hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 2503 of 2660 FirstFirst ... 150320032403245324932500250125022503250425052506251325532603 ... LastLast
Results 50,041 to 50,060 of 53194

Thread: USA Politics Thread

  1. #50041
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    2,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    US official: Trump pressed aides about Venezuela invasion

    In how many years of independence US was in peace?
    I think we had a pretty good run from 1787 to 1812.

  2. #50042
    Lana Torrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    Bonding around
    Posts
    18,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    US official: Trump pressed aides about Venezuela invasion

    In how many years of independence US was in peace?
    While this is probably completely lost on Trump it did show his aides at the time were right. It did indeed backfire like they said it would. A smart man would see this as an indication that his aides had a good grasp of what was going on. A stupid man would continue to brow beat those aides in to his way of thinking until they either agreed with him or left their position and were replaced by someone that would.
    Quote Originally Posted by lubica
    And her name was Limul Azgoden, a lowly peasant girl.

  3. #50043
    Lana Torrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    Bonding around
    Posts
    18,780
    https://www.sbs.com.au/news/j-k-rowl...writing-skills

    I'd leave some smart comment but honestly I cant for this.
    Quote Originally Posted by lubica
    And her name was Limul Azgoden, a lowly peasant girl.

  4. #50044
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,649
    Quote Originally Posted by Lana Torrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    US official: Trump pressed aides about Venezuela invasion

    In how many years of independence US was in peace?
    While this is probably completely lost on Trump it did show his aides at the time were right. It did indeed backfire like they said it would. A smart man would see this as an indication that his aides had a good grasp of what was going on. A stupid man would continue to brow beat those aides in to his way of thinking until they either agreed with him or left their position and were replaced by someone that would.
    What is probably completely lost on many is that this revelation means that Trump has been pressing for a war or invasion basically from the moment he became president!

    He was talked out of invading Venezuela, but then moved onto North Korean. Several other countries have been name dropped as well. Iran, just to name one. How many more will we hear of in, say, 6 months time?

    This is pretty desperate stuff ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  5. #50045
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,649
    Quote Originally Posted by Lana Torrin View Post
    https://www.sbs.com.au/news/j-k-rowl...writing-skills

    I'd leave some smart comment but honestly I cant for this.
    lel ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  6. #50046

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    11,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lana Torrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    US official: Trump pressed aides about Venezuela invasion

    In how many years of independence US was in peace?
    While this is probably completely lost on Trump it did show his aides at the time were right. It did indeed backfire like they said it would. A smart man would see this as an indication that his aides had a good grasp of what was going on. A stupid man would continue to brow beat those aides in to his way of thinking until they either agreed with him or left their position and were replaced by someone that would.
    What is probably completely lost on many is that this revelation means that Trump has been pressing for a war or invasion basically from the moment he became president!

    He was talked out of invading Venezuela, but then moved onto North Korean. Several other countries have been name dropped as well. Iran, just to name one. How many more will we hear of in, say, 6 months time?

    This is pretty desperate stuff ...
    I mean... this is very much not surprising in any way sadly.

  7. #50047
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,649
    Quote Originally Posted by Isyel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lana Torrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    US official: Trump pressed aides about Venezuela invasion

    In how many years of independence US was in peace?
    While this is probably completely lost on Trump it did show his aides at the time were right. It did indeed backfire like they said it would. A smart man would see this as an indication that his aides had a good grasp of what was going on. A stupid man would continue to brow beat those aides in to his way of thinking until they either agreed with him or left their position and were replaced by someone that would.
    What is probably completely lost on many is that this revelation means that Trump has been pressing for a war or invasion basically from the moment he became president!

    He was talked out of invading Venezuela, but then moved onto North Korean. Several other countries have been name dropped as well. Iran, just to name one. How many more will we hear of in, say, 6 months time?

    This is pretty desperate stuff ...
    I mean... this is very much not surprising in any way sadly.
    It's fucking dangerous though. What if, next time, his aides can't talk him out of it? What if he just ignores then, and moves around it? Will it really have to come down to the military refusing to follow orders then? Jebus!

