Here’s An Idea
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
The problem with articles like this is they are written with TDS as if Trump is so unhinged that he might actually go to nuclear war. It completely ignores the fact that his aggressive military efforts thus far have been to launch a single missile-strike against Syria (in which he even gave notice to Russia to minimize human casualties, and as a response to a supposed chemical weapons attack by Assad). Beyond that, he's opened the military to actually defeating ISIS using the appropriate tools (MOAB) so he can pull back troops from the existing conflicts that our prior presidents got us into and refused (despite promises to the contrary) to get us out of. Yet, he's the one portrayed as the warmonger just waiting for right time to push the red button. Think about it. Trump sets a deadline to get us out of Syria, and every NeoCon, Democrat, and media outlet portrays him as a buffoon who won't listen to his generals, as if they all WANT our troops living and dying in that sh!thole country. And again, unlike the NeoCons and Democrats, Trump has actually tried to establish positive relations with the 2 countries that would be our likely nuclear opponents (RNK & Russia), whereas Obama and the presidents before him chose instead to play chicken with North Korea running provocative war game exercises in preparation for a nuclear war that they saw as inevitable.
Narrative of the left always overrides the facts.
The other Presidents since WWII have also possessed the exact same power to touch off nuclear war. Several were more warmongerish.
As is so often the case these days with so many people you, too, have missed the whole point of the article because you assume everything should be viewed through partisan eyes. Trump is discussed because he is the currrent sitting president, not because the author worries he’s the only president we should ever have to worry about. The author wrote similar articles when Obama was wreaking havoc on our supposed enemies.
The point of the article is that no one person should have such unlimited power, the power to destroy the lives of millions of people for any reason he or she chooses.
I would ask that when you see an article linked by me you take off your partisan glasses, whether they be pro-Trump or anti, because I typically do not participate in that game.
It is not partisan glasses. Their are so many biased articles and news stories that you are basically a naive chump if you don’t read and think deeper.
Maybe the author did write similar articles. An admitted very quick google search did reveal four article about the President and nuclear attack. But all were written by the author when Trump was in office. The author also glowing refers to the fact we are “lucky” to have Ted Lieu, Elizabeth Warren, and Adam Smith. We are “lucky” because those three have written legislation limiting the President from authorizing nuclear weapons. Mind you, all of the congressman/women have been in office for years before Trump and never thought to write a bill then.
Its funny, because my first thought was that you as someone whose very centrist and non-partisan would have see the blatent statements that this risk is enhanced because Trump is the president. This is the 3rd line in the whole story:
More worrying still, our current president has shown an alarming willingness to engage in aggression instead of diplomacy —
If you read my post, I clearly show how this position (which the whole article is based on) is actually completely opposite from the facts.
Also didn't note that the article was written by the following:
By Olivia Alperstein
Olivia Alperstein is the Deputy Director of Communications and Policy at Progressive Congress
We all know that the group Progressive Congress is a centrist and non-partisan think tank.
By Olivia Alperstein
Olivia Alperstein is the Deputy Director of Communications and Policy at Progressive Congress
We all know that the group Progressive Congress is a centrist and non-partisan think tank.
Why do you post bullshit non-stop? You live in your own fairy tale world. Wake the **** up. Trump is not getting us into a nuclear war. Are you really this stupid?
Please post articles from this author about past presidents leading us into a nuclear war!!!
Here’s where we probably part ways. I tend to try and understand the purpose of what is written rather than observe it is written by my partisan enemy, and therefore begin reading with the intent to disagree and counter the argument even before I’ve read it. I am the furthest thing from a leftist/progressive. But I recognize a leftist/progressive opinion is worthy of listening to. And sometimes it is a valid opinion that I probably should incorporate into my own thinking. I don’t know you well enough to accuse you of behaving differently. And if I’m coming off as pretending to be superior to you I apologize. I think one of the reasons our country is so dangerously divided is because both sides refuse to actually listen to each other. I watch as people on this board attempt to score gotcha points on their supposed adversaries and it frightens me to contemplate the future. I did not see this article as an attempt to destroy Trump, but rather a clarion call to return to the representative democracy we pride ourselves in being. The fact that it comes from a leftist is immaterial to me.
I worry more about some third world country with psychotic oppressive leader(s), nukes and nothing to lose over Trump. This article tries not to be biased against Trump, but it definitely is.
Also, the author obviously prefers but kissing and bend over diplomacy over what's best for us.
Also, the author obviously prefers but kissing and bend over diplomacy over what's best for us.
@Ponca Dan - where are the similar articles about President Obama?
Thanks for posting those articles!!!!
Thanks for posting those articles!!!!
One guy does not have the authority or the ability to launch our nations nuclear weapons. There is a two man rule in effect.
