Anyone Watch the Latest Democrat Debate? Anyone care?

[_canpakes]

... ultimately, you care about the US much, more more than you care about Trump, don't you?

Chap, I can’t speak to ajax’s exact sentiments here, but I suspect that he would process that equation in the same way as many other folks who identify themselves more as part of a cultural tribe with cultural boundaries that may or may not coincide with legally-defined ‘borders’. Examples would include Kurds, Islamic State, Catalonians, and a good number of folks in the American South who still find more kinship and/or pride within the Stars and Bars and past glory of the Confederate States than the modern US. To that end, Trump is seen as facilitating those cultural ideals much more so than the direction of the nation as a whole, therefore Trump will be held in higher esteem than ‘the US’, as you put it, and protecting Trump demands more allegiance and importance than protecting the idea of the modern-day 50-state Union.

This conclusion doesn't intend to sound disparaging; it’s just a practical reading of ajax’s posts. He hasn’t shied away from suggesting that revolution or civil war is on the horizon, and that it would be driven by a desire to preserve the cultural identity of what he views his Regional America to be. Were that to result in a fragmented nation that reconstituted into several multi-state unions - each with a supposedly more homogenous or cohesive set of ideals held by their populations - then the better goal would supposedly be realized.

Other Trump fans like subs, though, don’t let their anarchistic self-interest intersect with this viewpoint. As example, subs is completely aware that if his region ended up being part of ajax’s preferred multi-state spinoff, the end result would not bode well for subs’s economic or personal future.

[_Chap]

Chap, I can’t speak to ajax’s exact sentiments here, but I suspect that he would process that equation in the same way as many other folks who identify themselves more as part of a cultural tribe with cultural boundaries that may or may not coincide with legally-defined ‘borders’. Examples would include [people] in the American South who still find more kinship and/or pride within the Stars and Bars and past glory of the Confederate States than the modern US. To that end, Trump is seen as facilitating those cultural ideals much more so than the direction of the nation as a whole, therefore Trump will be held in higher esteem than ‘the US’, as you put it, and protecting Trump demands more allegiance and importance than protecting the idea of the modern-day 50-state Union.

Of course. I should have thought of that. Thanks for this gentle and courteous reminder.

How naïve of me to think that someone who talks so much about 'us' does not necessarily mean 'the US'.

[_Dr. Shades]

Let's think ... so why does a relatively poor country like Russia spend so much on its armed forces? Why is China steadily building up an ever larger and ever more sophisticated war-fighting capacity? I suppose they are just going to provide a 'police service'? Or could it be that they maintain those ever-growing forces because they see them as essential in advancing and protecting their political and economic interests? Just like every other large country has, since the beginning of warfare?

In your opinion, is doing so a good thing?

[_ajax18]

Other Trump fans like subs, though, don’t let their anarchistic self-interest intersect with this viewpoint. As example, subs is completely aware that if his region ended up being part of ajax’s preferred multi-state spinoff, the end result would not bode well for subs’s economic or personal future.

I don't think Subgenius feels that way. If he does he shouldn't. The only people who would need to fear a state governed by people like me are those not willing to work.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

... ultimately, you care about the US much, more more than you care about Trump, don't you?

Chap, I can’t speak to ajax’s exact sentiments here, but I suspect that he would process that equation in the same way as many other folks who identify themselves more as part of a cultural tribe with cultural boundaries that may or may not coincide with legally-defined ‘borders’. Examples would include Kurds, Islamic State, Catalonians, and a good number of folks in the American South who still find more kinship and/or pride within the Stars and Bars and past glory of the Confederate States than the modern US. To that end, Trump is seen as facilitating those cultural ideals much more so than the direction of the nation as a whole, therefore Trump will be held in higher esteem than ‘the US’, as you put it, and protecting Trump demands more allegiance and importance than protecting the idea of the modern-day 50-state Union.

This conclusion doesn't intend to sound disparaging; it’s just a practical reading of ajax’s posts. He hasn’t shied away from suggesting that revolution or civil war is on the horizon, and that it would be driven by a desire to preserve the cultural identity of what he views his Regional America to be. Were that to result in a fragmented nation that reconstituted into several multi-state unions - each with a supposedly more homogenous or cohesive set of ideals held by their populations - then the better goal would supposedly be realized.

