“45% of American adults think Trump should be given the Nobel Peace Prize”

Right. A suitable award for the guy who once exchanged belligerent nuclear-implied threats with his future lover and fellow member of the Silly Hair Club For Men, Kim Jong Un.

Well, to be fair, he would actually deserve it more than Obama, who was given the award for his courageous action in not being George Bush.

55 thoughts on ““45% of American adults think Trump should be given the Nobel Peace Prize”

  1. Boy, a whole lot of people like Michael McChesney are working like switch engines to argue, if only by implication, that Trump and the Republicans are not so bad, and that there is some good in them somewhere, like their position on abortion and stuff.

    You do know that is a tacit argument to not work to get Trump out of office, right? That a meaningful consensus of the people about things like abortion can never be reached if Trump and the GOP turn the country into an oligarchy?

    So maybe you could stop doing that, and agree Trump and the Republican Party, as it currently exists, need to go? And we can try to reach decisions about other issues once democracy has been saved?

    If not, then could you tell us what you actually stand for? Because then the things you say are not really self-consistent. They would be more designed to muddy the waters and sow division and divert attention to side issues, don’t you think? Well, at least that how they would seem to me. I wonder if that’s just me?

    1. You know, I went to Catholic schools all of my pre-collegiate education, and in a pure red state, as a white male – so if there’s anyone who should have ‘drank the kool-aid’ so to speak, it should have been me.

      So when you see someone like Amy Barrett, you know the person. Sure, I’m sure she does care for her family greatly, she says and does all the superficial ‘nuclear family’ events, is a ‘good’ Christian and goes to church every week, and has a couple dozen ‘Live, Laugh, Love’ trinkets.

      When you know these people though, you know the insidious hypocrisy in these people. You start to learn, it matters more to have theocratic authoritarianism of who should marry who, bring the hammer of the state upon those legally who don’t want to risk their lives through childbirth, and theocratic nationalism where unless you’re a good white legal Christian, you’re fine. If you’re a DACA kid, then the Golden Rule is out the window, and they’ll gladly hope for you to be in a cage.

      There’s no ‘Godliness’ in these people. They conventionally ignore Bible teachings about the golden rule, or parable about the rich man in heaven and the eye of a needle, or letting Caesar have his kingdom different than God. Those don’t seem to come into policy, but enforcing a theocratic state of authority to ruin lives is the real game.

      Jesus of Nazareth hung out with the dregs of society that modern day conservatives try to destroy through policy even more. He rose up against the tyranny of an authoritarian state and the hypocrisy in the church. The rich, the wealthy who desecrated the temple – just like the rich, and wealthy now who claim to be Christians, yet only pursue their own greed through policy and their own authoritarian power. They make excuses and defend those either in the church or the law that abuse others, and attack the victims.

      I won’t say I’m religious, but I am spiritual. I think if Godliness is actually a thing, and Jesus of Nazareth had it, then Republicans are the exact opposite. The hunger and desire to fight for the poor and oppressed isn’t done from a a seven figure ‘nuclear family’ that shows up in a McChurch for a cult meeting every week, that’s for damn sure.

      1. The interesting thing in this is that any honest reading of the Bible makes clear that the Bible, at best, makes no comment on abortion.

        The closest the Bible comes to answering when life begins is when Adam was said to be living after taking his first breath.

        Otherwise there are two concepts from Scripture that most anti abortion Christians argue in contradictory ways.

        There are a number of specific individuals mentioned in the Bible who it is said that God knew while they were in the womb. The anti abortion Christians use these passages to argue that everybody has a soul as soon as they are conceived and that a fetus is an unborn thinking, feeling human.

        However, most Christians also argue against the concept of Predestination. That is, that there is no free will, but that God has chosen every human’s path. Most Christians argue that these passages only refer to God knowing these handful of specific individuals and that it can’t be generalized to anybody else.

        However, if these passages can’t be used to argue for Predestination, that they are only between God and these handful of individuals, it is similarly impossible to use those passages to argue that God knew every fetus or that every fetus is born with a soul.

        The only major religion in the United States that is not inconsistent are the some Baptists, especially the Southern Baptists. Southern Baptists trace their history to the Calvinists, who support the view that their is some ongoing predestination. However, I think because they are aware of this inconsistency and, for other internal political reasons, Southern Baptists are agnostic on the concept of Predestination.

        It seems pretty clear to me that the Christian preaching against abortion has little to do with preserving ‘life’ and much more to do with preserving patriarchy.

        1. I always get things to think about here. Thanks, Indy and Adam.

          Indy, I am hoping I did not offend you yesterday. Sometimes I mean to express concern and empathy, and it comes out condescending instead.

          1. No beef with you, just really a side tangent.

            Probably not worth the time put in, honestly. The best you can do these days is break down the full context in its objective form, without all the religious and indoctrinated framed arguments over the years, to find out specifically what someone is essentially saying.

