10-18-2022, 01:25 PM
(10-18-2022, 12:38 PM)Dill Wrote: Interesting. No doubt Trump would have kept us from protecting Ukraine's sovereignty, if he could.
I highly doubt that, but I know why thinking that is comforting to you.
Quote:One "could" indeed make the argument that US policy towards Russia was/is a major contributor towards Putin's aggression, since I have already done so in this forum.
Yes, it's hardly a unique position as it is a clear and obvious one. But self congratulations are the best type of congratulations.
Quote:But that wouldn't make the U.S. leadership who supported it, Republican or Democrat, "warmongers." That decades long encroachment was not like the invasion of Iraq or the illegal assassination of an Iranian general and other direct applications of military violence.
No, that on its own would not be sufficient to earn that label, agreed. Also, how is killing a known international terrorist "illegal"? Was the killing of Osama Bin Laden illegal as well?
Quote:And sure, Gabbard can "absolutely" view Biden's upholding of international law through a special "lens," a camera obscura that inverts the political world so that the defender of Ukraine's national sovereignty and political freedom is the war monger and the Dems are the party that "weaponizes the security state" against opponents.
That is one way to view it, and the one that is obviously the most palatable to you. Alas, your opinion on Gabbard is once more just that, your opinion. You disagree with her, many do not. But stating your opinion as fact has been you MO in this thread, so continuing to do so is at least consistent.
Quote:But it's not a "wholly subjective" determination that Trump, not "Democrats," intended to use the DOD to seize ballot boxes, wanted the DOJ to attack political enemies, and to subvert the legal transfer of power to Biden, any more than whether Putin or Biden is the warmonger now is "wholly subjective."
Why are those two things mutually exclusive? I know it's very easy for you to fall back on "but Trump did X" instead of examining what may be legitimate criticism of your own party. But Trump's excesses do not excuse those of others, nor do they mitigate them, no matter how much you clearly wish it were otherwise.
Quote:But anyone adopting that T. Carlson lens slips free of any responsible factual grounding--"it's all subjective"--and becomes enmeshed in all manner of double standards and logical inconsistency. Smart people don't go there. Gabbard did.
Quote:
Except you've established zero factual basis for your claims of "double standards" and "logical inconsistency". You disagreeing with her positions does not invalidate them nor validate the labels you choose to slap on her positions. Nor does going on a show you dislike evidence of anything you claim. Is everyone who goes on Joy Reid's show a homophobe like her? You may lack the empathy to understand why people think differently than you, or the wisdom to understand that your opinion isn't automatically correct because it's yours. I don't know, maybe it's something else, but your position on this is surprisingly strong considering its shaky foundation.
You can feel free to respond, not that you need my permission to do so. But I personally think we've mined this thread of any possible value. You have an opinion, that Gabbard is the least intelligent Dem at the national level. I find that opinion laughable, extremely so. No need to have long winded conversations beyond that simple acknowledgement.