    And now he wants to talk to Putin alone, off the record.
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  8. #50048
    Dirk Magnum's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Posts
    2,808
    And with Bolton now as national security advisor we’ll almost certainly hear of more half baked invasion fantasies. Remember this is the guy who pushed for an invasion of Cuba back in the early 2000’s based on intel reports of a chemical weapon program that no actual intel agency ever seemed to know anything about.

  9. #50049
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lana Torrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    US official: Trump pressed aides about Venezuela invasion

    In how many years of independence US was in peace?
    While this is probably completely lost on Trump it did show his aides at the time were right. It did indeed backfire like they said it would. A smart man would see this as an indication that his aides had a good grasp of what was going on. A stupid man would continue to brow beat those aides in to his way of thinking until they either agreed with him or left their position and were replaced by someone that would.
    What is probably completely lost on many is that this revelation means that Trump has been pressing for a war or invasion basically from the moment he became president!

    He was talked out of invading Venezuela, but then moved onto North Korean. Several other countries have been name dropped as well. Iran, just to name one. How many more will we hear of in, say, 6 months time?

    This is pretty desperate stuff ...
    Not to defend Trump, but this isn't what I've heard reported here.

    Trump asked about/raised the idea, he did not "push" or "demand" or "press" for an Invasion. The reporting I've heard here has been consistent, he asked, his staff (specifically HR McMaster) said "lolnope", the leaders he spoke with said "lolnope", he publicly said some hit air ("Military options not off the table") and that was that.

    Trump very clearly asks about military options in his discussions with staff/advisers, that much is quite clear. He asks (reportedly) alot of things, he is clearly a thinking-out-loud-no-filter guy. I don't know if it's fair to characterize that as pressing for and wanting an invasion/military action.

    I find it rather dangerous that these inner-working, discussion sessions are being leaked so frequently tbqh. Read history and you'll see this is something every President does with their advisers, discuss possible options/actions, including military action options, if any.

    The difference is, past administrations that stuff didn't leak five minutes after the conversation and they only become public long, long afterwards.

    Let me be clear, Venezuela is a humanitarian disaster and the World SHOULD do something. No, military action by the U.S. is not what I would want done. Hell no.

    And while I am very much a non-interventionist in my own preference for U.S. foreign policy when it comes to use of the military, I find it hard to fault a President for asking/inquiring about the feasibility of action should it become warranted.

    In before the usual suspects reduce this post to "lol, see, he's a Trump Nazi supporter!"
    Last edited by Alistair; July 5 2018 at 02:22:08 PM.


  10. #50050
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,319
    Also, lol at the forthcoming British protest of Trump. Pink Floydian.



  11. #50051
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    4,663
    Not to defend Trump, but

  12. #50052
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    10,830
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    No, military action by the U.S. is not what I would want done. Hell no.

    And while I am very much a non-interventionist in my own preference for U.S. foreign policy when it comes to use of the military, I find it hard to fault a President for asking/inquiring about the feasibility of action should it become warranted.
    Unfortunately, you can file this under "when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

    Until we the people decide to stop spending such a ridiculous amount of money on weapons, it will continue to be the solution of first choice.
    meh

  13. #50053
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,319
    Posting this CNN Op-Ed literally just to piss off the usual suspects:

    Trump's winning streak is transforming America

    By Tim Stanley

    Updated 8:42 AM ET, Thu July 5, 2018

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/05/opini...ley/index.html

    Timothy Stanley is a historian and columnist for Britain's Daily Telegraph. He is the author of "Citizen Hollywood: How the Collaboration Between LA and DC Revolutionized American Politics." The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.

    (CNN) - We can now say we're entering the age of Trump. It's been a long march to this moment. Around this time last year, the summer of Scaramucci, Donald Trump's staffing was an unholy mess, his poll numbers hit new lows and the GOP health care initiative died in Congress. Perhaps Trump could not govern, some speculated. But a year later, and just a few months before the midterm elections, Trump is most definitely in charge -- and he is changing the character of America step by step.