            I think in the terms of the abortion debate, the ‘pro-choice’ side has been especially poor in framing and let every rationale flow from this false debate. Getting to the root of the issue, is something I’ve never seen brought up. That root being, should the state impose punishment upon those who choose not to accept risk to their own life for another?

            That’s all there is to it. I don’t see this very simple matter being brought up, but like a lot of alleged “left” priorities, they almost let the opposition dictate their debate points for them. The alt-right will warp things five degrees from reality and throw noise in the mix, and no one really puts the time and effort in to reset the argument to its pure objective intention.

          2. The right has been excellent at revisionist history for more than 40 years. It’s about the only thing it’s good at.

            This is why I pushed back so strongly on Michael McChesney. I don’t doubt his sincerity, but the right has been pushing this lie for over 40 years that Roe V Wade was a bad legal judgement when it’s really a very sound legal judgement entirely consistent with Constitutional principles.

        2. Actually…the right is “good” at lying…Trump carrying it to the extreme. But Lyndsey Graham isn’t shy about it either.

          “I want you to use my words against me,” he said in March 2016. “If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, ‘Let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.’ And you could use my words against me, and you’d be absolutely right.”

          He was equally explicit in October 2018. “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started,” he said, “we’ll wait till the next election.”

          Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) signaled on Saturday that he was ready to fill Ginsburg’s Supreme Court seat now, contradicting earlier pledges he made to wait until after the presidential election to act on a vacancy.

  2. JohnK said: “I’m a Bernie supporter that thinks both options are fucking awful and I obviously won’t be voting for anyone but Trump is a far better candidate….”

    JohnK, you are a liar, IMO. The idea that a Bernie supporter would think that Trump is the second best choice is so senseless that it is insulting that you expect to be believed. Everything you say exposes you for what you are, which is either a right-wing troll or a paid troll (or both, I suppose).

    You are only claiming to be a pro-Trump Bernie supporter because that is a deliberate technique for causing dissension and rancor among those opposed to Trump. You either read about it, or have been instructed to say it by your employer. Your employer could be some right-wing American outfit, or some country that supports Trump, like Russia or North Korea.

    It may have been somewhat plausible in 2016, although instead of not voting, then you would have said you were voting for a third party candidate like Jill Stein. The Right has been making a hilariously transparent effort to stand up Kanye West in that role now, but they seem to have abandoned it already. That leaves you with no credible options.

    I am glad, then, to hear that you are not going to vote, particularly because of the very good chance that you are not an American citizen.

    Of course, this being the Internet, there is no way for me to prove the things I say about you. If you would like to support your claim about being a Bernie supporter, please write back and explain why. Be concrete and specific, because I am open to persuasion about him and his positions.

    (I do not for a second think you can or will make such a case, but I think it would be funny to see you try.)

    In closing, please understand that you saying exactly what Putin wants you to say. Congratulations on being a good agent for him, I guess. And if you don’t like me saying that, please refrain from complaining, because I won’t be listening.

  3. You know its honestly ridiculous its come down to this, and we even have to discuss otherwise reasonable people willing to vote for Trump for the SCOTUS – just like 2016.

    And for what, Roe vs Wade? That’s it? Really?That’s the only consistent issue that’s brought up. A conservative court is much more willing to enforce oppressive fascist authoritarianism than anything else.

    I wish people would use their damn heads in this instance. Even at the best argument against Roe vs. Wade is that a fetus is a human life, what the fuck do we do to force people to protect lives now? If you walk past someone on the damn street and that person has a stroke, it’s not even a law for a person to call 911 to attempt to save that person. Yet, we want to enforce a person to go through with a total risk of their own lives where there’s been millions of maternal deaths over years to go through with it, or go to jail?

    Fuck conservatives, seriously. All it is, is theocratic authoritarianism, thats it. No better than some Islamic dictatorship tying their laws to some made up religious bullshit women should adhere to.

    And we know its another load of bullshit that conservatives even care what the hell happens to a kid. Hell, we had one of them saying what an ‘enticing opportunity’ it was to use kids as guinea pigs for COVID reopenings. Why even pretend this view is anything other than authoritarianism? As George Carlin once said bout Republicans: pre-birth you’re good, pre-school you’re fucked!

    Any conservative who says ‘well I guess I gotta vote for Trump now, wasnt going to’ is just as bad as any one of his supporters and can go fuck themselves.

    1. For many people there is no moral difference between killing a newborn baby and terminating a pregnancy/killing a fetus. They believe this because that is what their religion says is true and they actually believe what their religion teaches. If there were a Supreme Court decision that protected a woman’s right to kill a newborn child up to age 6 months or so, overturning that decision would be the greatest priority of many if not most people. Obviously there is a world of difference between abortion and infanticide. There are options available to a recent mother not immediately available to a pregnant woman. But if you believe a fetus has as much right to life as a baby there isn’t as much of a moral difference. I get that you don’t believe that a fetus has the same rights as a baby. But if you can’t understand why so many are willing to vote for Trump in hopes of overturning Roe v Wade try imagining you do believe it.

