Politics Random, Random

[ponchi101]

To say that he is not a warmonger is kind of strange. He is continuously delivering threats: imposing tariffs, claiming to fine countries, saying he will force countries to do things he can't (Mexico was going to pay for the wall).
He did not start a war because there were no wars to start. He did nothing to stop the conflict in Sirya, took no position on the invasion of Crimea (as Obama didn't either) and really likes to mingle with dictators.
4 years of not starting a war does not make a pacifist. He was a clearer danger to the west than Obama or Clinton (on which we will certainly disagree).

[Suliso]

Trump really bad for pretty much any country hoping for any help.

[dave g]

While Trump might not be bad for your country, he certainly would be bad for mine.

[ti-amie]

Sound on.

[ti-amie]

He said that the dog is a "rent a dog" given to him by the campaign to make him look like a dog lover and that they've had him since he was eight months old so that he doesn't understand why people say that the dog is not his.

I hope everyone got the Ayn Rand shout out...

[ashkor87]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/21/us/p ... party.html

i am not the only one who thinks there will be a third party...!

[ashkor87]

While Trump might not be bad for your country, he certainly would be bad for mine.

agree.. which is why my caveat - not being an American, and not being a voter, I am less concerned about the US than about the rest of the world..

[ashkor87]

Trump really bad for pretty much any country hoping for any help.

wht about countries who want to be left alone? I am sure you will agree American interventionism has been the most destructive force on the planet.. Trump will not intervene at the drop of a hat, which is good.

[ashkor87]

To say that he is not a warmonger is kind of strange. He is continuously delivering threats: imposing tariffs, claiming to fine countries, saying he will force countries to do things he can't (Mexico was going to pay for the wall).
He did not start a war because there were no wars to start. He did nothing to stop the conflict in Sirya, took no position on the invasion of Crimea (as Obama didn't either) and really likes to mingle with dictators.
4 years of not starting a war does not make a pacifist. He was a clearer danger to the west than Obama or Clinton (on which we will certainly disagree).

point is, he is not an interventionist - which is good for the rest of the world. Since WW 2, what good has American inteventionism done? Destroyed the Middle East, destroyed Vietnam and Cambodia, killed millions of people and created ISIS and the Taliban (let us not forget AlQaeda was initially funded by the CIA)

[Suliso]

Trump really bad for pretty much any country hoping for any help.

wht about countries who want to be left alone? I am sure you will agree American interventionism has been the most destructive force on the planet.. Trump will not intervene at the drop of a hat, which is good.

No, I won't agree with that at all!!! My country would not be independent at all without some American interventionism. You're just talking here from a perspective of a huge country...

[ponchi101]

...

point is, he is not an interventionist - which is good for the rest of the world. Since WW 2, what good has American inteventionism done? Destroyed the Middle East, destroyed Vietnam and Cambodia, killed millions of people and created ISIS and the Taliban (let us not forget AlQaeda was initially funded by the CIA)

Nicaragua. Thanks to American interventionism, Nicaragua was able to topple a leftist, communist government that ruined the country. The USA funded the CONTRA's who reached a level of proper arming, enough to sit down and have conversations with the Sandinistas and return to democracy.
(Then Nicaraguans were so stupid they elected Ortega again and there they are, and the USA have left them alone).
Chile. Certainly, the Pinochet dictatorship was a brutal regime, and it did commit crimes against humanity. But Chile was spared of what has happened in Venezuela, where idiot leftist policies destroyed a country. Chile did go through a period of no-democracy but its economy was solid and was not destroyed when the country transitioned back to democracy. The USA intervened in Chile and today, Chile is the most solid economy in the region, having been spared the lunacy that has swept Argentina for decades.
The Balkans. Yes, the USA intervened in the region when hundreds of thousands of people were about to spill onto the rest of Europe because a group of Nazis were ready to slaughter them. Europe did not want to intervene nor help, so it was America that had to bomb Milosevic and his gang.
Afghanistan. You just said it. The USA funded Al Qaeda. And in doing so, they stopped the USSR from taking Afghanistan. This was "good" at the time. Sure, the plan backfired because Al Qaeda was established but, at that moment, it prevented the USSR from taking over that country.

Certainly, not all American intervention has been positive. They performed actions in Central America that were political disasters. They propped up the Argentinian dictators of the 70's, but that in turn also stopped Argentina from the same fate that was awaiting Chile. The invasion of Iraq, as disastrous as it seems, was lauded by the Kurds, who were a favorite target of Saddam. It is a mixed bag because politics is not a science, but to say that the intervention of America in foreign policy has always been ruinous is not accurate.
Compare that to the interventions performed by Russia (the creation of the USSR) or by China (Nepal) and then you see that interventions come in many flavors.
How I wish the USA would intervene in my country.

[ponchi101]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/21/us/p ... party.html

i am not the only one who thinks there will be a third party...!

There are third parties. The Green Party, and the Libertarians. But they are insignificant.
And I believe it would be good for the USA to have a third party. This idea that you can only have two platforms is rather silly.

[dryrunguy]

The problem with a third party is that you would have to have third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, etc., parties because the people tempted by alternatives to the current Democrat/Republican options are tempted for disparate and completely incompatible reasons. For example, some could be attracted to an anti-abortion party, which could never unify with another party based on an entirely pro-feminist platform. A party mostly focused on racial equity could never unify with another group pushing for white supremacy. And so on. A single third party could never accumulate a tent big enough to attract enough people to truly be competitive.

Now, that said, if Black and Latino voters could find a way to join forces, that party would have the numbers to be effective. The problem, however, would probably go back to the first paragraph I wrote... I have no idea what kind of political platform they could collectively establish without it all falling apart at the policy development stage.

[ti-amie]

The problem with a third party is that you would have to have third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, etc., parties because the people tempted by alternatives to the current Democrat/Republican options are tempted for disparate and completely incompatible reasons. For example, some could be attracted to an anti-abortion party, which could never unify with another party based on an entirely pro-feminist platform. A party mostly focused on racial equity could never unify with another group pushing for white supremacy. And so on. A single third party could never accumulate a tent big enough to attract enough people to truly be competitive.

Now, that said, if Black and Latino voters could find a way to join forces, that party would have the numbers to be effective. The problem, however, would probably go back to the first paragraph I wrote... I have no idea what kind of political platform they could collectively establish without it all falling apart at the policy development stage.

Also don't forget that there is no unified "Latino" political view. What would be good for Puerto Rico might not be good for the Dominican Republic. What Mexican people want/need is different from what people in Costa Rica or Nicaragua or Honduras need. What about Venezuelans, Colombians, Brazilians, Argentine people?

JMHO but the only Latino group that has a unified vision and has from its arrival here is made up of the descendants of the Cuban people who fled when Castro took over. They're firmly allied with what was the GOP and is now the MAGAt party.

This is why your last sentence is so true Dry.

[ponchi101]

How about the people that are not at the extremes? The people that want guns, but regulated? The people that accept abortion, but not after the second trimester? The people Bill Maher calls "The Normies".
Not everybody is extreme. Those are the ones you could group around an agenda. The ones that are for ethical treatment of animals, but enjoy their BBQ on Sundays.