Progressives (Liberals)

@georgeob1,

Quote:

He has revitalized a decaying U.S. military establishment, while at the same time starting our disengagement from wars ( such as that in Afghanistan) that are truly unending and unwinnable.

Here's a critical overview:

Mission ‘Accomplished’? Trump Boasts of Being Boon for Military

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

Here's a critical overview:

From the NYT? You are kidding, right?

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Maybe you can make one list of factual errors and another of unsupported assertions and biased opinions.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

The $700 billion that Mr. Trump trumpets is actually less than what Mr. Obama spent on war and military in the 2010 fiscal year, when adjusted for inflation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/09/us/politics/trump-military-claims.html
The war was more expensive in 2010

Quote:

It fell to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who was traveling in New Zealand, to announce that the last of the 33,000 surge troops, dispatched by President Obama in late 2009 at the behest of his military commanders, had left Afghanistan.

That is going to cost more than maintaining a presence and getting results, something Obama never did because of rules of engagement
https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/09/25/the-afghan-surge-is-over/
That is one.

1 Reply

One thing that gets ignored when the fat boy brags about the economy is the deep cut in corporate taxes. It is down from 35% (the highest nominal rate for personal income tax for decades) to 21%. But that just shifts the burden for supporting infrastructure and public safety organizations to the working class and the middle class. Corporations benefit enormously from infrastructure and public safety organizations because of economies of scale. Now they get the benefit, and they won't be paying for it. Oh yeah . . . it's an economic paradise--if you're already rich and powerful

2 Replies

@coldjoint,

Quote:

The war was more expensive in 2010

Which means that more money was spent on the military. Spending caps were instituted the next year. I don't see what you're objecting to here. Trump's been talking about the "hollowed out" military but that's standard GOP fearmongering. Military spending keeps our economy chugging along, a taxpayer-funded form of socialism for weapons contractors which buys skilled workers and a host of support services in districts and communities across the country.

Quote:

That is going to cost more than maintaining a presence and getting results, something Obama never did because of rules of engagement

I'm not sure what you're referring to — Trump's talking about pulling troops out and trying to make some sort of deal with the Taliban. Are you saying that you think we should keep a force in there for the long haul the way the guy wrote in Foreign Policy back in '12? Personally I think all our military missions in the Mideast, Central Asia, and Africa confront us with this dilemma: either we stay there basically forever, spending huge amounts of money, funding corrupt local government, and apologizing for "collateral damage", or we pull up our stakes and leave, watching the ensuing cultural upheavals, political reversals, and humanitarian catastrophes from the sidelines. There really isn't a good choice.

1 Reply

https://scontent.fhou1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/51942405_10216390234941804_4697986879365054464_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_ht=scontent.fhou1-2.fna&oh=2d3ced006b8056657ecdf2b313b1e674&oe=5CEEAA6B

3 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

I'm not sure what you're referring to

I am referring to the results Trump got by un-cuffing the military and letting them hunt and kill the enemy. Obama had them only engaging when engaged at one time.. He cost us American lives. He was, and is, a traitor.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Nothing more annoying than a constant whine IMO.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

it's an economic paradise--if you're already rich and powerful

You managed to scrape by. Or are you on welfare?

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Kadaffy was a monster and the manner of his death was justice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DXDU48RHLU

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

One thing that gets ignored when the fat boy brags about the economy is the deep cut in corporate taxes. It is down from 35% (the highest nominal rate for personal income tax for decades) to 21%. But that just shifts the burden for supporting infrastructure and public safety organizations to the working class and the middle class. Corporations benefit enormously from infrastructure and public safety organizations because of economies of scale. Now they get the benefit, and they won't be paying for it. Oh yeah . . . it's an economic paradise--if you're already rich and powerful

GDP growth rates are up over the previous four years Unemployment rates are at a two decade low and a seven year steady decline in the work force participation rate has been reversed. Corporations are investing their tax savings in new business ventures and growth; new employees, increased employee compensation, and in some cases stock buybacks which frees up capital for other new ventures.

Increased economic growth increases tax revenues - we'll see in a few months what has been the net effect of the new tax law for tax revenue. However the effects in terms of business expansion, increased wages and employment are already visible.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

You are wrong on all counts.

We never bombed any Libyan cities and never provided them any humanitarian aid either. Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown and killed by the Libyan people.

0 Replies

This lady is not stupid at all.

Quote:

TicToc by Bloomberg
‏Verified account
@tictoc
“I will not allow our caucus to be divided up by silly notions of whatever narrative, we are in this together,” @AOC says, calling Nancy Pelosi a “leader on climate.” #GreenNewDeal

2 Replies

@blatham,

Thank god for that.

1 Reply

@snood,

Indeed.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I don't think that, as a Trump supporter I am any less qualified or entitled to comment on the AOC matter than are you as a left wing citizen of Canada.

No argument from me on that. Your entitlement to speak on the matter is absolute. The point in question is the content of the speech and it's logical consistency.

Earlier, you wrote:

Quote:

[AOC's proposals] are all vague, superficial, devoid of any concrete detail and completely lacking in any consideration of the feasibility of actually attaining them, or of the likely costs and side effects of doing so.

You are arguing that the plan/outline of the GND which Ocasio-Cortez promotes are unworthy because that plan is, in your words, "vague, superficial, devoid of any concrete detail" .

And then, you argue for for the opposite, for lack of detail:

Quote:

the number and detail that AOC has provided dwarfs Trumps rather simple and inclusive, "Make America great again."

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I'll refer to the TicToc tweet just above. Do you feel/believe that AOC's voiced support for Pelosi on the matter she addresses now places her on the side of the (presumably corrupt) party "elite"?

2 Replies

@blatham,

I think some people just enjoy being pissed off. Maybe that’s not Edgar in real life, but that’s the character he plays on this site.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

I'll refer to the TicToc tweet just above. Do you feel/believe that AOC's voiced support for Pelosi on the matter she addresses now places her on the side of the (presumably corrupt) party "elite"?

Ed’s proven that he’s not capable of seeing the logical inconsistency there. He’s categorized all politicians in a childish, counterproductive way as either genuine or corrupt. To him, compromise is a trick of the corrupt.

1 Reply

Progressives (Liberals)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know