Again, you just keep saying this. It’s literally but a sentence you’re repeating. Repeating it again will not confer upon it a credibility it doesn’t have.
And again, a person who advocates murder of women and children as military strategy is not in any possible universe the least “militaristic” among any conceivable group of candidates. By definition. Without question.
And again – most importantly – your opinion on who is most “militaristic” doesn’t matter either way. This is about reason, competence, coolness, and base knowledge as absolute, unbendable requirements vis-a-vis what is at stake in the leadership of a military superpower, the oversight of world security interests, and the proper use of American might.
Which he’ll absolutely need, he’s not going to be getting a solid chunk of core conservative voters. That should be a give in for any republican nominee. I also see a large chunk of independents that he’s not going to have a shot at. But then again it is Trump and I was saying not long ago that he had no shot at the Reblican nomination so who knows.
You both seem to have different definitions of militaristic.
What is black and white is that Trump is "militaristic " in ways that conservatives despise. (Torture and murder of civilians) and the oposite in ways that conservatives value (wants to get along with Russia, doesn’t want to take sides with Israel.)
Hell I would honestly have a lot more respect for him if he was just a pacifist.
Anti-intellectualism doesn’t cover it. Stupidity – simpler and truer. Trump supporters are arrantly stupid by definition, as we’ve already been over…and as you’ve found yourself enirely unable to deny. There’s other stuff, too, of course: that strand of trashy, racialized xenophobia that cheered him on for lying about Mexicans in first speech; the related fascist inclinations. Without a stupid, trashy, fascist pool of garbage people, such a pile of shit as Donald Trump could not be the subject of this conversation. So, yes, that’s what I’ll blame it on.
Uh, no. You claimed without evidence that he is the least militaristic candidate in what was intended as a refutation of a point I had made. I have since explained to you that even if you were right (which you aren’t: see the part about women and children), it would not bear on my original point. Hence my explaining what “this is about.”
Clearly it shows that not even his own daughter likes him so neither should we.
On an equally important note my daughter poked me in the eye tonight when I tried to giver her a kiss goodnight. Obviously it shows I’m unfit as a parent, some call CPS
No, women and children do in fact have something very real and very important to do with it. From your link: “and be prepared to use it aggressively.”
It does not get more “aggressive” than a morally fucked (remember morality, which was always alleged to be a strong point among conservatives?), Mohamed-Attaish eagerness to use the military to murder noncombatant women and children…for military ends…in a war. A candidate who has proposed such things – they are also known as war crimes – could be the least militaristic of a bunch only if that bunch were composed of people like Napoleon Bonaparte and Genghis Khan.
That’s a really, really sweeping, judgmental, kind of statement unbecoming of someone as bright as you.[/quote]
It’s certainly judgmental, but the judgment is not arbitrary. Donald Trump has made it possible to make sweeping generalizations about large numbers of people in a way that no other candidate has in recent history. I’ve gone into a lot of detail in support of this claim in the last few days – the babbling inability to communicate, the policy nescience, the mutually contradictory statements, the general incoherence, the moral indefensibility – but this has become a lucid, representative formulation: you cannot but be an utter idiot if you are willing to put this man…
…in charge of this…
I’m not talking about what is suggested or what is probable. I am talking about what is certain: intelligence and the above proposition are mutually exclusive. I know that many people wish it weren’t so simple, but it is exactly this simple.
OK, granted, we have to include things like cynical politicians’ endorsements. Though even there I think I could argue that to put political self-interest above the fate of the nation is an act of egomaniacal stupidity.
