Right Wing Evangelical Pat Robertson Says Trump Pulling Out of Syria Like Appeasing Hitler.

Forums: Politics, Religion, Hitler, Trump, Pat Robertson
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Right Wing Evangelical Pat Robertson Says Trump Pulling Out of Syria Like Appeasing Hitler.

Published October 24, 2019

Quote:

President Trump's decision to remove U.S. troops from northern Syria has drawn criticism from many of his allies, including evangelist Pat Robertson, who compared it to the United Kingdom appeasing Hitler in the 1930s.

Appearing on his daily show, The 700 Club, Robertson launched into a rebuke of Syrian withdrawal where he made a surprising historical analogy.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," he began. "In 1938, the British prime minister, after getting promises from Hitler comes back and says, 'there is peace in our time.'"

That meeting between Neville Chamberlain and Hitler granted the Sudetenland to the German government in exchange for assurances that the Nazis would not push further into Europe. Six months later, the German army occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia and were in Poland by the end of 1939.

Robertson believes that American withdrawal from the region will embolden other enemies to make plays for territory much like Hitler did, stating "The Kurds, we have abandoned them. They are being slaughtered by the Turks and we have given a major port of Syria, and I promise you as I'm sitting here right now, Russia is going to come against us, Turkey is going to come against us, China is going to come against us, North Korea is going to come against us."

Robertson has been a supporter of Trump for some time. During the 2016 election, Trump appeared on The 700 Club nine times, and he won the largest percentage of white evangelical voters in history with 81 percent.

This is not the first time that Robertson has criticized the President's foreign policy. Earlier in October, he stated that Trump could "lose the mandate of Heaven" by pulling troops from the region. He criticized Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, calling him a "thug," and not an ally of America. In the same clip, Robertson also brought up the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and the administration's reluctance to hold the Saudi government responsible.

A recent report in Politico indicates that Trump's foreign policy decisions might drive a wedge between the evangelical voter base and the President's re-election campaign. The administration has framed the decision as a financial one, but reports of religious persecution, especially of Christians, in the region are worrisome.

Despite criticism from prominent leaders, Trump's support among rank-and-file evangelicals remains strong. A recent report from the Public Religion Research Institute states that 99 percent of white, Republican-identified evangelical Protestants oppose the efforts to impeach him, as opposed to 89 percent of Republicans in general according to FiveThirtyEight.

https://www.newsweek.com/pat-robertson-trump-syria-appeasing-hitler-1467580

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 2,326 • Replies: 20

@Real Music,

He'll back off all that moral outrage in a day or so...he still has his fingers crossed that a Supreme Court Justice will die and Trump will reward the faithful with another Neo-nazi in the court. Never take your eye off the ball. Trump might be a sociopath and a nihilist and devoid of decency, but hey they think he will deliver.

3 Replies

@glitterbag,

What you are saying is very sad, but also true.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

Yes. The courts are key. Not just the SC, of course.

Indeed, it is the great number of right wing judges being appointed by Trump that is going to make it necessary for the Dems, if they can gain the Senate, to seriously consider increasing the number of justices in the SC.

0 Replies

@Real Music,

Sounds like praise to me, appeasing Hitler is what Trump's base are all about.

0 Replies

@Real Music,

The following line from the article quoted in the OP might explain the politics a little:

Real Music wrote:

This is not the first time that Robertson has criticized the President's foreign policy. Earlier in October, he stated that Trump could "lose the mandate of Heaven" by pulling troops from the region.

If Trump-haters/hunters believe they can manipulate Christians to withdraw support from Trump by manipulating him to pull troops, then there has probably been some manipulation/pressure put on him to do so, for the sake of manipulating political support.

Trump has stated that he hopes to deter Turkish mistreatment of Kurds by effectuating economic consequences if warranted, but of course the question is whether that will be taken as an opportunity to pay-to-bully.

Trump may be onto something, however, in that it seems that these global socialist coalitions are basically interested in economically managing the world for the sake of growing and taxing the global economy in various ways, so does that mean they will respect human rights and liberty more if doing so prevents negative economic consequences that are more costly than what they have to give up in accepting rights and liberty?