      1. If there is one thing I’ve noticed about American religious conservatives is that they’re willing to make up a whole bunch of shit and defend it on religious grounds.

        The bible is pretty explicit about helping poor people, for example, yet for some reason conservatives keep on harping on abortion instead. You would figure that in a country with an appalling maternal and infant death rate would actually spare some effort in reducing those problems yet the GOP continually makes the problem worse.

      2. My point ignores the issue entirely of fetus vs. baby or whatever. We don’t even have a legal obligation if a person dropped in the sidewalk in front of you with a heart attack to pick up the phone and call 911. You can step over a dying person, and there is no legal consequence to it, outside of rare municipal ‘good samaratian’ laws.

        So now that it’s established we don’t even legally enforce a bare minimum standard of a person out on the street’s ‘right to live’ by hitting a couple digits on a phone, consider the conditions of pregnancy.

        A women can die in childbirth, a women can bleed to death from complication after the fact, thousands of women die every year from this. The mere fact bringing a fetus, an unborn baby, or whatever term you want to call it – considered a life or not – risks that woman’s own life by the condition. But here, a large group of people consider it should be a law to imprison someone unless they go through with a condition that risks their life.

        Compare this to the first analogy. We don’t even legally enforce doing anything to save a life, that is not a risk at all! Much less things like, going into a burning building, stopping an assault, etc – which would put your own life at risk the same way forcing a woman to come to term would.

        So there’s the essential issue. Risk your life, or be imprisoned by the state. That’s it. And that’s why anti-abortion conservatives are bullshit hypocrites who claim the ‘state’ shouldn’t impose on anything at all, even right now, you many of these same people are acting persecuted about having to wear a mask. But they’ll gladly say, ‘hey Jane Doe, go through with this, and if you die in the process oh well .. either that or go to jail.’

        That’s it. That’s all. You either think someone should be forced by the state to either risk their life or go to jail, or you don’t. The matter is defeated with logic from the outset even assuming the ‘pro-life’ movement at its best is true.

        1. I really don’t want to debate the morality of abortion. Ultimately, where you come down on that question depends on what value you place on a fetus/unborn child. But pro lifers should understand that people who are pro choice are generally people of good will. But so are people who are pro life.

          But on to your point about a legal duty to help others. You are right in that, unlike in the Seinfeld finale (absent certain relationships to the victim) there is no general duty to help a sick or injured person. But abortion goes beyond failing to assist a fetus and involves proactively ending it’s life. You may not have a duty to help someone you find injured on the side of the road (unless you are responsible for the injuries) but if you decide to shoot them (or to crush their skull) you will most likely face a homicide charge. Of course a fetus is different from a person injured in the street because their life is dependent on a woman that can’t just walk off and abandon it. But that is where the moral debate comes in.

          It is a frequent criticism of pro lifers that they only seem to care about children before they are born. The current favorite to be nominated, Amy Coney Barret, has been quite vocal about her pro life views. But she also seems to care about children after they are born. She has 7 children, 2 of which were adopted from Haiti and one that was born with special needs. Of course, technically, Barret’s stated views are personal, not legal. I am not sure if she ever gave a legal opinion about Roe v Wade. There are prochoice legal scholars that argue Roe was wrongly decided, but I have never heard of a pro lifer arguing in favor of Roe. That is because the legal justification for the decision is almost nonexistent. Lawyers that defend Roe do so because of the result, not the reasoning.

          1. The last point is utter nonsense. It’s more of the right wing talking point revisionist history bullshit that the idiot Michael McChesney constantly falls for and spouts.

            I don’t doubt Michael McChesney is a lawyer, but I also don’t doubt that he’s an idiot.

            In fact, the justification for the ruling on abortion is entirely consistent with the 14th Amendment due process and equal protection clause. In addition to this is the concept of Judicial Review in courts striking down laws which is as old as the writing of the U.S Constitution. (The first case that struck down a law as Unconstitutional was decided by the U.S Supreme Court in 1803.)

            Although the U.S Constitution is obviously American, it is based on the concept of British common law from which the principles of due process and equal protection derive. Roe V Wade then is entirely consistent with common law as in both Canada and the U.K (and the European Union) abortion is mostly legal (except for Northern Ireland.)

          2. What due process means, and is consistent with the right to privacy derived from due process and equal protection, is that a government can’t simply write arbitrary laws and ban anything it wants.

            For a government to ban abortion, it has to demonstrate an actual harm, or in this case, it has to demonstrate that a fetus is a separate living entity. The best science can do to determine this is the concept of ‘viability’ and that is entirely consistent with the trimester system that the majority of the Supreme Court agreed upon. Essentially the fetus gains in legal status with each trimester.

            So, the idiot Michael McChesney can repeat this right wing lie that Roe V Wade is a bad legal decision, but it is consistent with science, it is consistent with the principles of Due Process and Equal Protection, it is consistent with British Common Law and it is consistent with the laws in other countries that use British Common Law. In short, Roe V Wade is a very sound legal ruling.

