and ISIS sprung up long after the American invasion of Iraq.



Out of all decisions of Republican voters that I've disagreed with, voting against Liz Cheney is among the least of my concerns. I would go so far as to commend them for keeping her out of office if not for the fact that I know many of them voted against her out of Trump worship rather than concern about her criminal, blood-stained record.
If it makes you feel any better DS, as an Australian, we didn’t exactly support the US war efforts. I mean obviously we sent troops, because we are political allies to the US. So we kind of had to (and I think some were afraid that they’d attack us next if we didn’t.) But we lacked much of the “vengeance” motive the US had. I do remember the news angling for the sympathy vote towards the US for the twin towers from the public. But post war, I noticed a lot of bad blood so to speak from vets who were seemingly appalled by a lot of the US conduct. (Though I have no doubt that our soldiers were as equally reprehensible.)
Many a feel good story was published after Suddam supposedly fell though. Rebuilding communities and other rather conveniently timed Good Samaritan actions.
In saying that though I was very young at the time of the Iraq US war, heck I had barely started school. So I kind of wasn’t on anyone’s side because I was too uninformed.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Praise and support for Bush and Cheney concern me just as much, if not more. For all of his faults, Trump didn't start two wars. There is no measure by which Bush and Cheney are any better.
Really? No measure at all? Not even simple honesty (you know, Trump never tells lies, right?)
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Right. But at this point I can't predict how the citizens of the USA will vote. I was happy when Trump won the nomination in 2016 because I celebrated an easy Clinton win. Watching Trump's slow rise in the polls was like being on the Titanic, and no lifeboats left.
I think Americans miss having a "royal personage" at their head. I'm old enough to remember when the JFK/Jackie White House was referred to as "Camelot." Personality cults, as in this bizarre fascination for one man, Donald Trump, by people who he would suck dry in a moment without even a hint of remorse, is truly bizarre. But he's rich, and he's a television personality (whoo-hoo, nothing better!), and he's got a hot wife -- so he'll do for King for now. And that is, truly, what I see going on.

I'm a Canadian. We still have a Queen, so we need look no further, and we can get on with assessing our Prime Ministers and other politicians a little more critically.
 
Top