so I guess we're at war with Syria now.

[Derived Absurdity]

That's nice.

Led by Trump. That's even nicer.

Cheered on by Democrats. That's nicest of all.

Well, it was nice knowing you all, I guess.

[Derived Absurdity]

All the libs and Dems are cheering Trump on and all the alt-righters and Trumplings are opposing him, saying they've dropped their support!

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH EVERYONE??

A comment I read: "How fucking terrible is it that the one single Clinton policy Trump decided to adopt was the only one where he actually held the better original position."

This is rivaling election night for how fucking overwhelmingly disgusted and depressed I am. Fuck Trump, fuck Democrats, fuck liberals, fuck America, fuck everyone and everything.

[Anakin McFly]

Wait what? Why are dems supporting this?

EDIT: ok, saw some of that.
What do you think should have been the appropriate response? Not this, definitely, but other countries doing nothing doesn't seem right either.

[Derived Absurdity]

Doing nothing seems perfectly reasonable until we actually get conclusive proof that the Assad government was responsible, and not, say, a rebel group hoping to use the attack to get us to blame it on Assad and help them in removing him.

Also if we actually wanted to proactively do something maybe we could start by taking in some of their MOTHERFUCKING REFUGEES.

[Raxivace]

Also if we actually wanted to proactively do something maybe we could start by taking in some of their MOTHERFUCKING REFUGEES.

That's the part that really gets me. We shamefully turned down the refugees and then, on a fucking whim, Trump just launches missiles upon their country.

Even if Assad is responsible for that brutal usage of gas, you don't just rush into something like this, and you certainly don't rush in with a missile assault.

[vnufeld]

Cheered on by Democrats. That's nicest of all.

Er... What? There are some who have supported it, but there's also some who have very strongly condemned it.

[Boomer]

Cheered on by Democrats. That's nicest of all.

Er... What? There are some who have supported it, but there's also some who have very strongly condemned it.

Flipped on MSNBC and CNN for a bit last night and commentators were gushing with approval over Trump's strike. Last night was probably his best night of press since, well, ever.

[CashRules]

Well this is bigly.

[Derived Absurdity]

So just to catch up: a plurality of Republicans support single-payer health care while the Democratic nominee said it would never, ever happen, and MSNBC, NYT, and CNN are gushing at psychotic dictator-wannabe Trump's illegal strikes while actual Trumplings are jumping ship like never before. Even Richard fucking Spencer dropped support, ffs.

I'm pretty sure this is the real horseshoe theory.

[maz89]

This is how it's always been. Tearing apart the Middle Eastern countries one by one under the guise of "goodness". It's not even alarming that no one seems to realize that these missile strikes will result in the loss of innocent lives, that will only fuel the hatred for the interfering powers and increase the already irreparable divide between the West and and the East. Vicious cycle, but I guess I'd be naive to expect the most powerful country on earth to try to end it.

[Eva Yojimbo]

Fuck Trump, fuck Democrats, fuck liberals, fuck America, fuck everyone and everything.

Sums up my feelings on the matter.

[Cassius Clay]

Given that the Democratic base is women and minorities, the way socialists talk about dems really rubs me the wrong way. Who are "all the Dems"? There is a responsible way to criticize the Democrats. This reckless tribalist fuckshit has to stop. Leftists played a significant role by helping the GOP create a dangerous false equivalence narrative this election and y'all are still at it.

[Derived Absurdity]

Democrats = Democratic pundits, politicians, commentators, and reporters. Obviously.

[Cassius Clay]

"Obviously" my fucking ass. Be specific if you mean the Dem establishment. And even when you criticize the establishment, there's a responsible way to do so...and this is key: KEEPING IN MIND THAT THE BASE CONSISTS OF VULNERABLE MINORITIES.

Even Dem pundits, reporters and politicians do not unanimously support Trump's actions. Christ.

It's like when atheists criticize Islam. There's a responsible way to do so. You don't get to say "well, obviously, I'm just referring to the ideas"...when you know there's a strong Islamophobic climate.

[Cassius Clay]

And the republican base has never fundamentally had an issue with socialism. The issue is that they just want socialism for themselves...and all their politicians need to do is force them to choose between racism and socialism and they'll choose racism every fucking time. "The Left" refuses to confront this crucial truth in a principled and responsible way. Their solution to this historical, uniquely American tension between racist capitalism and socialism is to act as apologists for racists(and awkwardly downplay racism) as they "reach out" and to pretend some dead German philosopher has all the answers. It doesn't matter that Republicans claim to support single-payer.

