Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The premise of this thread is ludicrous, but the title couldn't be any more accurate.
Trump, and his staff who continue to lie about Russian interference in the election are directly responsible. Trump because he's the one who will give the order, and his staff because they can't trick a buffoon.
The people who voted for Trump are also responsible,but I wouldn't hold so far as to say 'directly.'
Correct. The voters only indirectly. We were given two poor choices by hook and crook by both sides.
Republican s won , lol, this time so they get the spotlight. We d be in a full blown dictator,putin esque bizzarro world if trump republicans actually were pursuing Hillary. The epitome of hipocrasy like this would be very very scary indeed.
The republicans in majority have all the blood on their hands. No .matter how much money Paul Ryan raises, he will carry a stain of a traitor no matter how much cash he uses to try and wipe it off.
To the victor go the spoils.
Democrats will have their turn soon enough. But they can start off heroes in 2018 by moving immediately to remove trump from power however that reveals itself. Shut him the efffff up.
His bellowing baby tantrum tweets are such an embarrassment to even read. I don't have Twitter but that is the only way the media can get the presidents message across to the public is to post his tweet for us.
Those tweets and his personal appearances and answers to questions from the people of the united states are how I get my information about this president and the republican party. Gluttonous and Arrogance are their name in my book.
Why is peace so hard for people to fathom? Why is there so much hate directed at those of us who desire peace and non-aggression?
The problem is that oftentimes those who claim to seek peace are lying about it. If you're going to claim to be in favor of peace then it needs to be across the board. Most of the regimes targeted by neocons were horrible to begin with. Does it justify their removal? No, not at all
Why do those who condemn US interference, turn a blind eye to other powers meddling in? Syria is a quagmire that has drawn in a number of nations from the US to Russia, Turkey, Israel, the UK... all with their own geopolitical goals. I believe that both Assad and the rebels are committing atrocities to further their cause.
The Iraq War was by far one of the most hollow criticisms of recent years. It was always about the act of invasion rather then the humanitarian cause. There was an even more devastating war that took place in the Congo at the same time, to which almost everyone turned a blind eye.
Soon Syria will be firebombed to the ground and ISIS shall re-emerge from the ashes. When this happens all the liberals who aligned with the neo-cons to attack trump from the right should be held responsible.
Um, yeah, but how many liberals aligned with the neo-cons to attack Trump from the right?
I hardly think the dems (except, once again, like, 10 of them) are encouraging Trump to firebomb Syria. Which is what you claimed in your OP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Soon Syria will be firebombed to the ground and ISIS shall re-emerge from the ashes. When this happens all the liberals who aligned with the neo-cons to attack trump from the right should be held responsible.
I never understand what people like you are always going on about when you say "statist".
Clearly at some point some radical right-wing editorial used the word and it means something to you, but for the life of me, I can never figure out how it is supposed to connect to reality.
A "state" is simply a shorthand word for political scientists when discussing governments and their dominion. That is actually quite simplified, but so is your continued misuse of this concept.
Do you mean "strong central government" by "statist"? Whatever your preferences are with regards to the operation of sovereign authority, you yourself are advocating a particular type of state. You are a "statist".
I sincerely hope that I have simply been reading this incorrectly, and you are in fact advocating against statisticians or macroeconomics.
I also committed multiple acts of aggression today. Because I am a real person who lives in the real world, and that often means dealing with ugly circumstances. On the other hand, my conscience is clear; I'm certainly not lying to myself about aggression, political science, or the college-dropout understanding of government.
Statist: Anyone who believes in the legitimacy of and supports a State. A State is an involuntary centralized entity that claims ownership over a certain geographic area and all that goes on inside it including the people.
By definition a State is involuntary. You may have people who agree with the concept of the State living under its rule (99% of the population) at the same time you have people who don't agree with the concept of the State while living under its rule (1% of the population or some lower number including myself). The statist and non-statist are still subjected to the same fines, penal confinements, and death sentences as the ruling State sees fit regardless if they support it or not. If the State says I was committing X crime they will give me Y punishment and enforce it or kill me in the process regardless if I recognize it or not. Statists condone and support this. Non-Statists do not.
So no, an individual who simply exists isn't a State because that person does not believe in the legitimacy of one person involuntarily ruling over another. Also, if there is only one individual on earth (bare with me because this is key) a State would be impossible because there would be no other people to rule over. You need at least two people for a State to rise. A lone individual is just that...an individual. This is why a non-Statist is an anarchist. Anarchy = "without rulers".
This is why us non-Statists pound the concept of natural rights. Folks in here, both statist-Right and statist-Left, constantly talk about rights being derived from The Constitution. This is nonsense as individuals predate The Constitution or any other socially constructed document/set of "laws".
In any event, factions pinning blame on other factions that are both under the statist umbrella is pretty futile. Had Hillary won there would still be innocent people killed after committing no aggression against others. Same with Romney, McCain, Kerry, Gore and so on and so forth.
That's because the foundation of this paradigm is violence therefore violence naturally takes place. You can't keep putting the conditions in place (such as voting) that create and not only condone but support this system and then expect different results.
It's like going into a lab and turning the temperature down to 32 degrees and introducing moisture into the atmosphere and then being surprised when snow forms.
Well...that's what happened the previous million times you did that. You know the ingredients. You know the conditions that support this result. Being shocked or dismayed gets no sympathy from me.
Movie buff? If so I'll try one of my go-to analogies that I like to use when talking about this stuff. Remember the 1983 movie War Games with Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy? The computer, Joshua, keeps running nuclear war simulations between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. After each simulation the computer declares "no winner" (because billions are killed and the earth is scorched) yet continues to run the simulation because it was programmed to accept the lone outcome of "winner and loser".
In order to "teach" the computer that there are some games where there is no "winner or loser" Broderick's character instructs Joshua to keep playing tic-tac-toe over and over again knowing full well that there is no way to win that game (it's always a "cat's eye" draw if you recall from childhood).
Eventually Joshua "learns" that it is futile. The lesson, as he so eloquently puts it, is that the only winning move is not to play.
The statist is still playing the game expecting a different result. To the statists there are acceptable casualties or acceptable levels of violence, theft, terror in the pursuit of trying to win this non-winnable game.
The non-statist has learned the lesson and knows that the only winning move is to not play at all.
So welcome aboard if you're tired of playing. We are a peaceful bunch.
I thought Trump wasn’t supposed to be a “war-hawk”?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