    Trump is advancing post-liberal politics in three key areas. First, a foreign policy that is marked by realism totally undisguised by platitudes or historical sentiments. NATO friends, for instance, have been warned they must contribute more towards the organization's budget. In the Middle East, the United States has thrown its weight behind the unexpected alliance of Israel and Saudi Arabia. And Trump has pulled out of deals that he says weren't working (Iran) or that he doesn't philosophically agree with (Paris climate accord). His withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council is emblematic of his approach. We all know the UN is a joke on human rights (its membership includes dictatorships such as Cuba and China); critics accuse its members of turning the council into a platform to attack Israel. Trump is simply the first President to do the decent thing and walk away.

    Second, Trump is pushing forward with what former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon once described as the "deconstruction of the administrative state." This is partly about a deregulation agenda -- everything from banking to the environment to repealing the Obamacare individual mandate. But it's also about reversing the tide of what conservatives deride as Obama's "you didn't build that" mentality, with its implication that a big state is an inevitable, benign feature of modern capitalism. Trump, by contrast, is pushing corporate tax down from 35% to 21%, and the majority of tax filers will see a saving this year. The irony is that Trump has proved you can create jobs in the United States with conservative free market remedies, and yet he still insists on imposing foreign goods tariffs that threaten the supply chains and markets of the very workers he wants to help. The age of Trump might be hypercapitalist, but it's also nationalist and traditionalist. Trump seeks to return to being a country that leads in exports, not imports.

    He also wants to turn the clock back more generally, which brings us to his third assault on the liberal consensus: social policy. The Trump era will be marked by potentially violent conflict over cultural issues that lawmakers have failed for decades to resolve through compromise.

    Immigration is a stark example. The administration's decision to separate families of migrants -- many who are refugees seeking asylum -- illegally crossing the border has triggered a profound moral backlash that has led to protests, mass arrests and the occupation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities. Trump's supporters see fighting illegal immigration as a matter of enforcing the law; growing numbers of those on the left regard it as an incremental step toward fascism. Conservatives say to liberals, "You never complained when Barack Obama did this sort of thing," but liberals can point out that Trump has applied policy in such an aggressive way that it tips this whole debate into a war over foundational values. And if you think that's bad, just wait until Donald Trump announces his Supreme Court nominee.

    The President is going to nominate a conservative who will presumably tilt the court against Roe v. Wade. The New York Times alleges that the Trump administration waged a "quiet campaign" to encourage Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire; it is widely reported that conservative groups, such as the Federalist Society, have been "instrumental" in deciding the list of replacements. And we know that Trump has remained loyal to those religious voters who backed him in spite of his dubious moral past.

    Here then is perhaps the most dramatic way in which Trump could change America not just for the few years that he is President but for an entire generation, moving the energies of the judicial branch -- not only through the Supreme Court but countless federal appointments -- toward a more conservative interpretation of the law. My suspicion is that a future Trump-shaped Supreme Court will be more concerned with protecting religious freedom of expression than rolling back the legislation and judgments of the past 30 years. But the left, reasonably, will conclude it cannot take that risk, which may turn the nomination process into an almighty battle fought not just in the Senate but in the streets.

    Every President's first midterm contest is about the President; it's a referendum on how they're doing, a chance for the opposition to mobilize and throw congressional roadblocks in front of the executive's agenda. Few midterms, however, will be quite as angry or polarized as the upcoming one, and not because 2018 represents a vote in the context of Trump's failure. Because it's a vote at a moment of his success.

    Trump continues his streak of surprises. First, he won the election, then he proved far better at manipulating the media, setting the issue agenda and exerting executive authority than might have been expected. He has slowly colonized the Republican Party, achieving a growing uniformity of opinion. The fact that all of this "winning" is not reflecting in his opinion polls -- which still put his job approval below 50% -- only demonstrates that for Trump to triumph in his own particular way, he has to alienate a lot of people on the other side of the argument, to divide the country in two and trust that there are enough of his people in the right number of congressional districts, or electoral votes-rich states, to keep him in authority.

    Trump is not the President for all Americans, but he is finally redefining the country along lines approved of by those Americans who lent him their votes in 2016.