It's also should not be surprising that "Trumplings" are jumping ship when their non-interventionist philosophy is "let the barbarians kill themselves".

[Boomer]

Democrats = Democratic pundits, politicians, commentators, and reporters. Obviously.

Also anyone who voted for Hillary, since the only difference between what Trump has done and what Hillary would have done is Hillary would have started this shit about two and a half months ago.

[Cassius Clay]

That's very dumb. But it does demonstrate my point that it's clearly not "obvious" that "Democrats = just politicians and shit"..since, according to you, it means anyone who voted for Hillary...even if they're socialists or republicans.

Clinton was clear and consistent about her interventionist politics and reasons. She wanted to setup no-fly zones, and she certainly wouldn't have given Assad the impression that he wasn't a priority one minute, and then willy nilly fire a bunch of missiles at him the next minute.

It's clear that she would have a different longterm vision and tactic. If Assad really is using chemical weapons on his own people, Trump foolishly announcing that he wasn't a priority might have given Assad the false sense of security to do this. Hillary wouldn't be foolish enough to make that mistake, and so wouldn't have to attack his airbase so soon.

If you think this is as simple as saying "they would both have attacked the airbase"...without appreciation of differing values, vision and experience...God help you. No, God help us all 'cause we're all fucked.

Edit: And you can criticize a politician or party - you can tell the truth about them - without promoting a false impression or narrative. Criticize the Dem party all you want, they need and deserve criticism...but that must be done in a way that doesn't feed into false narratives and dangerous false equivalences. If you need to give the impression that Dems and GOP are "basically the same" to make your point or critique...you're a fucking dishonest person. Clinton deserves criticism for her dangerous, reckless, saviorist interventionist politics...but when you're comparing her to Trump, you better take in a full picture and tell the whole story. 'Cause if your impression or takeaway is that she was just as dangerous as Trump(or worse), you're a dirty fucking liar and you know it. Because you can lie(by giving a false impression) while telling the truth. If you can't point out a truth without obfuscating the bigger picture, then your position is weak and you should probably rethink it.

One of the things that really bugs me about that is that it's fucking manipulative. I suspect that "progressive" anti-Clintonites, because they fear people too often settle for "not as bad", decided to tell half-stories to make "not as bad" look like "just as bad"...to motivate people and selfishly give power to their own movement(and it can also create a lot of apathy from feeling helpless). Which means reality is not enough for your movement.

[Boomer]

I guess I worded my sentence poorly; in the context of "fuck Democrats who support war with Syria" I would include all the Dems who voted for Clinton, since a vote for Hillary means at the very least a tacit support for war in Syria, as you yourself said her position on interventionism was quite clear.

[Cassius Clay]

I think it's a bit...no...a lot disingenuous to pretend that anyone who voted for Clinton, including strongly anti-war far-leftists, tacitly approve of war with Syria.

It must be that nice to have choosing the POTUS - a decision that involves multiple issues, dimensions and conflicting high-stakes interests - be so cartoonishly simple for you.

[Derived Absurdity]

I mean, I voted for Hillary and I certainly don't tacitly support a war in Syria. That's not how voting works. It was a vote to stop Trump and the GOP. It was the best tactical decision I could think of, given my limited time and resources (and willpower, but I'm not proud of that).

[Derived Absurdity]

wtf

god we are so fucked

[Anakin McFly]

Well, I'll be headed to the US this Wednesday and can continue witnessing this unfold firsthand with the rest of you. It was nice knowing you all.

[Anakin McFly]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-m ... ar-n746366

[maz89]

And now Assad claims the chemical weapons weren't even theirs. Thank you, US of A.

[Boomer]

I think it's a bit...no...a lot disingenuous to pretend that anyone who voted for Clinton, including strongly anti-war far-leftists, tacitly approve of war with Syria.

Again, I'm speaking in the context of Democrats and the seeming incredulity from some in this thread that Dems would support war in Syria. Lets not forget the Dems had every opportunity to nominate an anti-war socialist (at least, I take Bernie at his word that he was anti-war), but instead handed their presidential nomination to a candidate who was the biggest war-hawk on either side of the ballot.