          3. “Ultimately, where you come down on that question depends on what value you place on a fetus/unborn child.”

            I stopped reading here, because this is a lie, and a strawman argument. Again, that is not true. What it comes down to alone, is whether the state should or should not enforce someone to risk their own life, or go to jail, even for the life of another.

            That’s the only question that needs to be asked here. You cannot have it both ways. Pregnancy and coming to term is an inherent risk for a woman, like I said. Thousands of maternal deaths, and millions over centuries.

            Do you think the state should imprison someone if they do not accept risk to their own life for the sake of another? Yes or no. That’s all that needs to be established here. And if the answer is ‘yes’ – then what is the burden of risk a citizen must take, because it’s going to be a subjective slippery slope.

            If you’re not willing to put yourself in those shoes that if you come across say, an assault, a burning building, or an instance where you yourself would have to risk your life to save another – or be imprisoned – then you’re a hypocrite. Plain and simple.

          4. Actually I read the rest of your argument, but it actually is an easier one to defeat.

            So lets say instead of crossing a burning building, you’re in the burning building. You accidentally start a kitchen fire, and another individual in the building is roped to you as you try to negotiate the risk of making it through the building safe. You absolutely know this person is completely dependent on you and will die if you cut that rope. But you also know by this person roped to you, you’re inheriting risk, and could die yourself if you make it through – and cutting the rope – would eliminate your risk altogether.

            Well, what to do? It’s great to say, we’ll I would risk my own welfare to do it. Great, if I were in that position, I probably would to. It’s a different issue entirely to say, well if you do decide to cut that rope eliminate your own risk, you’re going to be put into jail for murder.

            You’ve ‘proactively’ eliminated another life to prevent risk to your own, yes. And yes, people may despise you for it, say they would never do that if it were them in the first place, etc. But the decision here isn’t ‘what you would do.’ The decision here is the role of the state in dealing out punishment on someone who chooses to eliminate the risk to their own life.

            So that’s it, that’s all there is to it. If you feel passionately about pregnancies coming to term, then I’m 100% on board with funding for a social support system for those who wish to go through with it and give up for adoption.

            But you have no right to dictate imprisonment to that person, no matter WHAT you think about the choice, as they are risking their own lives in the matter and the state should not made the decision of imprisonment on an individual that does not comply with risking their own life for another, period.

          5. Barrett won’t be the nominee. She doesn’t help Trump’s re-election chances. Lagoa or Thapar do.

          6. Judicial conservatives believe that the Constitution and laws should be read and interpreted as written, not as a judge may wish it had been written. Roe v Wade (1973) found a right to abortion in the general right of privacy that the Court first found in Griswold v Connecticut (1965). That right to privacy was not found in any specific article or Constitutional Amendment but in the “penumbras and emanations” of the Bill of Rights. The problem with allowing a judge to interpret a law based on that law’s penumbras and emanations rather than its text is that it basically allows a judge to make decisions based on their personal preferences rather than the law. If you read Roe v Wade you will find very little legal analysis as the decision is almost completely a discussion of medicine. The decision was written by Harry Blackman who had been general counsel to the Mayo Clinic before joining the Court. Lawyers and scholars who defend Roe rarely try to defend its reasoning. Instead they argue that it is an important precedent that should not be overturned.

            My personal opinion is that Roe v Wade has a great deal in common with Dred Scott and is probably the second worst (next to Dred Scott) decision of the Supreme Court. I am not referring to the relative evils of slavery and abortion, rather the reasoning and outcome of the decisions. Slavery was a highly contentious issue from the country’s founding. But time and again political compromises were reached. But the Dred Scott decision which held in part that Congress could not ban slavery in federal territories made future compromises impossible. That particular holding was based on nothing but the preferences of the Justices that voted for it. I’m sure Chief Justice Taney thought he had solved the issue of slavery once and for all. In effect he ended up helping to end it by precipitating the Civil War. But I don’t think that can redeem the decision. Prior to Roe, abortion was a contentious issue, but political compromises were leading to abortion being legalized in many states. But after Roe legalized abortion everywhere, future legislative compromises became impossible. Suddenly the pro life movement sprung up and made judicial nominations the most contentious issue in the country.

            The problem with letting judges base their decisions on their feelings rather than on the law as written is that you give judges too much power. Achieving political goals isn’t just about electing candidates you agree with. You have to also be able to get the approval of judicial super legislatures. In fact, you don’t need your candidates to control the legislature or executive. The judicial super legislature can achieve those goals for you, if they approve. Yes, I know all about British Common Law. The laws of 49 states and the Federal Government are based on it. (Just for the record Louisiana is based on the Napoleonic Code.) But federal law is supposed to be based on the written constitution and statutes. Precedents from British Common Law can help a judge interpret the law. But federal judges are not supposed to be creating new common law, they are supposed to be interpreting written law.

          7. “Judicial conservatives believe that the Constitution and laws should be read and interpreted as written.”

