The Many Faces of US Politics...

[five points]

Nobody contested your "extremely premature" observation. 

Then you followed up my "(he went on to) launch ten times more airstrikes than Bush" comment with stuff about rhetoric and an apology.

So then your comment on Obama and air strikes had, what, exactly, to do with the conversation on the Nobel Prize?

It was a direct rebuttal to your "There is simply nothing about Trump, either the man or the president, that warrants consideration for the Peace Prize" comment, after your defence of Obama and his record.

[J70]

Nobody contested your "extremely premature" observation. 

Then you followed up my "(he went on to) launch ten times more airstrikes than Bush" comment with stuff about rhetoric and an apology.

So then your comment on Obama and air strikes had, what, exactly, to do with the conversation on the Nobel Prize?

It was a direct rebuttal to your "There is simply nothing about Trump, either the man or the president, that warrants consideration for the Peace Prize" comment, after your defence of Obama and his record.

I stand by the comment on Trump. There IS nothing to support nominating him.

I certainly didn't justify Obama's receipt of the award nor did I offer much of a defense of him and his record on foreign policy either.

So unless you are going to argue that Trump IS worthy of the nomination or even at least consideration, I'm not sure what we are arguing about.

[five points]

So unless you are going to argue that Trump IS worthy of the nomination or even at least consideration, I'm not sure what we are arguing about.

There are several. Being the first non-warmonger US President in a generation is quite a big thing.

But you are right. Rhetoric and virtue signalling is what wins Nobel Peace Prizes.

[J70]

So unless you are going to argue that Trump IS worthy of the nomination or even at least consideration, I'm not sure what we are arguing about.

There are several. Being the first non-warmonger US President in a generation is quite a big thing.

But you are right. Rhetoric and virtue signalling is what wins Nobel Peace Prizes.

You like trying to put words into people's mouths, don't you?

As for Trump, given that he is utterly rash, has few, if any, principles, and that he has explicitly demonstrated a complete disregard for the humanity of a number of different groups of people, in both rhetoric and action, the fact that he has not launched any new conflicts is purely down to circumstance. If he perceived for one second that it would personally help him, whatever about the US, he'd be ordering air strikes as quick as he could get on Twitter.

[five points]

He'd certainly have kept John Bolton and the other neocons on aboard had he contrived to start another war. But there's no pleasing some people.

[J70]

He'd certainly have kept John Bolton and the other neocons on aboard had he contrived to start another war. But there's no pleasing some people.

Given Bolton's very outspoken and bellicose history, you'd have to wonder why he hired him in the first place?

Doesn't change the fact that Trump is driven almost solely by what he perceives will benefit him personally. If the US public in general and the right wing base in particular wasn't completely war-weary (ironic, when you think back to freedom fries and burning Dixie Chicks records and Obama's "apology tour"), he'd have no qualms whatsoever about starting something.

[Gabriel_Hurl]

Good to see the important things being discussed to deflect away from yesterday's revelations

[five points]

Given Bolton's very outspoken and bellicose history, you'd have to wonder why he hired him in the first place?

Indeed.

Doesn't change the fact that Trump is driven almost solely by what he perceives will benefit him personally. If the US public in general and the right wing base in particular wasn't completely war-weary (ironic, when you think back to freedom fries and burning Dixie Chicks records and Obama's "apology tour"), he'd have no qualms whatsoever about starting something.

The US public was also completely war-weary in 2008. Obama's drone attacks barely cost him a vote.

[J70]

Given Bolton's very outspoken and bellicose history, you'd have to wonder why he hired him in the first place?

Indeed.

Doesn't change the fact that Trump is driven almost solely by what he perceives will benefit him personally. If the US public in general and the right wing base in particular wasn't completely war-weary (ironic, when you think back to freedom fries and burning Dixie Chicks records and Obama's "apology tour"), he'd have no qualms whatsoever about starting something.

The US public was also completely war-weary in 2008. Obama's drone attacks barely cost him a vote.

You appear to be under the impression that the US doesn't use drone warfare under Trump or that Trump didn't roll back transparency and accountability measures that were put in place under Obama.

[five points]

You appear to be under the impression that the US doesn't use drone warfare under Trump or that Trump didn't roll back transparency and accountability measures that were put in place under Obama.

How do you deduce that?

[J70]

You appear to be under the impression that the US doesn't use drone warfare under Trump or that Trump didn't roll back transparency and accountability measures that were put in place under Obama.

How do you deduce that?

I guess you're not then.

[J70]

Given that you seem to be contrasting Obama and Trump on war mongering and missile strikes in Trump's favour, what do you have to say about the use of drones increasing under Trump and his rollback of the transparency and accountability measures?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-donald-trump-drone-strikes-far-exceed-obama-s-numbers

[five points]

Given that you seem to be contrasting Obama and Trump on war mongering and missile strikes in Trump's favour, what do you have to say about the use of drones increasing under Trump and his rollback of the transparency and accountability measures?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-donald-trump-drone-strikes-far-exceed-obama-s-numbers

You'll have to do better than the Chicago SunTimes. That page kicks me into a paywall after about 5 seconds each time I open it. I did manage to notice it's a second-hand story from The Daily Beast, hardly an unbiased source.  Ditto the BBC who never mention that Obama didn't introduce the drone strike fatality executive order until he was almost out of the White House.

[J70]

Given that you seem to be contrasting Obama and Trump on war mongering and missile strikes in Trump's favour, what do you have to say about the use of drones increasing under Trump and his rollback of the transparency and accountability measures?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-donald-trump-drone-strikes-far-exceed-obama-s-numbers

You'll have to do better than the Chicago SunTimes. That page kicks me into a paywall after about 5 seconds each time I open it. I did manage to notice it's a second-hand story from The Daily Beast, hardly an unbiased source.  Ditto the BBC who never mention that Obama didn't introduce the drone strike fatality executive order until he was almost out of the White House.

You're the one making a song and dance about the drone strikes.

Are you disputing the figures?

Are you justifying Trump getting rid of the executive order?

[five points]

Are you disputing the figures?

I can't even read them. Have you nothing better?