Further, if you're "strongly anti-war" I'm not sure how you could identify as a Democrat or a Republican based on both parties' history. Any Dem that voted for Hillary saying they're "strongly anti-war" gets the same eye-roll from me that I'm sure you would give any Republican who voted for Trump that claimed they were "strongly anti-racism" or "strongly anti-misogyny".

It must be that nice to have choosing the POTUS - a decision that involves multiple issues, dimensions and conflicting high-stakes interests - be so cartoonishly simple for you.

Not really that nice, considering my most important issue is one that neither of the two major parties that I have to choose a candidate from, nor the vast majority of their bases, seems to give a fuck about. At least the Republicans are honest about their stance; Democrats are somehow still labeled the anti-war party but either never do shit about it or escalate things just as much as the Republicans would.

I mean, I voted for Hillary and I certainly don't tacitly support a war in Syria. That's not how voting works. It was a vote to stop Trump and the GOP. It was the best tactical decision I could think of, given my limited time and resources (and willpower, but I'm not proud of that).

See my first point above, my comments were aimed at Democrats voting for Clinton based on the idea that the vast majority of them would support war in Syria.

[Derived Absurdity]

This thread, man.

First of all, I wasn't incredulous that "Dems" (and we'll get to that in a minute) supported a war with Syria, I've known for years now that Dems aren't any more anti-war than Republicans. (And I'm talking about establishment Dems.) I knew that if Hillary had ordered strikes on Syria they would line up behind her 100%. I was just shocked that they did so here even though it was Trump of all people who ordered them - the guy who they had been labeling as a psychotic power-hungry dictator-wannabe for over a year. There's a large difference between someone like Hillary, who is relatively sane and informed, and someone like Trump, who is ignorant and psychotic, ordering strikes, which I thought was obvious. I thought that the reasoning would go something like, "Well, even if strikes on Syria are theoretically a good idea, it wouldn't be a good idea to have them headed by someone like TRUMP. Furthermore, it sets a very bad precedent for us to line up behind Trump whenever he starts dropping bombs on a country. So we're going to hold back on our praise here." But no, they went all out. It was pathetic.

Secondly, Bernie Sanders was not anti-war. Not even slightly. I'm not aware of any time he ever said that he was, but if he did, he lied. I already laid this out in detail on this board back when he started running.

Thirdly, the only justification you need as an anti-war leftist to vote for Hillary is an appreciation of the fact that on everything Hillary was bad on, Trump would have been worse. There has been no war or military intervention that Hillary supported that Trump did not support, and of the two of them only one kept saying that he would "blow the shit out of" people and that he would do "the greatest military build-up in history" and that "we need to kill their families" when talking about terrorists. Furthermore, he's completely psychotic and deranged, and so it's not out of the realm of possibility that he would launch a bomb on North Korea just because he could. For anyone anti-war the choice should have been clear, and it was to keep Trump far away from the White House.

That's what voting is, actually. It's not an endorsement of everything the candidate you voted for does. Or even necessarily some. Or even necessarily any. It's a tactical utilitarian decision to do you part to either a) make the world a better place or b) prevent it from actively becoming a worse place. Voting for Hillary was a utilitarian decision on my part to prevent Trump from being unleashed on the world. Yeah, that meant Hillary would have been, too, but those were the only choices we had, so there it was. Voting is really rather simple, I don't understand how people could misunderstand what its purpose is.

And fourthly, I THOUGHT it was completely obvious, but it apparently wasn't, that when I meant "Dems" I was talking about the Dem establishment, not the voters. I thought it was, because a) I have literally never insulted Dem voters once, so why the hell would I suddenly, out of nowhere, start now? and b) we DIDN'T EVEN KNOW what Dem voters even thought of the strike at the time, because there were NO POLLS OUT. It literally just happened. So why would I just automatically assume that Dem voters, most of whom hate Trump with a searing passion, would just approve of some stupid thing Trump did? That makes zero sense. And a poll just came out that said most Dem voters disapprove of the strike (what a shock!) while the overwhelming majority of Dem politicians approved of it! THAT. WAS. LITERALLY. WHAT. I. WAS. TALKING. ABOUT. JFC.

[Gendo]

Voting for Hillary was a utilitarian decision on my part to prevent Trump from being unleashed on the world.

I might be mixing you up with someone; but wasn't it you who pointed out that if Trump won, Hillary voters would be to blame in that they supported a candidate so terrible that even Trump could beat her?

[Derived Absurdity]

Yeah, but I don't see how that's contradictory.

