Politics

[Bushpig4Ever]

 

[rookhawk]

Therein lies the first of many differences of opinion that I'm sure you and I have. I personally would never be so arrogant as to assert my opinion of another nation unless the leader of that country or it's foreign policy had a direct affect on my livelihood or freedoms. As long as you are not interfering with my freedoms, how your government or its leaders run your country is your business, not mine.. Now, if you want to argue that Trump's policies have directly affected you, then we can certainly have that debate. Otherwise, the critical opinions of my country or this POTUS by a non-American citizen (or a democrat) means nothing to me.

It's interesting to me and likely anyone who has followed history in the last 100 years or so, to see the trend of the criticism from foreign nations toward the USA as it has grown in to the superpower that it is.. They all either hate us or chastise us for our arrogance until they need us. Conveniently, the perceived arrogance they accuse us of never seems to keep them from cashing the checks or receiving the troops.

it sounds as though you are 100% non-interventionist in your worldview? For me, I’m concerned with how our allies run their countries and particularly that they are safe from incursions. (Israel, Poland, etc) I’m then concerned with potential for political or ideological revolution destabilizing the world, e.g. Turkey. Then I’m concerned for people, particularly women and children living under dictatorship such as Afghanistan, Libya, etc. Lastly, I’m worried about national policies that have made their nations the crapholes they are, e.g. Zimbabwe.

All complaints in any direction are fair game by me. The only reason to take a position that examination and scrutiny is not allowed would be if you’re 100% non-interventionist.

 

[WAB]

A friend of mine (one of my university profs) is a Jew from Tarnow, Poland. He survived the Holocaust as a boy. Most of the Jews in Tarnow did not. You don’t have to visit with Israel for long to realize that there are times when you must intervene. Edmund Burke put it well when he repeated John Stuart Mill’s words “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

If you want a vivid reminder of why we at times have no choice but to engage, read his book, ‘The Unwritten Diaries of Israel Unger’.

 

[Ray B]

The issue of people from one country interfering with the actions of people in another country is always fraught with issues of justification and validity. Since everyone sees their own actions as justified and information about actual events may be incomplete it is difficult to assess the need for intervention. Seen historically one gets a better view of what was done or what should have been done, but in all cases, the events are interpreted by the winners of a conflict. so even the Monday Quarterbacks will have differing opinions.

 

[Timbo]

Therein lies the first of many differences of opinion that I'm sure you and I have. I personally would never be so arrogant as to assert my opinion of another nation unless the leader of that country or it's foreign policy had a direct affect on my livelihood or freedoms. As long as you are not interfering with my freedoms, how your government or its leaders run your country is your business, not mine.. Now, if you want to argue that Trump's policies have directly affected you, then we can certainly have that debate. Otherwise, the critical opinions of my country or this POTUS by a non-American citizen (or a democrat) means nothing to me.

It's interesting to me and likely anyone who has followed history in the last 100 years or so, to see the trend of the criticism from foreign nations toward the USA as it has grown in to the superpower that it is.. They all either hate us or chastise us for our arrogance until they need us. Conveniently, the perceived arrogance they accuse us of never seems to keep them from cashing the checks or receiving the troops.

This is a forum upon which all can - and do -contribute comments and opinions. On that basis I cannot see what your latest post has contributed to furthering the discussion. This site is dedicated to hunting, and a lot of what I've posted here has been directed at the politics or policies from African countries which affect our sport: not the latest from the US campaign trail. But - just as in the previous one - a lot of posts in this thread relate directly to the US elections. So don't take offence if members from other countries post comments, especially when the sitting POTUS has racked up the number of his own staff who have been improsoned, or who has been investigated for impeachment.

Therefore if subject matter comes up, that I wish to comment on, I and others will - and I for my part it won't concern me what you think about it either. So, I repeat, feel free to post your comments if/when ever my country's government, or it's leader, are ever critiqued here - as I've got a thick enough hide not to get inflamed over a non-citizen's views.

As for stopping the POTUS in sending your troops into other country's bush wars, if you don't like it, then use the political processes of your country to have it stopped, or at least get that policy reviwed - as a non-citizen, I can sympathise, but can't do anything to help you with that problem.