            I don’t know whether that is literally true. I suspect it is not, since anyone with subtlety and intellect knows that the Constitution was written not only IN the 18th century, but FOR the 18th century. It cannot be accepted verbatim, but must be interpreted in terms of the intentions behind it and the obvious changes in society since then. Intelligent people only differ in the degree of latitude one might have in interpretation, but not about whether some latitude is necessary.

            But if any judicial conservatives truly believe in the completely literal interpretation of the Constitution, they are idiots. Go back, re-read the 7th amendment (which has never been repealed or amended), then come back here and defend a literal interpretation of that.

          8. That’s a joke Michael. You think conservative judges DON’T bring feelings into it? Barrett has been quoted as “Our legal career is but a means to an end, and … that end is building the kingdom of God,” She argued Catholic judges should recuse themselves in death penalty cases, but not Roe vs Wade.

            Saying a judge is an ‘originalist’ and will keep their views seperate, is still an interpretation. And the verse of a ‘well armed militia’ in the second amendment sure as hell doesn’t sound like an ‘originalist’ view to me, when it’s right there in the damn amendment as to where the right to bear arms applies.

            And oh, I’m sure there’s will be every ‘legal reason’ applies as a means to an end, just like she’s quoted as saying. She’ll have a perfectly sounding legal reason to apply the religious determination she’s already decided to apply to overturning Roe vs. Wade.

            Honestly, it’s time the left stopped negotiating with this alt-right death cult and put it to an end. Everything about the Senate is bullshit, it runs 6-7 point more Republican than the populace because of these arbitrary land mass rules, and at every chance Republican’s have no purpose than lying and destroying the United States.

            When Biden gets in the office, kill the filibuster, grand statehood to all five US territories and Washington DC with Senate representation, implement mass amnesty with immediate voting rights to all immigrants like Reagan did, and add three federal judges.

            Conservatives want to play this bullshit, it’s about time the bully gets punched in the nose.

  4. What a sad, pathetic country the US is becoming. Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s passing won’t help matters.

    1. The passing of RBG is sad. What is going to happen to this country over the next few weeks will probably be tragic. Having this happen in the closing weeks of the election following what the Republicans did with Scalia and Garland 4 years ago is going to instill so much anger on the left, well it is going to be ugly. I am about 90% sure Trump will nominate Amy Coney Barrett. This could hurt him in two ways. First it will energize the left, though the right may well become energized in response. Second, conservatives may look at the soon to be 6 – 3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court and feel more comfortable voting against Trump. Judicial nominations are the single biggest reason I feel tempted to vote for Trump despite how much I despise him. A conservative majority that will survive an unexpected death makes me feel more comfortable voting against him. But I don”t see how Trump could fail to nominate someone. My biggest concern over nominating someone to RBG’s seat on the Court is that it makes it more likely the Dems would seek to pack the Court, even if that required eliminating the filibuster altogether. I think that would be awful and not just because I want the conservative majority on the Court. The filibuster is annoying when your party is in the majority. It is essential if you are in the minority. One thing we can be sure of is that each party will eventually be in the minority.

      1. Not if you re-elect Trump. You’ll achieve autocracy and once achieved, historically the chances are only 1 in 5 that autocracy can be peacefully reversed.

        1. Nothing would be settled at that point. 60% electorate hostility, hostile state and city governments in the biggest jurisdictions, the Armed forces not in his pocket, Trump’s ability to fuck up , and his basic stupidity. If we’re talking a preFuhrer more focused, more popular with the military, and more able to cut political deals than Trump, I would consider shitting bricks. And assuming he winds up reelected is a reach. We might not be that pathetic yet.
          Re the RBG seat, if McSally gets tossed in AZ, Kelly would be most likely be seated in time to vote (McS is an appointment).

          1. Trump has done remarkably well at destroying the US institutions in his first term despite what you term his “basic stupidity.” Another term and you won’t recognize the country. Trump and Barr are doing everything to throw the election with help from some of the swing states. North Carolina is currently rejecting mail in ballots from blacks by a ratio of 4 to 1 over those from whites.

            You’d better start shitting bricks. You’re in serious denial.

          2. Tanner, I’m sure the local election officials are something of a problem in North Carolina, but both that states’ Governor and Secretary of States are Democrats.

          3. I find it hard to believe that local election officials could be the sole cause of this discrepancy.

    1. Indy, when you think about Trump – I mean, really think about him (take some PeptoBismol first) – the remarkable thing is that we have NOT had an atomic war yet. Maybe his own incompetence puts a ceiling on his own incompetence, if that makes any sense. Or at maybe his laziness and cowardice do. I guess there are as many possibilities as he has flaws, and that is a very large number.

      Anyway, lets hope our luck holds in that regard. 2020 is exceeding all limits in every other way.

    2. Pentagon has drawn plans even for a war with Canada, it’s standard procedure and they do it for every situation and every country, the fact that this sensationalist bullshit convinced you says more about you and liberal hysteria in general than Trump.

