At what point would you regret Trump?

[Quetzal]

Your suggestion is also not true.

Prove it!

 

[Mister Emu]

Prove it!

Huh? I didn't write anything about intentionality or directness. I don't care how indirect and/or oblique.

 

[Quetzal]

Huh? I didn't write anything about intentionality or directness. I don't care how indirect and/or oblique.

Your statement:

If he continues Obama's policy of funding and arming ISIS

Prove it.

 

[Acim]

If he continues Obama's policy of funding and arming ISIS and other rebels to topple the government of Syria.

This presumes Obama is competent, which is not true.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Trump made campaign promises. I don't regret voting Trump at all on that basis and I understand a degree of (acceptible) compromise can come about.

If he dosent address and become proactive in tackling those key issues his campaign revolves around, I'll just vote differently next election.

 

[Mister Emu]

Prove it.

Prove what? That I didn't write anything about intentionality? I didn't. That I didn't write anything about directness? I didn't.

I don't care if "moderate" rebels funneled arms and money to ISIS; you cut off the "moderates" in that situation.

 

[Quetzal]

If he continues Obama's policy of funding and arming ISIS

Prove this statement. Prove that Obama's policy is funding and arming ISIS, please.

 

[Mister Emu]

Prove this statement. Prove that Obama's policy is funding and arming ISIS, please.

He arms fantasy "moderates" who arm ISIS and other Islamic terrorist groups.

I don't care how indirect and/or oblique.

Amnesty report: ISIS armed with U.S. weapons - CNNPolitics.com
‘US knows weapons sent to Syrian rebels end up with terrorists’ – German journo to RT
Even Huffpo knows the "moderate" rebels are a sham.
Syria, the Times and the Mystery of the "Moderate Rebels" | The Huffington Post

Syria is a mess, Obama's been sending weapons in, they've been going into ISIS and other terrorist hands. That is the policy of which I speak.

 

[Quetzal]

He arms fantasy "moderates" who arm ISIS and other Islamic terrorist groups.

Amnesty report: ISIS armed with U.S. weapons - CNNPolitics.com
‘US knows weapons sent to Syrian rebels end up with terrorists’ – German journo to RT
Even Huffpo knows the "moderate" rebels are a sham.
Syria, the Times and the Mystery of the "Moderate Rebels" | The Huffington Post

Syria is a mess, Obama's been sending weapons in, they've been going into ISIS and other terrorist hands. That is the policy of which I speak.

Gotcha, thanks!

 

[esmith]

Prove this statement. Prove that Obama's policy is funding and arming ISIS, please.

Even I as a harsh critic of the Obama will have to say that his policies are not directly funding and arming ISIS. Indirectly, maybe so in that he did nott forsee the rise of ISIS and then refused to acknokledge their impact on the world, in addition there is no clear strategy on how to deal with ISIS and radical Islamic terrorisit. The problem also is that now there is no possiblity of an immediate solution. This is a generational problem that will be around for many years. Could he have taken a different path in Iraq than he did that might, just might have had a more impact on the growth of ISIS? The answer is probably, maybe; but we will never know. He should have seem what could and did happen once we pulled out of Iraq, but his temperment precluded that. The Middle East is an anology to the Uncle Remus story of Brer Fox and Brer Rabbit. Yes President Bush was wrong going into Iraq and President Obama was wrong in not attempting to ensure that what we broke we fix. Now we seem to be stuck in the Tar Baby and can't get lose. This will also happen in Afghanstain and is happening is Lbyia. The world has a serious problem and there is no easy answer except for a very very unplatable solution.

 

[Underhill]

Even I as a harsh critic of the Obama will have to say that his policies are not directly funding and arming ISIS. Indirectly, maybe so in that he did nott forsee the rise of ISIS and then refused to acknokledge their impact on the world, in addition there is no clear strategy on how to deal with ISIS and radical Islamic terrorisit. The problem also is that now there is no possiblity of an immediate solution. This is a generational problem that will be around for many years. Could he have taken a different path in Iraq than he did that might, just might have had a more impact on the growth of ISIS? The answer is probably, maybe; but we will never know. He should have seem what could and did happen once we pulled out of Iraq, but his temperment precluded that. The Middle East is an anology to the Uncle Remus story of Brer Fox and Brer Rabbit. Yes President Bush was wrong going into Iraq and President Obama was wrong in not attempting to ensure that what we broke we fix. Now we seem to be stuck in the Tar Baby and can't get lose. This will also happen in Afghanstain and is happening is Lbyia. The world has a serious problem and there is no easy answer except for a very very unplatable solution.

The obvious difference between the two is that Obama, like it or not, was elected largely by people who wanted us out of Iraq (the vast majority of the country). So yeah, he pulled us out which caused additional problems, but at the behest of the public. Bush's actions were largely the result of improperly sourced intelligence (a case of 'let's believe only those sources that agree with what we want' if ever there was one).

Even McCain back then was talking about pulling us out. Either one of them probably would have had to do the same as the notion of indefinitely maintaining enough men there to forestall the inevitable rise of fundamentalist wasn't politically feasible.

 

[esmith]

The obvious difference between the two is that Obama, like it or not, was elected largely by people who wanted us out of Iraq (the vast majority of the country). So yeah, he pulled us out which caused additional problems, but at the behest of the public. Bush's actions were largely the result of improperly sourced intelligence (a case of 'let's believe only those sources that agree with what we want' if ever there was one).

Even McCain back then was talking about pulling us out. Either one of them probably would have had to do the same as the notion of indefinitely maintaining enough men there to forestall the inevitable rise of fundamentalist wasn't politically feasible.

Yes we were seriously contemplating pulling out of Iraq during the Bush presidency, we were losing and losing badly. Things did not turn around until the surge and the counter insurgence policy was
put in place. At that time casualties shifted from the civilian population to the military and caused the US public to seriously condemn the war.