  14. #50054

    Join Date
    July 14, 2013
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Posting this CNN Op-Ed literally just to piss off the usual suspects:
      Spoiler:

    Trump's winning streak is transforming America

    By Tim Stanley

    Updated 8:42 AM ET, Thu July 5, 2018

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/05/opini...ley/index.html

    Timothy Stanley is a historian and columnist for Britain's Daily Telegraph. He is the author of "Citizen Hollywood: How the Collaboration Between LA and DC Revolutionized American Politics." The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.

    (CNN) - We can now say we're entering the age of Trump. It's been a long march to this moment. Around this time last year, the summer of Scaramucci, Donald Trump's staffing was an unholy mess, his poll numbers hit new lows and the GOP health care initiative died in Congress. Perhaps Trump could not govern, some speculated. But a year later, and just a few months before the midterm elections, Trump is most definitely in charge -- and he is changing the character of America step by step.

    Trump is advancing post-liberal politics in three key areas. First, a foreign policy that is marked by realism totally undisguised by platitudes or historical sentiments. NATO friends, for instance, have been warned they must contribute more towards the organization's budget. In the Middle East, the United States has thrown its weight behind the unexpected alliance of Israel and Saudi Arabia. And Trump has pulled out of deals that he says weren't working (Iran) or that he doesn't philosophically agree with (Paris climate accord). His withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council is emblematic of his approach. We all know the UN is a joke on human rights (its membership includes dictatorships such as Cuba and China); critics accuse its members of turning the council into a platform to attack Israel. Trump is simply the first President to do the decent thing and walk away.

    Second, Trump is pushing forward with what former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon once described as the "deconstruction of the administrative state." This is partly about a deregulation agenda -- everything from banking to the environment to repealing the Obamacare individual mandate. But it's also about reversing the tide of what conservatives deride as Obama's "you didn't build that" mentality, with its implication that a big state is an inevitable, benign feature of modern capitalism. Trump, by contrast, is pushing corporate tax down from 35% to 21%, and the majority of tax filers will see a saving this year. The irony is that Trump has proved you can create jobs in the United States with conservative free market remedies, and yet he still insists on imposing foreign goods tariffs that threaten the supply chains and markets of the very workers he wants to help. The age of Trump might be hypercapitalist, but it's also nationalist and traditionalist. Trump seeks to return to being a country that leads in exports, not imports.

    He also wants to turn the clock back more generally, which brings us to his third assault on the liberal consensus: social policy. The Trump era will be marked by potentially violent conflict over cultural issues that lawmakers have failed for decades to resolve through compromise.

    Immigration is a stark example. The administration's decision to separate families of migrants -- many who are refugees seeking asylum -- illegally crossing the border has triggered a profound moral backlash that has led to protests, mass arrests and the occupation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities. Trump's supporters see fighting illegal immigration as a matter of enforcing the law; growing numbers of those on the left regard it as an incremental step toward fascism. Conservatives say to liberals, "You never complained when Barack Obama did this sort of thing," but liberals can point out that Trump has applied policy in such an aggressive way that it tips this whole debate into a war over foundational values. And if you think that's bad, just wait until Donald Trump announces his Supreme Court nominee.

    The President is going to nominate a conservative who will presumably tilt the court against Roe v. Wade. The New York Times alleges that the Trump administration waged a "quiet campaign" to encourage Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire; it is widely reported that conservative groups, such as the Federalist Society, have been "instrumental" in deciding the list of replacements. And we know that Trump has remained loyal to those religious voters who backed him in spite of his dubious moral past.

    Here then is perhaps the most dramatic way in which Trump could change America not just for the few years that he is President but for an entire generation, moving the energies of the judicial branch -- not only through the Supreme Court but countless federal appointments -- toward a more conservative interpretation of the law. My suspicion is that a future Trump-shaped Supreme Court will be more concerned with protecting religious freedom of expression than rolling back the legislation and judgments of the past 30 years. But the left, reasonably, will conclude it cannot take that risk, which may turn the nomination process into an almighty battle fought not just in the Senate but in the streets.