Ponca said the author wrote similiar articles when Obama was President. I did a cursory search and didn’t find anything. But I’ll take Ponca at his word that the author did. It would be interesting to read that viewpoint so hopefully he will post a link to those articles.
Thank you for your reply. I agree that we should be concerned about/fear ANY leader of a country with a nuclear arsenal. Mad men seem to have an uncanny knack for rising to political power.
You are correct that the author fears Trump may be just such a person. I don’t think he is, but there are plenty of people that disagree with my assessment. Whether he is or not is not the point. Putting that much potential military destruction into the hands of one person, regardless of who it is, is foolish. That is the reason I posted the link.
I apparently disagree with you (and agree with the author) in that I believe diplomacy is the most important factor in international relations. Military destruction should be the last resort, and only in defense of our homeland.
American leaders following the collapse of the USSR have determined the best approach is the military option, bullying our allies, interfering in conflicts that have no bearing on our country’s security, slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians in the name of protecting our way of life. It is a misguided approach, and it has led to our involvement in unrelenting warfare that hinders our international standing and has cost us the lives of thousands of our young men, trillions of wasted dollars, and a steady erosion of our individual liberty.
I am certain I disagree with almost everything the author stands for. But I don’t see anyone on the right expressing alarm over what our country has become and the future that awaits us. If I do see such a right-wing article I promise I will link it to this board.
I regret you consider the links I post to be so worthless. One good thing about it is you don’t have to click onto them, which will spare you much aggravation.
I dearly hope you are correct that Trump will not get us into a nuclear war. I don’t think he wants such a thing. On the other hand he has expressed sentiments of bringing fury to North Korea, so his rhetoric and thin skin does give one pause. The fact that his primary consultant on these issues is John Bolton should cause you to shudder. I doubt there is another American alive who wants to test our mettle against Russia as much as that man. It is you who is living in a fantasy world if you can’t see that.
Actually I’m a fairly intelligent person. I generally avoid trying to insult someone with whom I have a political disagreement. You should try it sometime!
As for your request for “Obama posts” you’ve got me. I can’t find any. In my defense I read a lot of articles from a lot of perspectives and, to be honest, they all run together after awhile. I obviously misspoke earlier. Please accept my apology!
My issue with you isn't focused on political disagreements but your know it all attitude. You're always right and other posters just don't see the correct view about these situations.
A few other posters already called you out for almost the same exact reasons in this thread and again you said they were misguided not you.
I believe they were correct about the author having TDS, and you were wrong because you made up the Obama story to fit your narrative.
Please, try to stop looking at everything President Trump does as negative. The media has you fooled
You obviously are new to my postings. I have spent as much time defending Trump as I have in criticizing him. IMO there are two sides to the Trump Derangement Syndrome. On the one hand there are the looney leftists and establishment Republicans that would criticize Trump for taking a daily constitutional. While the flip side of the coin are those that defend Trump no matter what he says or does regardless of any negative consequences. Their hatred of the left and Democrats is equally as vile and viscous as the left’s hatred of Trump.
I truly regret that I come off as being “holier than thou.” It is not my intention, nor is it how I view myself. I try to state my point of view succinctly and without furor, and attempt to defend that view as rationally as I know how.
It always surprises me when a person with a differing perspective accuses me of being too rigid in my opinion, as if it is my duty to recognize their superior argument and wilt from it, without bothering to listen to or respect my argument. I fully recognize I am unlikely to lure such a person to my side. My arguments are mainly aimed at anyone who has not yet made up his mind on a subject, in hopes I can persuade them of its correctness. I have learned that insulting someone with whom I am having a conversation rarely leads the “uncomitted” to my side.
Here’s my take...lol at anyone that thinks trump and the red button is really a risk. I believe he truly cares about America and sticking up for our interests, but how far would he go? Would he risk his family legacy/fortune with nuclear war? There’s no way.
Dan,
I agree with you and I don't just default to the byline. In fact I read the article twice before I read the byline. If you've read this board as long as I know you have, you know I don't play gotcha or care about scoring points. I even encourage the left to post discussion topics because I want to hear alternative sides and positions.
I actually agree with the premise that no president should have singular authority for first strike nuclear attacks. However, this story wasn't about that. It was about the fact that we need this now because its Trump. This quote from the story says as much: "More worrying still, our current president has shown an alarming willingness to engage in aggression instead of diplomacy".
One of the things I have always appreciated about you is your lack of playing “gotcha.” You are one of the good ones with whom to have a discussion. I believe we agree on as many issues as disagree. In that regard I have never found you to be anything but civil in your comments. It has always been a pleasure to read your opinion.
Similar threads