Other Trump fans like subs, though, don’t let their anarchistic self-interest intersect with this viewpoint. As example, subs is completely aware that if his region ended up being part of ajax’s preferred multi-state spinoff, the end result would not bode well for subs’s economic or personal future.

Spot. damned. On.

- Doc

[_canpakes]

Name a single other Republican who could get the Democrats to beat the war drums and call us into combat?

What Democratic Congresscritters are calling for combat, and against which entity?

ajax?

[_ajax18]

What Democratic Congresscritters are calling for combat, and against which entity?

ajax?[/quote]

If you want to keep fighting there, you have the potential for another Iraq or Vietnam. So, criticizing the president for withdrawl is the same as calling us to war. If Trump had kept troops there they would criticize and condemn him the same way they condemned GWB. Then they would condemn how we fought basically making our troops fight with hands tied behind their back so as to minimize enemy casualties at our expense as they did in both Vietnam and Iraq.

WASHINGTON—Democratic presidential contenders are unanimously condemning President Trump’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, calling the decision a reckless move that undermines allies in the region while emboldening adversaries.

But when pressed to detail an alternate strategy in Syria, the candidates are hesitant to spell out what their policies toward engagement in the Middle East would entail.

So if we do end up going to war in Syria, it's going to be hard for Democrats to say, "We said we should have never been there in the first place." But they undoubtedly will and CNN will follow the narrative.

[_canpakes]

So, criticizing the president for withdrawl is the same as calling us to war.

Allow me to illustrate the fault in your reasoning.

If you were a good Catholic fellow, and relied on the withdrawal method during sex to avoid getting your wife pregnant, but you then badly botched your withdrawal such that you created a mess both inside and outside of ‘the territory’, then a critique of your action by your wife would not be the same as her wanting to become pregnant.

So, the Kurds were screwed during withdrawal, and Trump - in his usual sort of way, couldn’t pull out in a way that worked for both parties.

[_DoubtingThomas]

For the first time, I was a little put off by Buttigieg.

That guy is running for office as a gay religious pastor, he thinks god is going to help him as president. Assigieg wants to increase military spending, but the truth is our country doesn't need the most power military in the world, what the US really needs is the best NMD system in the world. At the moment our NMD system really sucks and we are not safe. Idiots like Assigieg would keep wasting billions of dollars in the military.

. If you listen to her answers, she's implicitly saying she would raise taxes, but you'll be better off.

But no promise on fighting cancer or other diseases. I think medical research funding should be a priority. Biden is the only democrat that promised to fight cancer and disease. There is no point on having a good healthcare if treatment only helps you live just a couple of more years. We really need to go after the cure.

I completely agree with him that Democrats should avoid character attacks at all costs. This is not the time to be providing the right with sound bytes.

I disagree.

[_subgenius]

...So, the Kurds were screwed during withdrawal, and Trump - in his usual sort of way, couldn’t pull out in a way that worked for both parties.

Your clumsy "pull-out" analogy neglects to recognize that the sex was consensual and the risks for a mess, clumsy pull-out, or even pregnancy etc are mutually applicable to both parties.
But I am curious about this modern and progressive relationship where you consider a US and Kurd to be akin to 2 Catholics using the "pull-out" instead of the tried and true, and prevalent among Catholics, Fertility Awareness-Based Method (not to be confused with good ole rhythm method).
I feel like a better analogy, for your crude attempt at a logical criticism, should have been framed around a back-alley sexual assault where Bif the star quarterback date rapes the wannabe cheerleader muslim girl who just wants her father to pay the price for being so oppressive of her new found love of American high school life. And instead of a failed pull-out, Bif either got her pregnant and Bif's mother paid for the abortion, Bif's father encouraged denial, of the girl is shamed by her family and her brother kills her because of the shame it brings to him as chess club captain....or Bif gets it in her hair and then ignores her in class the next day.
Either way, the important part is that Bif drives a camaro.