I also sort of take it back. I don't think it qualifies as insulting Hillary's voters, but it was way too close. It was myopic, if nothing else.

[Anakin McFly]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/a ... 46175.html

[phe_de]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/a ... 46175.html

I'm starting to believe that a wall around the US-American borders might be a good idea. To prevent US-Americans from getting out.
Maybe Mexico and Canada could both pay for it...

[Boomer]

This thread, man.

First of all, I wasn't incredulous that "Dems" (and we'll get to that in a minute) supported a war with Syria, I've known for years now that Dems aren't any more anti-war than Republicans. (And I'm talking about establishment Dems.) I knew that if Hillary had ordered strikes on Syria they would line up behind her 100%. I was just shocked that they did so here even though it was Trump of all people who ordered them - the guy who they had been labeling as a psychotic power-hungry dictator-wannabe for over a year. There's a large difference between someone like Hillary, who is relatively sane and informed, and someone like Trump, who is ignorant and psychotic, ordering strikes, which I thought was obvious. I thought that the reasoning would go something like, "Well, even if strikes on Syria are theoretically a good idea, it wouldn't be a good idea to have them headed by someone like TRUMP. Furthermore, it sets a very bad precedent for us to line up behind Trump whenever he starts dropping bombs on a country. So we're going to hold back on our praise here." But no, they went all out. It was pathetic.

Secondly, Bernie Sanders was not anti-war. Not even slightly. I'm not aware of any time he ever said that he was, but if he did, he lied. I already laid this out in detail on this board back when he started running.

Thirdly, the only justification you need as an anti-war leftist to vote for Hillary is an appreciation of the fact that on everything Hillary was bad on, Trump would have been worse. There has been no war or military intervention that Hillary supported that Trump did not support, and of the two of them only one kept saying that he would "blow the shit out of" people and that he would do "the greatest military build-up in history" and that "we need to kill their families" when talking about terrorists. Furthermore, he's completely psychotic and deranged, and so it's not out of the realm of possibility that he would launch a bomb on North Korea just because he could. For anyone anti-war the choice should have been clear, and it was to keep Trump far away from the White House.

That's what voting is, actually. It's not an endorsement of everything the candidate you voted for does. Or even necessarily some. Or even necessarily any. It's a tactical utilitarian decision to do you part to either a) make the world a better place or b) prevent it from actively becoming a worse place. Voting for Hillary was a utilitarian decision on my part to prevent Trump from being unleashed on the world. Yeah, that meant Hillary would have been, too, but those were the only choices we had, so there it was. Voting is really rather simple, I don't understand how people could misunderstand what its purpose is.

And fourthly, I THOUGHT it was completely obvious, but it apparently wasn't, that when I meant "Dems" I was talking about the Dem establishment, not the voters. I thought it was, because a) I have literally never insulted Dem voters once, so why the hell would I suddenly, out of nowhere, start now? and b) we DIDN'T EVEN KNOW what Dem voters even thought of the strike at the time, because there were NO POLLS OUT. It literally just happened. So why would I just automatically assume that Dem voters, most of whom hate Trump with a searing passion, would just approve of some stupid thing Trump did? That makes zero sense. And a poll just came out that said most Dem voters disapprove of the strike (what a shock!) while the overwhelming majority of Dem politicians approved of it! THAT. WAS. LITERALLY. WHAT. I. WAS. TALKING. ABOUT. JFC.

DA, my comments in this thread weren't really aimed at you; I agree with 99% of what you've said in this topic.

1. I certainly wasn't calling you incredulous, you were the first to call out the Democratic establishment.

2. Fair enough, I honestly never really looked into Bernie much because i wasn't really interested in him at all as a candidate, but now after snooping around based on what you've said it certainly seems he's supported military interventionism in the past. I still feel like he'd be a dove compared to Clinton and any of the Republican front runners, but that's damning with false praise.

3. Again, I've said I'm not saying anyone who voted for Clinton supported war with Syria, my comments were aimed at Democrats who did so.

4. Yes, it was obvious to me. That's why I made a separate post stating I would include anyone (again, of Democrats) who voted for Clinton, because I felt you weren't including the Democratic base. As far as polling that says they don't, meh. Tribalism inherent in our two-party system generally means one party will disapprove of anyone on the opposite side based on principle alone. If polling was accurate we'd be months into Hillary's regime, one which she would have won in a landslide of historic proportions. And still be at war with Syria.