Posted by dino27 on 2/12/2020 8:32:00 PM (view original):
come to think of it if you didnt like john mccain's politics and you thought he was whining about something is he above criticism.
italyprof i dont know what you are talking about.......jill stein...tulsi gabbard ..i dont care what any of their background is..when you run for president
some people are not hoodwinked and smart people can know the truth or tell the truth when it smacks them in the head.
Yeah, I remember when a million people, myself included, were in NY's Central Park in June 1982 to oppose Reagan's nuclear weapons buildup as a danger to world peace. We started the Nuclear Freeze movement. It called on BOTH superpowers to stop the arms race.
Reagan called us dupes of Moscow, traitors, useful idiots of the Communists, Soviet agents, every slur in the book on our patriotism.
Then, five years later he did what we pressured him and the USSR to do: he met Gorbachev in Iceland and they ended the arms race, and did not just freeze, but dramatically reduced nuclear arsenals.
War with Russia, over the Ukraine, over Georgia, or the Baltic states, would mean that everyone you and I have ever met would die.
People who call for caution, for diplomacy, are not traitors. When did Democrats become Ronald Reagan pre-1987?
I am not voting for Gabbard, but I respect her and she is right about the wars we have been fighting, or rather, that a handful of Americans have been fighting while the rest cheer them on or forget about them when their Veterans' benefits are cut.
As for John McCain, I voted for Obama in 2008, but I always respected him, and consider his nominating Sarah Palin as VP a Greek tragedy: the right wing of the GOP told him they would run a third party candidate or a Christian Fundamentalist candidate against him if he picked Joe Lieberman, a centrist, Jewish Democrat that had run with Al Gore for VP. McCain wanted a unity ticket. Instead he had to bend to their will or would have been wiped out in a landslide. I am sure he later wished he had gone with his gut, lost anyway, but remained John McCain.
He was not above criticism. I criticized him. But I did not call him a whiner when, for example, he nobly fought against our government being associated with the torture of prisoners of war, having been one himself. He was right on that one. When he was wrong, as with some of his more bellicose foreign policy ideas, I said so, but I didn't think that he didn't have a right to say it. He wanted to fight North Korea? I thought it was a terrible idea, but he had earned the right to want to fight Communists, having been tortured every day by them in a prisoner of war camp.
Tulsi Gabbard is a patriot, not a traitior. You disagree with her? Okay. You want us to stay in Syria or Libya, or Afghanistan or Iraq, or to go into the Ukraine, okay. I think that's wrong, but you have a right to say it. But address Tulsi's ideas and say why they are wrong. Trump too by the way.
I think Trump is an awful person. Horrible. I think he is corrupt, that many of his statements are racist and sexist, etc. I think his tax cut was a disaster for working people and small business, and a handout to the CEOs, hedge fund managers, billionaires. I think his proposed cuts in Food Stamps, housing, schools are cruel and wrong. I think his policies and practices on the children of asylum seekers are inhuman, though I am not sure why the media has stopped reporting on these.
But he is right on trade with China, and I think he deserves credit for the stability of employment that we have at the moment, showing that, as I long thought, tariffs work as they did throughout US history until the 1980s and 90s when Reagan and Clinton pushed us into Free Trade.
I think he is right to avoid conflict with Russia, and no, I don't think they have something over him, as the massive, truly massive US wargames going on on Russia's borders in the next few weeks demonstrate - the Russians are actually freaked out about it, and I think it quite reckless frankly on our part.
I think he was right to end the TPP, and while I don't think much of the re-write of the new version of NAFTA, it is slightly better and even the AFL-CIO has said it is better. I am more skeptical, but he gets some credit there.
I won't vote for him. But I think it's his ideas - and Steve Bannon's - and his actual policies that should be criticized and fought against, not some demonized version of Trump that the media has invented.
I think the grounds for impeachment were a gray area - maybe impeachable. But he has done much worse things, and we should not even be close allies with the Ukraine frankly, and should recognize that Russia, having been invaded in 1812, 1914, 1941 and then surrounded by NATO after the Cold War (AFTER it dissolved the Warsaw Pact), has legitimate national security concerns about the nature of the regimes on its borders. Put a Chinese or Russian base in northern Mexico and see how Americans feel about it. So why impeach over that? To shore up Joe Biden, to make him seem THE opponent already of Trump. And later after saying that Trump is a clear and present danger to the country, why keep the articles of impeachment in the House instead of sending them immediately to the Senate? To keep two Senators, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, tied up in the trial in DC, so Biden and Buttigieg, non-Senators, were free to campaign in Iowa up to the final bell before the caucus.
I despise Trump, but that does not prevent me from seeing somewhat clearly, I hope, what he is doing that makes some sense, and what he is doing that is bad.
I vote Democratic but that does not mean I think: Democrat=good.
I don't think I drink the Kool-Aid. Our many miliitary interventions have nearly bankrupted our country, have stirred hatred of us throughout the Middle East, worn out our people, cost us many young lives, and the lives of many civilians in country after country, have endangered the world, and have enabled China to rise as a challenger, a terrible dictatorship but one that by staying out of such adventures, has built up its own country and now threatens to spread its undemocratic model around the world.
Jill Stein, Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard (as a vet her especially !), Noam Chomsky, and yes, even Donald Trump in his own, distorted way, have a right to challenge these foreign policy disasters. So did Barack Obama when he was still a candidate and opposed the Iraq War. Today in LIbya, there is a slave trade of people who wanted to immigrate through Libya to Europe. A slave trade. It did not exist under Ghaddafi, whatever you want to say about him. That happened because of our military attack on that country, and our destruction of their political order. Why is it wrong to say that? And who has a right to call us traitors for thinking that?
And more to the point, when did Democrats and liberals become the pro-war party? When did being for peace and diplomacy become treason, not just to the rabid anti-communist right, but to the liberal center? I beat up for opposing George W. Bush's war in Iraq, for opposing the President. Now those in the other party label opponents of war as unfaithful to the country. Incredible. And worrying.