Maybe the problem of (global) socialism has grown as a result of always trying to stimulate good behavior using rewards/bribes/carrots instead of using negative/punishments/sticks in the form of economic sanctions, tariffs, and other barriers to trade/commerce.

Perhaps the world will learn to respect liberty and rights more as they see that there is a lot of room to hinder global economic potential in the absence of such respect.

What's more is that economic sanctions have the side-effect of reducing resource-waste, which should appeal to environmentalists and those who are interested in sustainability. Yes, there is the problem that people tend to resort to environmental abuses when they are experiencing economic downturn, but theoretically it should be possible to also punish such negative reactions by blocking trade in the products/resources derived from such abuse/exploitation.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I need some Balsamic dressing on that word salad please.

Quote:

Yes, there is the problem that people tend to resort to environmental abuses when they are experiencing economic downturn,

This is counter to how most environmental abuses have occured. NOT at any periods of economic downturn but in times of great economic demands for components and resources.

Look at how weve fucked up our streams with acid mine drainage, or deforested the appalachians. The Depression of the 30;s actually allowed forests to recover and "volunteer". Its so now that our climax forests of the East hve been replaced by oak hickory and now cherry

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I need some Balsamic dressing on that word salad please.

I don't appreciate being accused of 'word salad.' You inability and/or impatience to understand what I wrote or at least ask what I meant by something shouldn't lead you to insult me. You can just say you don't have the patience to bother understanding what I wrote.

Quote:

This is counter to how most environmental abuses have occured. NOT at any periods of economic downturn but in times of great economic demands for components and resources.

Different things happen at different times and places for different reasons.

Some people might go around cutting down trees for wood because the price of heating fuel goes up and they haven't yet grasped the need to section off a single room of their house and hyper-insulate it to reduce their fuel consumption, for example.

In other cases, economic growth stimulate supply-side competition in markets which leads producers to waste resources producing as many varieties of possible products that could interest customers, which results in more sales but a corresponding increase in waste as well.

Quote:

Look at how weve fucked up our streams with acid mine drainage, or deforested the appalachians. The Depression of the 30;s actually allowed forests to recover and "volunteer". Its so now that our climax forests of the East hve been replaced by oak hickory and now cherry

You are right. The big question is how to have a negative growth situation that stimulates businesses and people to handle resources more conservatively and efficiently for the good of all, yet doesn't result in people desperately exploiting each other to the point that they drive others to waste and exploit resources in an attempt to rekindle past levels of wealth, which were not environmentally responsible or sustainable, despite the big money that was made then.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

A really intelligent person should be able to explain his position without overuse of irrational logic , counter phrases, and "fine" writing. Try sounding more intelligent.
Remember the line from Feynman that, "The most difficult thing is to explain the obvious"

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Some people might go around cutting down trees for wood because the price of heating fuel goes up and they haven't yet grasped the need to section off a single room of their house and hyper-insulate it to reduce their fuel consumption, for example.

o you think that same person is able to denude an entire mountain by clearcutting??

Youve not been around or explored the history of the US much have

2 Replies

@farmerman,

That sounds like the thinking that lead to the Grenfell Tower fire. Insulate quickly and cheaply, killing 72 people in the process.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

A really intelligent person should be able to explain his position without overuse of irrational logic , counter phrases, and "fine" writing. Try sounding more intelligent.
Remember the line from Feynman that, "The most difficult thing is to explain the obvious"

Well, I'm certainly not going to say that I couldn't explain things more clearly, but I also don't think someone who is capable of understanding what I said should be judging my writing and especially not disrespecting my thoughts because I express them in the way that I do.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Some people might go around cutting down trees for wood because the price of heating fuel goes up and they haven't yet grasped the need to section off a single room of their house and hyper-insulate it to reduce their fuel consumption, for example.

o you think that same person is able to denude an entire mountain by clearcutting??

Youve not been around or explored the history of the US much have

Everything comes down to scale-ability. One person cutting down a tree for fuel doesn't 'denude' a an entire mountain, but having a cultural norm of cutting trees to heat entire houses with cords and cords of firewood does.