 

[Longwalker]

A printer was giving these off-spec signs out to post in front yards. Something went awry with the header he said? Grabbed a dozen for the front yard, neighbors and up at the farm...

View attachment 367233

That is so beneath any principled discussion that it should prompt worry for the poor lost soul who could post such a thing and think it adds something positive to a debate regarding a difference of political philosophies.

 

[Hogpatrol]

 

[BSO Dave]

it sounds as though you are 100% non-interventionist in your worldview? For me, I’m concerned with how our allies run their countries and particularly that they are safe from incursions. (Israel, Poland, etc) I’m then concerned with potential for political or ideological revolution destabilizing the world, e.g. Turkey. Then I’m concerned for people, particularly women and children living under dictatorship such as Afghanistan, Libya, etc. Lastly, I’m worried about national policies that have made their nations the crapholes they are, e.g. Zimbabwe.

All complaints in any direction are fair game by me. The only reason to take a position that examination and scrutiny is not allowed would be if you’re 100% non-interventionist.

Absolutely not... I'm far from being an isolationist. A strong military presence abroad is a historically proven concept necessary to promote deterrence as well as to provide strategic positions for the self-defense of our foreign interests and the protection of allies. I have always ascribed to the ideology that I would rather kill terrorists on their sand than our soil. My problem not with the use of military force especially in regard to the war or terrorism, but how our military has been restricted and misused by incompetent politicians and demagogues with agendas that seem to have no semblance to the goals of self-defense, the war on terror, or global stabilization.

It seems readily apparent to me that too many of our political and military leaders, especially in the last 20 years, have squandered the precious lives of our military for reasons that have nothing to do with any of the objectives mentioned above. We have had Presidents and feckless politicians from both sides of the isle stray from the originally proposed objectives. We have had more still who have consciously tied the hands of our soldiers with ridiculous rules of engagement in an apparent attempt to fight a "politically correct war".

A huge part of Trump's appeal during the campaign was that he was the first candidate since Eisenhower to call out the industrial military complex, and question these political agendas which have committed the USA to generations of too many of these endless conflicts with no clear objectives or strategic gains to show for it.

Hell, I'd volunteer for military service tomorrow (if they would have) me as long as I was guaranteed the ability to go kill terrorists. But, with that sentiment, it sickens me every time I hear of another drop of American blood shed in vain. If we are going to fight, we must assure that our troops are fighting the correct enemy for the correct reasons, and we need to fight to win. Unfortunately, that's is not what we have been doing for the last 20+ years.

 

[BSO Dave]

So don't take offence if members from other countries post comments, especially when the sitting POTUS has racked up the number of his own staff who have been improsoned, or who has been investigated for impeachment.

Why do you keep insisting that I am offended by your critical opinions of this POTUS or my country? I have been extremely clear in that I agree you have every right to post your opinions, just as much as I have the right to remind you that I regard them as inconsequential precisely because you are not an American. You can also stop with the "thick skin" stuff. I can assure you that I have a thicker skin than you ever will. I am much more amused and amazed by your nonsensical rhetoric, but hardly offended.

As for stopping the POTUS in sending your troops into other country's bush wars, if you don't like it, then use the political processes of your country to have it stopped, or at least get that policy reviwed - as a non-citizen, I can sympathise, but can't do anything to help you with that problem.

Again, you seem to have missed the point entirely.. The opposite of what you infer is actually the truth. This POTUS is the first in generations to be both extremely pro-military in terms of its strength and readiness, yet willing to be critical of past policies of military use, and exercise restraint in committing our troops in conflicts that have no apparent strategic objectives. This is something every real American applauds, and just one of several policy agendas that won him the electoral vote in a landslide in 2016.

 

[Timbo]

Why do you keep insisting that I am offended by your critical opinions of this POTUS or my country? I have been extremely clear in that I agree you have every right to post your opinions, just as much as I have the right to remind you that I regard them as inconsequential precisely because you are not an American. You can also stop with the "thick skin" stuff. I can assure you that I have a thicker skin than you ever will. I am much more amused and amazed by your nonsensical rhetoric, but hardly offended.




Again, you seem to have missed the point entirely.. The opposite of what you infer is actually the truth. This POTUS is the first in generations to be both extremely pro-military in terms of its strength and readiness, yet willing to be critical of past policies of military use, and exercise restraint in committing our troops in conflicts that have no apparent strategic objectives. This is something every real American applauds, and just one of several policy agendas that won him the electoral vote in a landslide in 2016.