 

[tytlyf]

If he nominates an illiberal leftist to the bench instead of someone that will preserve our constitutional freedoms. We require strict interpretation in defense of the individual and states' rights.
If he continues Obama's policy of funding and arming ISIS and other rebels to topple the government of Syria. Also, fails to implement extreme vetting.
Secure funding for the already existing physical border barrier law on the books and get it done. Enhanced support for ICE and penalties for any body that wants to declare itself a sanctuary for the criminal immigrant element.
Renegotiated terms of trade deals to stop the destruction of workers' ability to negotiate with employers.

The two most base needs of human existence are the ability to provide food and shelter and physical security, and the two biggest disruptions of those needs that are not being addressed or are actively being exacerbated by the government are the bipartisan effort to destroy wages via immigration and free trade and Islamic terrorism respectively.

Ya, but none of that is true. Who taught you that? You lost me at "someone who will preserve our constitutional freedoms."

Sounds like you've been trained to think that liberals (democrats) are anti-constitution.

BTW, the SCOTUS has been conservative majority for decades. It's time to get fair and balanced. Never put the bible before the constitution in the voting booth.

 

[MonkeyFire]

I believe in justice, not regret.

 

[Mister Emu]

Ya, but none of that is true.

None of what?

There isn't legislation already on the books for a physical barrier? There is.

Immigration and free trade don't suppress wages? Really, you'd deny basic economic facts?

Weapons and funding for the fantasy of "moderate" islamist rebels haven't ended up in ISIS and other terrorist hands? Everyone from the administration to leftist screed blogs admits that.

The policy of supporting destabilizing rebellions in the middle east hasn't exacerbated global terrorism? Does anyone disagree with that?

The two most basic needs of humans according to Maslow's hierarchy aren't physiological needs and physical safety?

Edit: I do have some statements up for debate and possibly some exaggerations. But, you said all of it, which is just patently untrue.

Who taught you that?

Reality and experience. You don't need a teacher for readily apparent truths. I was taught Maslow's hierarchy in my Psch 101. I don't remember her name.

You lost me at "someone who will preserve our constitutional freedoms."

The highest Constitutional freedom is representative self determination. Any judge, left or right, who takes it upon themselves to add rights, such as a right to marriage, abortion, or corporate personhood, or take away from them isn't liberal and isn't defending our Constitution or our freedom.

The conservative base does have issues, and I used a conservative example, in this regard. But in our current time, the left is far more egregious and far less liberal in judicial matters.

Sounds like you've been trained to think that liberals (democrats) are anti-constitution.

Current precedent shows that leftists, and those that so ascribe are not liberal at all, are far greater and more often champions of the liberty averse idea of a "living" document. An idea that destroys any meaningful notion of a constitution that protects anything other than the whims of 9(for now) unelected lifetime rulers.

 

[metis]

There is no wrong doing Trump can do to his supporters. They don't care if he lied about everything he promised.

No, you got it wrong. If Trump did to his supporters that which he has done to others, that would do it. IOW, as long as Trump demeans the "other" through his action or words and not "them", that's all fine and dandy-- but that all would change if Trump were to do it to "them".

This was a constant during the campaign, and it's the "as long as it's not my ox that's getting gored" self-centered approach. And what strikes me as being so deplorable is that so many mouth their support of their religion and/or a libertarian-style philosophical/political approach, and yet they are so willing to support and vote for someone who is so willing to demean the "other" and who has proposed things like using carpet-bombing and even nuclear weapons-- and this is just the short list of some atrocious things he's proposed.

Well, the election is over, and the hope I have is that there are those in Trump's administration that will be able to keep him from doing damage to our own people, our own country, and other countries-- but I'm not optimistic that Trump is gonna listen to them as he has a record of ignoring advice and generally prefers "shooting from the hip".

We're going to be in for a very "interesting" four years.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, you got it wrong. If Trump did to his supporters that which he has done to others, that would do it. IOW, as long as Trump demeans the "other" through his action or words and not "them", that's all fine and dandy-- but that all would change if Trump were to do it to "them".

This was a constant during the campaign, and it's the "as long as it's not my ox that's getting gored" self-centered approach. And what strikes me as being so deplorable is that so many mouth their support of their religion and/or a libertarian-style philosophical/political approach, and yet they are so willing to support and vote for someone who is so willing to demean the "other" and who has proposed things like using carpet-bombing and even nuclear weapons-- and this is just the short list of some atrocious things he's proposed.

Well, the election is over, and the hope I have is that there are those in Trump's administration that will be able to keep him from doing damage to our own people, our own country, and other countries-- but I'm not optimistic that Trump is gonna listen to them as he has a record of ignoring advice and generally prefers "shooting from the hip".

We're going to be in for a very "interesting" four years.

You entirely miss our desire to see general good being done, & less evil.
I'm no risk of being killed if Hillary were to have started a war.
And I'd weather the consequent economic burden better than the poor.
What this country has done overseas is horribly wrong...over a million people
dead simply because of thoughtless foreign policy. I suppose you could call
it "libertarian selfishness" , but I voted against what she portended.

 

[Lyndon]

That was your Republican buddies that did that, or are you blaming Obama for the Iraq wars??

 

[Revoltingest]

That was your Republican buddies that did that, or are you blaming Obama for the Iraq wars??

I'm not Republican.
And I blame both Pubs & Dems for the wars, including Obama because he continued them.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

That was your Republican buddies that did that, or are you blaming Obama for the Iraq wars??

Bush and his Iraq war, Obama and his Libyan one, and nearly bombing Assad too just as ISIS was on the rise. They're all bad and this bipartisan foreign policy establishment needs to go.