His brinksmanship with Iran should have put an end to the idea that Hillary would have been worse on imperialism. We traded acts of war with a country bigger and more developed than anyone we've fought since WWII and were hours from an attack that would escalate things beyond the point of no return.
Libs suck, we get it, but it's embarrassing to keep bending over backwards to pretend Trump is kinda sorta OK on this point.
eh, im sympathetic to the idea that sometimes his incompetence and arrogance stops him from doing a bad thing, but yeah. i dont even see what the point of comparing how bad hillary would have been vs trump. we'll never know, other than that both are complete shit.
The thing is, he only has to fuck up once. It's like giving someone who's blackout drunk a gun and telling them to shoot someone across the room. They might fuck up a lot and do no major damage, but you can't count on their incompetence forever. And when they're at that level of incompetence you can't count on them balking at something insane, like invading a country with 80 million people, many in major metro areas.
Some generic Democratic president will still do coups and drone terrorism, but they generally don't have the type of ideological commitment to major wars conservatives have and they won't bungle their way into one like Trump.
well, i don't disagree, but i am sympathetic to people who think trump's incompetence has led to luck. but with the murder of solemani, i dunno, shit is really really bad so i wouldn't say i agree with it, but i am sympathetic.
The Syrian civil war would still be a high-intensity conflict right now if Clinton had won and American bombers would have joined Saudi bombers in Yemen, and god knows what fuckery she would get up to in Libya in the quest to defend her "legacy"
Somewhere around 400,000-600,000 people have been killed in Syria. If an invasion of Iran killed about 10% of the pre-war population (as was the case with Iraq) we're looking at 8+ million deaths. It's an order of magnitude difference.
You can't use a hypothetical action to argue Hillary would have been worse and then completely discount a hypothetical where Trump isn't talked out of war with Iran at the last possible minute.
She was Secretary of State from 2009-2013; our involvement started to escalate in 2014.
I get it, she's not good, but too many leftists are so eager to rip on her that they circle back to ridiculous stuff like "Trump's actually better here."
Escalation began in 2012 when western arms began showing up in rebel hands and Obama extended political and media recognition to them that same year, putting the start of American involvement in 2014 is blatant misinformation
idk, trump has actually ramped up drones quite a bit. but then his coup in venezuela failed so thats good
His brinksmanship with Iran should have put an end to the idea that Hillary would have been worse on imperialism. We traded acts of war with a country bigger and more developed than anyone we've fought since WWII and were hours from an attack that would escalate things beyond the point of no return.
Libs suck, we get it, but it's embarrassing to keep bending over backwards to pretend Trump is kinda sorta OK on this point.
eh, im sympathetic to the idea that sometimes his incompetence and arrogance stops him from doing a bad thing, but yeah. i dont even see what the point of comparing how bad hillary would have been vs trump. we'll never know, other than that both are complete shit.
The thing is, he only has to fuck up once. It's like giving someone who's blackout drunk a gun and telling them to shoot someone across the room. They might fuck up a lot and do no major damage, but you can't count on their incompetence forever. And when they're at that level of incompetence you can't count on them balking at something insane, like invading a country with 80 million people, many in major metro areas.
Some generic Democratic president will still do coups and drone terrorism, but they generally don't have the type of ideological commitment to major wars conservatives have and they won't bungle their way into one like Trump.
well, i don't disagree, but i am sympathetic to people who think trump's incompetence has led to luck. but with the murder of solemani, i dunno, shit is really really bad so i wouldn't say i agree with it, but i am sympathetic.
The Syrian civil war would still be a high-intensity conflict right now if Clinton had won and American bombers would have joined Saudi bombers in Yemen, and god knows what fuckery she would get up to in Libya in the quest to defend her "legacy"
Somewhere around 400,000-600,000 people have been killed in Syria. If an invasion of Iran killed about 10% of the pre-war population (as was the case with Iraq) we're looking at 8+ million deaths. It's an order of magnitude difference.
Did Trump invade Iran?
Did Hillary escalate the Syrian Civil War?
You can't use a hypothetical action to argue Hillary would have been worse and then completely discount a hypothetical where Trump isn't talked out of war with Iran at the last possible minute.
lol yes she did, she was literally Secretary of State, who do you think was funding the "moderate" rebels?
She was Secretary of State from 2009-2013; our involvement started to escalate in 2014.
I get it, she's not good, but too many leftists are so eager to rip on her that they circle back to ridiculous stuff like "Trump's actually better here."
Escalation began in 2012 when western arms began showing up in rebel hands and Obama extended political and media recognition to them that same year, putting the start of American involvement in 2014 is blatant misinformation