      Btw Trump certainly deserves it more than Obama, unlike him Trump repeatedly resisted the attempts of war-hawks inside his admin and the intelligence apparatus for another war. He’s the first president in decades that didn’t start a war in his first term.

      He’s still a pathetic pussy for giving in to the military industrial complex and appointing Bolton but at least he resisted him and ended up firing him. I strongly disagree with his awful corporatist economic policies but he’s still better than neoliberal Democrat snakes like Biden regarding war. Far, far better.

      1. Yes, Trump is the president of peace. Is that why he sold are of those arms to the Saudi’s so they can have their war in Yemen? Is that why he picked a fight with Iran? Is that why he continued to expand drone warfare?

        1. I didn’t say he’s the president of peace, I said he’s more peaceful than the vast majority of modern American presidents which is a fact. As per usual this is a matter of aesthetics vs reality and liberals always prioritize aesthetics, Obama was always talking about peace and had a nice smile but destroyed Libya, Syria and, you know, Yemen. Trump is an idiot blowhard that threatens everyone but at least has the human decency to resist attempts of the corrupt intelligence apparatus and their buddies to start yet another war.

          I’ll take the idiot with some decency left over the charismatic psychopaths liberals shamelessly shill for any day.

          1. Libya destroyed itself. Syria’s civil war was started by Bush fucking over Iraq. Obama fucked up Yemen. Trump’s solution was to make all of the above worse. Meanwhile Iran starts enriching uranium again while drones fly over the mid-east in greater numbers. And that’s your idea of decency?

            I find it bizarre that you hate Trump’s economic policies yet you embrace his idea of “peace”. He doesn’t actually believe in peace and his economics is shit. What else is there to like about the man?

          2. Let’s stop with the revisionist history. Bush/Cheney destroyed Syria with an ill fated adventure in Iraq. And Yemen was destroyed by Trump’s friends the Saudis with an assist by Iran on the opposing side. Libya was a European misadventure. Obama just inherited the GOP shit in foreign and domestic policy (see the Great Recession). Europe had to deal with the Syrian refugees and we know better than to blame that on Obama…the same goes for the Great Recession. You sound like you live in St. Petersburg.

          3. A simplistic view of isolationism like Trump has, doesn’t mean its peaceful.

            Remember, HE provoked a nutjob leader in North Korea to the point Mattis was sleeping in his clothes and had an alarm in his residence on notice at any time.

            Remember, HE launched a strike at a senior member of Iran’s government that nearly brought us into a full blown war with Iran. The night Iran launched missiles into Iraq, if were a little more accurate or timed a little better, would have killed US soldiers, and he was prepared THAT night to strike back.

            Now, I don’t have the problem with staying out of wars – this isn’t necessarily a view of any single party. What I do have a problem with, however, is the simplistic viewpoint Trump and his supporters view the world.

            North Korea threatens us, well, lets threaten back! That will show them! Who cares if it proves the nutjob leaders

            Someone in Iran’s government developing plans on attacking embassies, well lets strike first, then no one possibly could ever carry out the same damn plans! Which I’m sure, they still have a successor ready to do based on reports about the embassy in South Africa.

            The problem is, all of this nuance is lost on him, and his supporters. Bluster and ego and provocation CAN and DOES start wars. Sometimes apathy and deterrence is a better strategy. Sometimes applying pressure through allies is a better strategy. This is the long game, you’re not going to turn around crazy dictatorships overnight without a major loss of life – getting information in, waking the populace up, applying pressure in other ways start to break down these threats over decades.

            He understands none of this. He only understands, I’m going to yell back at you and provoke as well, and then if I’ll need to I’ll turn your country into glass. Great, obviously the US Military could destroy North Korea at any time, is ego and bluster worth the millions of lives that will be lost though? To Trump, he clearly would be willing to make that trade, which makes him clearly a threat to peace more than anyone else.

          4. Jesus Christ, look at the liberals in here making excuses for Obama. This is why I’ll never vote for the DNC unless another Sanders that opposes that neoliberal cancer takes it over. People like you making excuses for assholes like Obama and assholes like him doing whatever they want because they have your blind support.

            Imagine blaming that scumbag Bush for the wars *ahem* I mean “interventions” Obama started or blaming Sarkozy (yet another warmongering piece of shit) because Obama continued what he started and decimated Libya. Anyone but Obama huh?

          5. I didn’t even mention Obama, if you’re talking about me. And if you’re a Bernie supporter and think that the rational option between the two is Trump in this, you truly are lost. I am a Bernie supporter, and do not like neoliberals – but the answer to that is made 100 times worse by neocons and a fascist death cult under Donald Trump.

            You missed Bernie’s message the entire time if you’re backing Trump in this time, thats a serious reality warp.

          6. I’m a Bernie supporter that thinks both options are fucking awful and I obviously won’t be voting for anyone but Trump is a far better candidate as far as war, trade and his attitude towards the the tech industry authoritarians is concerned.

