BREAKING: US Launches Tomahawks Into Syria

[timosman]

I agree and think they need to be reminded of what the choices were.

Trump - Despite some contradictory doubletalk he ran on not invading Syria, peace with Russia and was getting bashed as an isolationist over foreign policy statements. Ran as a nationalist, anti-globalist with a strong immigration and trade platform.

Hillary - ran as a known interventionist that wanted to shoot Russia plans out of the sky with a no-fly zone in Syria. Globalist, establishment status quo, supported TPP, need I say more.

Rand Paul - by summer of 15 his campaign was effectively over by his establishment pivot on tax, immigration and BLM. By August 15 it was pretty clear at that point he was not a serious candidate and was using the race to advance his senate campaign while clearly without shadow of a doubt was only running an educational campaign (as observed from his campaign stop speeches). A stepping stone campaign for 2020 due to a predicted Trump loss in 2016.

Daryl Castle - not a serious candidate and no effort being made to run a national campaign. More likely a campaign to advance his radio show.

Gary Johnson - supported a no fly zone in Syria while sounding totally ignorant on Syria. "What is Aleppo? Ran on open borders, pro TPP and had nutty Bill Weld on his ticket. A candidate no average voter would take seriously.

These options are pretty pathetic for a nation of over 300,000,000 citizens.

 

[AuH20]

Honestly, there should be just a photo of Ivanka.

 

[CPUd]

_______________________________________________

Honestly, there should be just a photo of Ivanka.

 

[undergroundrr]

I agree and think they need to be reminded of what the choices were.

I agree with your takes on Hillary and Castle. Here's what I'd say about the others.

trump - who knows what he stands for? used to be a progressive who funded democrats, but now says he's a conservative who has most recently funded neocons. might shake things up.
Gary Johnson - no chance of winning but might make third parties more viable if he shows well. Free marketer with leftist social tendencies. Who cares who his VP is - they're not going to win.
Jill Stein - no chance of winning but might make third parties more viable if she shows well. Socialist.

 

[undergroundrr]

https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2017/04/07/rep-walter-jones-r-nc-statement-on-syria-strikes/

Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) Statement on Syria Strikes
Rep. Walter Jones Posted on April 7, 2017
Today (4/7/17), Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC-3) released the following statement regarding the launch of U.S. airstrikes in Syria:

“Regardless of the circumstances, no American president has the constitutional right to commit acts of war against a sovereign nation without approval from Congress,” said Congressman Jones. “As clearly stated in the Constitution, Congress has the sole power to declare war. This is a dangerous precedent for the president to set for the new administration.”

For additional information, please contact Allison Tucker in Congressman Walter Jones’ office at [email protected].

 

[twomp]

Honestly, there should be just a photo of Ivanka.

Translation = it's never Trump's fault.

 

[nikcers]

I agree with your takes on Hillary and Castle. Here's what I'd say about the others.

trump - who knows what he stands for? used to be a progressive who funded democrats, but now says he's a conservative who has most recently funded neocons. might shake things up.
Gary Johnson - no chance of winning but might make third parties more viable if he shows well. Free marketer with leftist social tendencies. Who cares who his VP is - they're not going to win.
Jill Stein - no chance of winning but might make third parties more viable if she shows well. Socialist.

Is there any doubt at this point?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Just a heads up to site mission supporters.

I just got a neg rep from Brian4liberty warning me not to antagonize people or name-call.

Last time that happened it was after Dannno reported me for using profanity in a private message to him and resulted soon after in a ban.

So just tread carefully. Support for the site mission is a dangerous thing around here.

Everyone needs to get away from the name calling that has resulted from the contentious election. Your repeated use of "Trump trannies" and other antagonism does not help us move past the election. And the name calling applies to everyone. People who would be considered pro-Trump do get warnings at times too, usually after being reported. Not everyone publicly posts about their warnings or infractions.

As far as you being banned because of a report by Dannno, that is blatantly false. And your attempt to curry favor with the forum by accusing a vocal Trump supporter of causing your ban is disingenuous at best.

Moderation is not an easy or fun task, but we do our best to apply site guidelines across the board. We are not omnipotent, do not see everything, and often have limited time to react to reports.

Everyone's help in making the forum less divisive or counter-productive is appreciated.

 

[Pizzo]

-rep

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

 

[CPUd]

Unverified, but LOL if true:

https://twitter.com/jefftiedrich/status/850328099933835264

 

[Occam's Banana]

If every person in China withdrew their consent to be governed by those in power, the government would have no power.

Not even "every person."

It might only take a majority. Or even just a plurality. Or maybe even less than a plurality.

All it takes is "enough" people. How much is "enough?" It's impossible to say beforehand. The sufficient amount will be different under different circumstances. It's contingent upon the particulars of any given situation (such as how far the governed are willing or able to go, how much those in power are willing or able to do what it takes to remain in power, etc., etc.).

 

[Origanalist]

Not even "every person."

It might only take a majority. Or even just a plurality. Or maybe even less than a plurality.

All it takes is "enough" people. How much is "enough?" It's impossible to say beforehand. The sufficient amount will be different under different circumstances. It's contingent upon the particulars of any given situation (such as how far the governed are willing or able to go, how much those in power are willing or able to do what it takes to remain in power, etc., etc.).

Do all bananas take things so literally?

 

[Occam's Banana]

These options are pretty pathetic for a nation of over 300,000,000 citizens.

Such options are about the best you can reasonably expect. Mass democracy cannot produce anything but averages drawn upon the mob.

That is why the "choices" perennially offered by democracies are so overwhelmingly composed of wishy-washy schmucks, corrupt chiselers, and demagogic blowhards.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Do all bananas take things so literally?

Yes. Having lots of potassium has that effect.

 

[Suzanimal]

Not even "every person."

It might only take a majority. Or even just a plurality. Or maybe even less than a plurality.

All it takes is "enough" people. How much is "enough?" It's impossible to say beforehand. The sufficient amount will be different under different circumstances. It's contingent upon the particulars of any given situation (such as how far the governed are willing or able to go, how much those in power are willing or able to do what it takes to remain in power, etc., etc.).

I think that we'll know what enough is when mandatory voting starts being taken more seriously.

Some places are already offering incentives...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ost-voter-turnout&highlight=voting+incentives

and Obama started trying to mainstream the idea of mandatory voting.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ry-calling-it-potentially-transformative.html

 

[AuH20]

 

[AuH20]

Now Fareed Zakaria loves Trump. Amazing!

 

[Occam's Banana]

Gary Johnson - no chance of winning but might make third parties more viable if he shows well. Free marketer with leftist social tendencies. Who cares who his VP is - they're not going to win.

How does having a shill for another party's candidate as one's VP candidate make one's own party more "viable" or more likely to "show well?"

If anything, third parties ought to care a great deal about who their VP candidates are - at least, they should if they hope ever to be "viable" or to "show well" ...

 

[CPUd]

No comment, tweet posted for context:

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/850425431899680768

 

[AngryCanadian]

Graham has demanded That US places 7000 to 5000 puts on the ground in Syria to take out Assad.