Your replies to me just proves my earlier point that you've been triggered. Trying to justify your President when you've already stated my posts (as a non-citizen) are irrelevant, or inconsequential to you, just undermines your credibility.

As far as having a thicker skin than me, that's unlikely as I've since moved on, yet here you are still bitching to me about absolutely nothing.

When George W was POTUS, someone published a brilliant book called: "The Bush dyslexicon". It was a great read, compiling an accurate portrait of him - and outrageously funny in documenting his many gaffes!! Now I'm waiting for a similar book based on Trump, as I'm sure it will be just as comical. But seriously, think what you like about Trump and the military, but as these reports indicate, he's just being oppositional insofar as using them like a football for his own short-term political (electoral) gain.

Top Military Officers Unload on Trump

The commander in chief is impulsive, disdains expertise, and gets his intelligence briefings from Fox News. What does this mean for those on the front lines?

www.theatlantic.com

Trump’s Actions Rattle the Military World: ‘I Can’t Support the Man’ (Published 2020)

The president’s threat to use troops against largely peaceful protesters, as well as other attempts to politicize the military, have unsettled a number of current and former members and their families.

www.nytimes.com

Trump's Attacks Put Military In 'Presidential Campaign Minefield'

President Trump came into office with high praise for current and former generals, but now he's attacking them in ways that are unprecedented, according to military analysts.

www.npr.org

IMO he's still a twit - but that won't bother you as I'm a non-citizen, right?

 

[Hogpatrol]

Your replies to me just proves my earlier point that you've been triggered. Trying to justify your President when you've already stated my posts (as a non-citizen) are irrelevant, or inconsequential to you, just undermines your credibility.

As far as having a thicker skin than me, that's unlikely as I've since moved on, yet here you are still bitching to me about absolutely nothing.

When George W was POTUS, someone published a brilliant book called: "The Bush dyslexicon". It was a great read, compiling an accurate portrait of him - and outrageously funny in documenting his many gaffes!! Now I'm waiting for a similar book based on Trump, as I'm sure it will be just as comical. But seriously, think what you like about Trump and the military, but as these reports indicate, he's just being oppositional insofar as using them like a football for his own short-term political (electoral) gain.

Top Military Officers Unload on Trump

The commander in chief is impulsive, disdains expertise, and gets his intelligence briefings from Fox News. What does this mean for those on the front lines?

www.theatlantic.com

Trump’s Actions Rattle the Military World: ‘I Can’t Support the Man’ (Published 2020)

The president’s threat to use troops against largely peaceful protesters, as well as other attempts to politicize the military, have unsettled a number of current and former members and their families.

www.nytimes.com

Trump's Attacks Put Military In 'Presidential Campaign Minefield'

President Trump came into office with high praise for current and former generals, but now he's attacking them in ways that are unprecedented, according to military analysts.

www.npr.org

IMO he's still a twit - but that won't bother you as I'm a non-citizen, right?

Timbo, all of those media rags you posted are left wing and decidedly anti-Trump. The Atlantic is so full of misinformation, it's pathetic and the rest are hardly indicative of what passes as honest, objective journalism. For other views, this news site offers a different perspective.

AllSides | Balanced news via media bias ratings for an unbiased news perspective

See issues and political news with news bias revealed. Non-partisan, crowd-sourced technology shows all sides so you can decide.

www.allsides.com

 

[BSO Dave]

Your replies to me just proves my earlier point that you've been triggered. Trying to justify your President when you've already stated my posts (as a non-citizen) are irrelevant, or inconsequential to you, just undermines your credibility.

I guess the term "triggered" is now the new term replacing "racist" to be used by those insecure and misinformed individuals to describe the demeanor of anyone who calls them out on their bullshit narratives? If so, then yes, I am absolutely triggered.... LOL...

Your assessment of my "credibility" actually means less to me than your opinions as a non-American on our politics.

And, as @Hogpatrol correctly stated, the incredibly biased, fake news rags you posted as reference in an attempt to make your arguments are perfect examples of what characterizes your "credibility" or lack thereof, along with your TDS.