            Biden *might* be better for the economy which I seriously doubt given that another war and more free trade agreements are almost a certainty with him and will be better for the environment but not in a way that matters, both parties are full of corporate shills that prioritize the interests of the ruling class over everything else which is why the Democrats’ environmentalism is a fucking fraud.

          7. John, you’re so far off, its not even funny.

            I would love to break up big tech, as this is my career, but do you even keep up with the policies?

            The Trump administration struck down net neutrality, so if the big ISPs decide to jack up your internet price, tier out plans based on what sites you search, throttle your internet unless you pay them more – its all completely legal.

            The Trump administration is backing Oracle in the SCOTUS case with Google about the use of APIs and the ability to copyright them and sue over them. Do you know what an API is? It’s essentially what allows the Internet’s web applications (like this comment box) to run through simple interface commands (ie, the name Application Protocol Interface.) It’s essentially the equivalent of trying to claim the English language is an intellectual property

            This isn’t intellectual property at all, and has been struck down in lower courts, but has managed to make its way to SCOTUS, and well, if you want one ruling to break the usable internet as a whole to occur and set us back decades, well Trump is all for it.

            Finally, Trump himself has lowered the corporate tax rates from 35% to 20%. So big tech, and big conglomerates LOVE Trump. Despite his public ‘feud’ with Bezos over the Washington Post, him and his policies have made Bezos and the rest of the conglomerates much, much richer to trample on the little guy.

            Seriously, you should know better. It sounds like you never even knew Bernie’s platform to begin.

          8. Also not voting is a waste. Go vote for the Green Party. Seriously, I’ve been a third party voter for a while, but the insanity of Trump with clear and present danger to human lives, and Bernie’s ability to push Biden more left on issues he otherwise wouldn’t have been able to means I’m going that route this time. Trump ruined a more idealistic choice for a choice of mere survival for me, which is unfortunately the way it is.

          9. I was specifically talking about FCC trying to do something about tech industry censorship which I despise, that’s why I was talking about authoritarians. As per usual with Trump he’s doing it the wrong way and for the wrong reasons but it’s better than the Democrats who gleefully support that shit.

            As for the rest you have no disagreement from me which is why I would never vote for him. I would also never vote for the favorite of the military industrial complex, Joe Biden. I know you liberals will probably make up excuses and rationalizations for any new “interventions” because the corporate media told you so or downplayed it like it happened with Libya and Syria but I don’t want blood in my hands. The clear and present danger to human lives is a warmongering piece of shit that has supported every war the last couple of decades. You think you’re losing a vote but if it’s one candidate that would it’s Trump, because I theoretically I could overlook everything Trump is and does but I will never overlook war-mongers.

            Btw liberals didn’t use to be like that, back at the Jon Stewart days you used to support free speech no matter what, be staunchly anti-war, support whistleblowers like Assange and Snowden, be suspicious towards the intelligence apparatus and their military industrial complex butt buddies, not trust corporate media and so on. I don’t know what the fuck happened to you people.

          10. Trump has also increased the Department of Defense budget from $580 billion in 2018 to $750 billion (proposal.)

            When it’s in Trump’s immediate interest, he claims that the U.S military is controlled by the ‘military industrial complex.’

            But, when it’s in Trump’s immediate interest, he also claims that he rebuilt the U.S military that had been left ‘decimated’ by Obama.

            I can’t believe by this point that anybody would take Trump’s word on anything.

            Also, Trump lied when he claimed to oppose the second Iraq War.

          11. You keep saying ‘you liberals’ and free speech.

            Learn what free speech is. Free speech isn’t I get to say stupid shit on someone else’s dime. You know, I sign up for this service where I get to use a social media platform, and I should have the right to say whatever I want on someone else’s server. What the fuck is wrong with you? No one is stopping you from making your own server to put these things on, that has jack shit to do with free speech.

            Free speech is freedom from government oppression. Which BTW, in the last few days already AG Barr says he wanted to charge protestors with cession for free speech, and Trump wants to prosecute AOC for what she says.

            And Greenwald and Assange were the ones who changed. He went from ‘lets leak anything about the goverment’ to telling WikLeaks ‘we only leak DNC info and withhold anything on the GOP or Russia’ and suddenly, bizarrely became Putin apologists. You know, the authoritarian dictator who throws protestors in jail and poisons opposition?

            The sect of Bernie supporters you’re a part of, actually support the authoritarianism you claim to disagree with. I don’t know what’s made you fucked in the head, but you need to put the primaries behind you and get over it, like Bernie his damn self says to do. It’s a really bizarre fucking take to say Bernie didn’t win so I’m going to go batshit and suddenly support everything he’s again to spite the people in the primaries.

            Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

          12. No YOU learn what free speech is. Free speech is a concept not just a law and applies everywhere. And even as a law it also applies to “public squares”, the internet has always been exactly that and nowadays is the biggest public square on the planet and should be protected as such. These corps should abide by these public square laws but they want their cake and eat it too, they want section 230 protections and act like publishers banning dissenting opinion. If you ask me the only rational solution is to make them public utilities but Trump is too much of a corporate shill to do so.