    Every President's first midterm contest is about the President; it's a referendum on how they're doing, a chance for the opposition to mobilize and throw congressional roadblocks in front of the executive's agenda. Few midterms, however, will be quite as angry or polarized as the upcoming one, and not because 2018 represents a vote in the context of Trump's failure. Because it's a vote at a moment of his success.

    Trump continues his streak of surprises. First, he won the election, then he proved far better at manipulating the media, setting the issue agenda and exerting executive authority than might have been expected. He has slowly colonized the Republican Party, achieving a growing uniformity of opinion. The fact that all of this "winning" is not reflecting in his opinion polls -- which still put his job approval below 50% -- only demonstrates that for Trump to triumph in his own particular way, he has to alienate a lot of people on the other side of the argument, to divide the country in two and trust that there are enough of his people in the right number of congressional districts, or electoral votes-rich states, to keep him in authority.

    Trump is not the President for all Americans, but he is finally redefining the country along lines approved of by those Americans who lent him their votes in 2016.


    I mean, he doesn't actually say any of what Trump has done is good. And that's kinda the point.

    Sure, he's calling those things 'successes,' because, in a shocking turn of events, presidents are capable of doing things.

    Now, if he tried to claim that any of this shit was actually going to be good for the country in the long term, that'd be different. But he seems to be carefully avoiding that.
    Totally not Victoria Stecker forgetting his password and not having access to his work email.

  15. #50055
    vDJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Location
    �� out there
    Posts
    1,374
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Trump is not the President for all Americans, but he is finally redefining the country along lines approved of by those Americans who lent him their votes in 2016.
    wow now that's a hot take

  16. #50056
    Movember 2011Movember 2012 Nordstern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    9,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Not to defend Trump, but
    Oh boy, here we go...
    Trump asked about/raised the idea, he did not "push" or "demand" or "press" for an Invasion.
    This position relies on a very flexible definition of the quoted words.
    The reporting I've heard here has been consistent, he asked, his staff (specifically HR McMaster) said "lolnope", the leaders he spoke with said "lolnope",
    Ummm...
    Trump nonetheless persisted. He pointed to the successful invasions of Panama and Grenada during the 1980s — countries which, together, have about 13 percent of Venezuela’s population — as examples of successful military interventions in the region. The next day, Trump announced that a “military option” was possible in Venezuela.

    ...

    But Trump’s obsession with invading Venezuela didn’t end there. He also raised the issue with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, according to two high-ranking Colombian officials who spoke to the AP under the condition of anonymity.

    Then, in September, he discussed the issue again with Mr. Santos and three other Latin American leaders at a private dinner after the U.N. General Assembly. “My staff told me not to say this,” Trump said, before going around the table asking Latin American leaders if they were all sure that the U.S. shouldn’t invade. All said they were.
    TIL Alistair believes asking everyone in the room point-blank if they support an invasion doesn't qualify as "pushing" or "pressing".

    Let me be clear, Venezuela is a humanitarian disaster and the World SHOULD do something.
    Sure, all we need is a Hispanic version of Ahmed Chalabi to get things rolling. /s
    "Holy shit, I ask you to stop being autistic and you debate what autistic is." - spasm
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    WTF I hate white people now...

  17. #50057
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordstern View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Not to defend Trump, but
    Oh boy, here we go...
    Trump asked about/raised the idea, he did not "push" or "demand" or "press" for an Invasion.
    This position relies on a very flexible definition of the quoted words.
    The reporting I've heard here has been consistent, he asked, his staff (specifically HR McMaster) said "lolnope", the leaders he spoke with said "lolnope",
    Ummm...
    Trump nonetheless persisted. He pointed to the successful invasions of Panama and Grenada during the 1980s — countries which, together, have about 13 percent of Venezuela’s population — as examples of successful military interventions in the region. The next day, Trump announced that a “military option” was possible in Venezuela.

    ...

    But Trump’s obsession with invading Venezuela didn’t end there. He also raised the issue with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, according to two high-ranking Colombian officials who spoke to the AP under the condition of anonymity.