 

[Timbo]

Timbo, all of those media rags you posted are left wing and decidedly anti-Trump. The Atlantic is so full of misinformation, it's pathetic and the rest are hardly indicative of what passes as honest, objective journalism. For other views, this news site offers a different perspective.

AllSides | Balanced news via media bias ratings for an unbiased news perspective

See issues and political news with news bias revealed. Non-partisan, crowd-sourced technology shows all sides so you can decide.

www.allsides.com

I knew when I posted them, someone would say they're prejudicial. But ALL media is biased depending upon which side of the fence you sit. IMO impartial political reporting in this day and age just doesn't exist. This leaves the media wide open to vilification and accusations from either side (Democrat or Republican in this instance) if they're critical towards their Party or candidate. But thanks anyway for the reference, I will check it out.

 

[Hogpatrol]

@Timbo, don't know if this term is used in your country but here, we have one called "cherry picking". The anti-Trump propaganda machines like NYT and others seek out and "cherry pick" opinions they substitute for news. They long ago lost the ability to be objective.

 

[Timbo]

I guess the term "triggered" is now the new term replacing "racist" to be used by those insecure and misinformed individuals to describe the demeanor of anyone who calls them out on their bullshit narratives? If so, then yes, I am absolutely triggered.... LOL...

Your assessment of my "credibility" actually means less to me than your opinions as a non-American on our politics.

And, as @Hogpatrol correctly stated, the incredibly biased, fake news rags you posted as reference in an attempt to make your arguments are perfect examples of what characterizes your "credibility" or lack thereof, along with your TDS.

Nope. Wrong again! Use of the word "triggered" as used is what it means, nothing more. But I'm glad you FINALLY admit that you've been triggered. So the joke's on you, as you'll keep on being triggered by posters such as I. Those anti-Trump memes must piss you right off!!

Your reactions to my posts are just comical: you're STILL responding because I think your poster boy is a twit (and a "cockwomble").

Hogpatrol's opinion of the media quoted - and your assessment of his post - is just that, an opinion, not fact. But as I've demonstrated in my most recent post to him, I'm open enough to look deeper to challenge thinking - you clearly are not.

 

[Timbo]

@Timbo, don't know if this term is used in your country but here, we have one called "cherry picking". The anti-Trump propaganda machines like NYT and others seek out and "cherry pick" opinions they substitute for news. They long ago lost the ability to be objective.

Yeah, we have that term here, but as I said, all media pander to their readership to a greater or lesser degree.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Yeah, we have that term here, but as I said, all media pander to their readership to a greater or lesser degree.

There are some that are still middle of the road and offer non-editorial articles but the days of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite are gone.

Forgot one, David Brinkley.

 

[JimP]

You will also find that here in the US that 90% or better of the media is lead by the liberals and that is what they report on.

There was a time when the media reported the news, good or bad, it didn't matter. If it was bad for the liberals they reported it if it was bad for the conservatives it was reported without a slant towards either side, that doesn't happen anymore.

It is a lot like the so called peaceful protest that are happening right now, there are quite a few of the liberal media that refuse to admit that there are also riots going on during those "peaceful protest". The other thing that is happening right now is this Covid-19 thing. Most of the media is blaming President Trump, when it is the states Governors that are responsible for their states and what is going on in them. The President can send aide once the states request it. Which he has done in multiple states. But the media continues to blame him.

 

[Ray B]

There are some that are still middle of the road and offer non-editorial articles but the days of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite are gone.

Forgot one, David Brinkley.

Well, Edward R Murrow; Walter Cronkite lost it when he deified JFK and went to the anti-war side on Vietnam. David Brinkley was out of balance when he lost Chet Huntley. But any of them were several quantum leaps ahead of this current batch of MSM propagandists.

 

[Ray B]

Another Poll sorting method.

I have several acquaintances with differing political viewpoints and as I look at the various characteristics I find some interesting results regarding their demographics and their pets.

Large dog owners are almost always Conservative and most often Trump supporters.

Small dog owners are a split about even between Conservative and Liberal

Cat owners and invariably Liberal and while not enthusiastic about the Democrat politicians, Hate Trump.

So to save all the expense of mail-in elections, we could note all Large dog owners as votes for Trump, All cat owners as votes for Biden, then send ballots to the small dog owners to determine the balance of votes.