            As for the bullshit you read on corporate media and believed about Assange and Snowden because, well, you’re a liberal I won’t even comment on that bullshit. The sect of Bernie supporters I’m one are anti-authoritarian socialists opposing the authoritarianism of the so called “liberals” who have become even worse than conservatives (probably because the conservatives don’t control most social and corporate media, if they did they’d be just as bad), you don’t know what you’re even talking about.

          13. “they want section 230 protections and act like publishers banning dissenting opinion”

            This is tantamount to someone saying “they want both liberty and happiness.” Of course they want both, because both are positive things, both for themselves and (ironically enough) for Trump.

            The first thing you have to ask yourself is this – what if, on Monday morning, Twitter was no longer protected from liability for its commentary content? The answer – by noon, Trump’s account would be deleted. No corporation can be responsible for the things he says every day. They would be drowning in lawsuits by the close of business. Moreover many of Trump’s comments are literally illegal in most countries, as violations of anti-hate speech and other laws. The sentiments of the First Amendment are unique to the United States. Of course those countries would not have to follow the United States in making Twitter liable for Trump’s comments, but if they did, Twitter’s executives would be subject to criminal prosecution for Trump’s crimes. (That defines “crimes” through the prism of laws outside the United States.) While the President of the United States can not practically be jailed by some rinky-dink country for what he says, Twitter’s executives have no such immunity. Trump’s comments would thus subject them to criminal prosecution.

            Like it or not, the First Amendment says Twitter has the right to censor Trump, but the US Government does not have the right to censor Twitter.

            As for the “concept” of free speech, you write about it as if were a positive thing. It is not. Absolute freedom is a neutral concept which can be good or evil, depending on how it is employed. It is bad to advocate violence against innocent people. It is bad to advocate genocide. To state the oft-cited cliche, it is bad to shout “fire” in a crowded theater. It is bad to call publicly for the violent overthrow of a fairly-elected government.

            In fact, even the First Amendment concept of free speech was defined poorly in the Constitution, because it is obvious that all governments must act to limit some forms of free speech. Over the years, the courts have determined that some forms of free speech must be limited by law, and even prosecuted. Thus we have laws against things like broadcasting troop movements to foreign governments, or conspiring to commit crimes, even when the actual crime is never committed. Or even taunting the GIs. Tokyo Rose, an American citizen, spent several years in jail for her broadcasts, even though a literal interpretation the First Amendment clearly allowed her to do what she did without legal retribution. You may recall that Gerald Ford eventually pardoned her. What she did was innocuous enough that there were arguments to support both sides of her case, but if she had actually broadcast troop movements (for example), she would probably have died in prison, despite her alleged First Amendment protections.

            Legally, Trump’s options are (1) he can let them continue to be a platform and put up with Twitter’s mild, half-hearted censorship, or (2) he can take away their protected status and have his account deleted. If he does not like that – well, he is allegedly a very rich man – rich enough to hire top people and create his own social media platform, where he would be free to say whatever he likes to his followers, uncensored, his access limited only by the laws of the countries that have access to the internet.

          14. “I’m one are anti-authoritarian socialists”

            No, you’re really not. Your just another Trump supporting concern troll. An anti-authoritarian socialist would absolutely despise Trump and all of his policies. An American anti-authoritarian socialist would at least support Biden because he’s the only game in town and he would at least support some policies you like.

            Instead you carry water for Trump and smear Biden. There’s not one policy Trump is better than Biden on and that includes war and support of the military industrial complex.

            You whine about “Free Speech” and the media which is the battle cry for racists everywhere. Guess what? You don’t have “Free Speech”. You live with other people. You will always modify your language to appease everyone around you. The only people who are upset by this are the ones who can’t drop n-bombs in public anymore.

          15. PGP, Biden being the only game in town doesn’t really decrease the authoritarianism. Don’t get me wrong, I may pull the lever for the old fraud, but getting Trump out is barely a start. Trump at least is a blatant asshole, not pretending to give a shit.

          16. Biden is pro-voting rights. That alone is a huge improvement.

            Biden being in power at least means the lights stay on and a few useful things will get done. There will be some shit that will make you roll your eyes but quite frankly any corporatist bullshit that Biden does won’t be as blatant or criminal as any GOP politician does.

          17. John, you’re insane. Once again, twist reality to fit some bizarre worldview.

            You’re the one infringing on free speech by attempting to tell people what they can or cannot do freely on their own private property. You *must* allow me to use your private property to express my views. Be it a web server, or someone’s house, its the same damn thing.

            I tell you one thing, if you take your Putin authoritarian whataboutism’s to my property thinking you have free reign over it, you’ll learn quick about another right afforded to us by the Constitution.

            Get your shit together.

      2. So this is how twisted your thinking has to be in order to support Trump. Thanks for the insight, JohnK!

Comments are closed.