Conservation within a large population of humans is simple: figure out how to reduce per-capita resource use without harming health and achieve it.

When Jimmy Carter suggested wearing a sweater indoors in winter to conserve energy, that was hardly something people should have scoffed at.

What is far more effective than wearing a sweater indoors is to wear several layers, including a hooded sweatshirt, and to insulate a single room or two very well and only heat those small areas as much as necessary to be healthy and comfortable with the layers and hood on.

If that was the norm, some people might deviate from it sometimes as isolated moments of indulgence, but overall the energy savings would be enormous when compared with heating vast spaces.

Face it, energy consumption norms have been driven high for the sake of selling more fuel/energy and attracting cold people to spend money where it's warmer. Just as so many food products have been padded with high fructose corn syrup and sugar to make them taste better than by adding more expensive and nutritious ingredients, indoor temperatures have been used the same way.

Energy is exciting and appealing in many forms, but we have to come to terms with the fact that less can be more with most forms of energy and that conservation is ultimately better than waste, even when waste generates more spending and revenues.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

our industrial revolution in metallurgy was first fired by "charcoal" . Entire forests were leveled by iron making concerns using charcoal furnaces. The entire Appalachians had been denuded several times before coal was heavily mined.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

our industrial revolution in metallurgy was first fired by "charcoal" . Entire forests were leveled by iron making concerns using charcoal furnaces. The entire Appalachians had been denuded several times before coal was heavily mined.

What's your point, that things were worse in the past and they're getting better? If so, that's great but don't let it deter further innovation about how to progress still further in conservation/efficiency/reform/etc.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

no, you just avoid the facts in US deforestation in all your posts.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

no, you just avoid the facts in US deforestation in all your posts.

You avoid the basic relationship between development and deforestation:

Land is always being developed and re-developed. When a parcel of land is cleared of trees/forest and then covered with sand by developers, it is dead. It will be covered with buildings and pavement and a few ornamental trees/shrubs, and it will not do much in terms of absorbing and storing atmospheric CO2 for the next several centuries, and probably not for many millennia if human land-use isn't reformed to incorporate more trees and other green growth.

Roof gardens and trees have gained some popularity as part of growing environmental/climate consciousness, but just subjectively compare a city where all the buildings are covered in roof gardens with one where tall, narrow buildings make room for robust tree canopy on the ground.

Ground trees/plants simply do better than ones in pots on the tops of buildings.

If you take the carbon-offset mentality, which you seem to have, then you are always neglecting to reforest parcels of land that are re-developed, because you are just justifying unsustainable design of some parcels by leaving others undeveloped.

Yes, it is good to leave land undeveloped whenever possible; but it is also important to reform the way developed land is developed so that human population levels will become less of a sustainability threat generally.

In short, we have to reform the way humans live and consume so that their lives contribute, rather than threaten, long-term sustainability.

Think about it as if humans were parasites living in a host body. If the parasites are gradually eroding the host body and transforming it into dead matter, the parasites will only be able to live there until the host body dies from the infection.

If, on the other hand, the parasites are mutually beneficial for the host body, like many microbes in the digestive tract, they will contribute to the health of the host body, causing it to live healthier longer and future generations of parasites will benefit from maintaining/sustaining the health of their host.

It's just a question of looking at how humans live and how they can change the way they live and work and use resources so that it all contributes to the ecological health of (all) the land and water and not just the far-off places that we deem precious enough to save and/or reforest.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I did not. I named the TYPE of activity responsible for the deforestation.(It was economic DEVELOPMENT , not "last stand" home heating. Your arguments are usually based upon space between your correspondents last post and your subsequent one. That gives you time to make moderate changes on your premise and then try to make it sound like your correspondent was all fucked up. I think, besides your affinity for "tossed salad sentences", you like to engage in "revisionist rebuttal".

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I found further conversation to be quite soul destroying and had to stop.

I don't mind the word salad so much as his insistence it's proof he's some sort of genius.

It's like it's Opposite Day all the ******* time.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Wht the hell was that cartoon about???

0 Replies

Right Wing Evangelical Pat Robertson Says Trump Pulling Out of Syria Like Appeasing Hitler.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know