    Then, in September, he discussed the issue again with Mr. Santos and three other Latin American leaders at a private dinner after the U.N. General Assembly. “My staff told me not to say this,” Trump said, before going around the table asking Latin American leaders if they were all sure that the U.S. shouldn’t invade. All said they were.
    TIL Alistair believes asking everyone in the room point-blank if they support an invasion doesn't qualify as "pushing" or "pressing".

    Let me be clear, Venezuela is a humanitarian disaster and the World SHOULD do something.
    Sure, all we need is a Hispanic version of Ahmed Chalabi to get things rolling. /s
    Mate, I strongly suggest you take some time, and go back, and read some U.S. Presidential history. Every President does and has done what Trump did re: Venezuela.

    Asking re: feasibility =/= advocating/pressing to have happen. Citing similar examples is appropriate to ask such questions.

    I can ask "is the death penalty appropriate here?". That is not me saying "YES, DO DEATH PENALTY NOW!!! NOW!!!111".

    Lets be honest, if Trump wanted to invade Venezuela, he could and would have, advisers be damned. Due to the current fucked up state of warpowers in the U.S. Congress couldn't really stop him, not in any short/mid term.

    I'll be quite honest, I'm surprised we're not in more Wars at the point, given Trump being Trump.

    There is very very little to recommend President Trump, be assured, but this criticism is pure manufactured outrage.

    This is like a Republican getting their panties in a twist that Obama "'pressed' for War in Syria" by asking his advisers if it was warranted/advisable/feasible when his red line was crossed.


  18. #50058

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    3,738

  19. #50059

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    6,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordstern View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Not to defend Trump, but
    Oh boy, here we go...
    Trump asked about/raised the idea, he did not "push" or "demand" or "press" for an Invasion.
    This position relies on a very flexible definition of the quoted words.
    The reporting I've heard here has been consistent, he asked, his staff (specifically HR McMaster) said "lolnope", the leaders he spoke with said "lolnope",
    Ummm...
    Trump nonetheless persisted. He pointed to the successful invasions of Panama and Grenada during the 1980s — countries which, together, have about 13 percent of Venezuela’s population — as examples of successful military interventions in the region. The next day, Trump announced that a “military option” was possible in Venezuela.

    ...

    But Trump’s obsession with invading Venezuela didn’t end there. He also raised the issue with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, according to two high-ranking Colombian officials who spoke to the AP under the condition of anonymity.

    Then, in September, he discussed the issue again with Mr. Santos and three other Latin American leaders at a private dinner after the U.N. General Assembly. “My staff told me not to say this,” Trump said, before going around the table asking Latin American leaders if they were all sure that the U.S. shouldn’t invade. All said they were.
    TIL Alistair believes asking everyone in the room point-blank if they support an invasion doesn't qualify as "pushing" or "pressing".

    Let me be clear, Venezuela is a humanitarian disaster and the World SHOULD do something.
    Sure, all we need is a Hispanic version of Ahmed Chalabi to get things rolling. /s
    Mate, I strongly suggest you take some time, and go back, and read some U.S. Presidential history. Every President does and has done what Trump did re: Venezuela.

    Asking re: feasibility =/= advocating/pressing to have happen. Citing similar examples is appropriate to ask such questions.

    I can ask "is the death penalty appropriate here?". That is not me saying "YES, DO DEATH PENALTY NOW!!! NOW!!!111".

    Lets be honest, if Trump wanted to invade Venezuela, he could and would have, advisers be damned. Due to the current fucked up state of warpowers in the U.S. Congress couldn't really stop him, not in any short/mid term.

    I'll be quite honest, I'm surprised we're not in more Wars at the point, given Trump being Trump.

    There is very very little to recommend President Trump, be assured, but this criticism is pure manufactured outrage.

    This is like a Republican getting their panties in a twist that Obama "'pressed' for War in Syria" by asking his advisers if it was warranted/advisable/feasible when his red line was crossed.
    This is an absolute peak alistairpost.

  20. #50060
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    2,203
    Pruitt-Is’gone


Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •