question for Trump supporters, Is Liz Cheney a warmonger?

hislegacy said:

House Democrats, Working With Liz Cheney, Restrict Trump’s Planned Withdrawal of Troops From Afghanistan and Germany

Cheney breaks with Trump on Syria, calls troop withdrawal 'serious strategic error'

That depends on your definition of war monger. She has a running record opposing troop withdraw.

Click to expand...

A war monger is someone who is seeking war. Keep troups stationed somewhere IN AND OF ITSELF is a pretty faaaaar way from being a war monger. Transition of power; maintenance of peace....all kinds of reasons to keep troops somewhere.

rambot said:

A war monger is someone who is seeking war. Keep troups stationed somewhere IN AND OF ITSELF is a pretty faaaaar way from being a war monger. Transition of power; maintenance of peace....all kinds of reasons to keep troops somewhere.

Click to expand...

Doing that by military force is the very definition of war, even if you call it something else.

Interesting to see liberal democrat defending someone from “Cheney” family for their foreign policy view and republicans branding Cheney family as war monger. America indeed changed in past 20 years.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Doing that by military force is the very definition of war, even if you call it something else.

Click to expand...

When you refer to "that", what were you alluding to?

Are you at war with Germany? Are you at war with South Korea?
Are you at war with Iraq?

Tiberius Lee said:

Interesting to see liberal democrat defending someone from “Cheney” family for their foreign policy view and republicans branding Cheney family as war monger. America indeed changed in past 20 years.

Click to expand...

I feel the same way bout "Globalism".
I remember going to the G7 and TPP protests when I was younger. It was ALLLL left wingers. Right wingers LOVED globalization! There's serious cash to be made on the backs of the international poor!

That also has flipped.

rambot said:

I feel the same way bout "Globalism".
I remember going to the G7 and TPP protests when I was younger. It was ALLLL left wingers. Right wingers LOVED globalization! There's serious cash to be made on the backs of the international poor!

That also has flipped.

Click to expand...

To be fair, Republican voter never liked “free tread” but republican politician supported “free tread” until Trump came to politics. Democrat voter and politician always was against “free tread”.

Trump and tea party were successfully changed the idea of “ free Tread” to “Globalism”’ One world order, where some shadow government around the world control everything, add to that evangelical preacher take some parts from Book of Revolution “Mark of the Beast” and made the idea “ Globalism” completely different then what “ free tread” actually is.

rambot said:

When you refer to "that", what were you alluding to?

Click to expand...

"Transfer of power, maintenance of peace" whatever other excuse you want to use for military force.

rambot said:

I feel the same way bout "Globalism".
I remember going to the G7 and TPP protests when I was younger. It was ALLLL left wingers. Right wingers LOVED globalization! There's serious cash to be made on the backs of the international poor!

That also has flipped.

Click to expand...

It wasn't all left-wing...

Buchanan Praises WTO Protesters

Why were opponents of globalization called "left-wing" then and "right wing" now?

It seems that definitions have changes. During the Bush years, support for military intervention was "right-wing". Now opposition to military intervention is "right-wing". Then free trade was "right-wing". Now protectionism is "right-wing". It seems that "right-wing" is whatever policy the Republican Party happens to be supporting at the time. By that definition, the party will always be "moving to the right" wherever it goes...

SoldierOfTheKing said:

"Transfer of power, maintenance of peace" whatever other excuse you want to use for military force.

Click to expand...

It wasn't all left-wing...
Buchanan Praises WTO Protesters
Why were opponents of globalization called "left-wing" then and "right wing" now?
It seems that definitions have changes. During the Bush years, support for military intervention was "right-wing". Now opposition to military intervention is "right-wing". Then free trade was "right-wing". Now protectionism is "right-wing". It seems that "right-wing" is whatever policy the Republican Party happens to be supporting at the time. By that definition, the party will always be "moving to the right" wherever it goes...

Click to expand...

Opposition to military intervention is "right wing"? That's been a left wing cornerstone for a loooooooong time.
Seems like it's going to be hard to justify a bloated defence budget as America has if they don't keep involving themselves in war.

I've never known a time when free trade was not "right wing". My lens is Canada but the REAL "free trade" arguments up north were happenning in the 80s and early 90s with Conservative governments. They were excited for it (NDP....our most "left" leaning party) would have none of it as they knew what was gonna happen and what the motivation for this shift was. I don't know how it works in the US but in Canada, Conservatives CONSISTENTLY enact policies that benefit the rich/ major businesses. Liberals tend to do the same but kinda try to sneak something in for hte worker and the NDP, they are focussed on the work and making targetted investments in businesses when and where the worker is supposed to benefit.

I don't think "protectionism" is right wing now either it seems more that people just agree with Trump because Trump created great boogeymen but sadly, he didn't quite defeat those boogeymen in great ways. The measures he took to that regard seem to have generally been, not only far from helpful but likely quite a hindrance (if you look at govt. payout to farmers for example).


Interesting article on the WTO. It piqued my interest because the left wingers hated free trade because we saw what was going to happen to workers in North America. And we were BANG ON correct.

You will see data saying Manufacturing output is at record highs nowadays. Well, that's to do with automation. Not workers.

What Buchanan is going off about is the more conspiratorial "losing our sovereignty" angle. THIS is not based in fact but in fear. THIS is something that has not panned out as true over the last 20 years (ie...the US has not lost it's sovereignty).

So while you're right to point it out, I wouldn't say it makes a strong point.

cow451 said:

Your meme has a few inaccuracies. Surprise. She received a sentence four times the norm for possession of explosives and weapons, not the bombing. And the fundraising organization is no longer connected with BLM.

Click to expand...

Surprise! You're essentially admitting to the basic facts, while quibbling about minor details. Even when they're included, it still remains a double-standard on your part. Petty "gotcha" attempts notwithstanding.

cow451 said:

Re: Jan. 6, 2021:
This was the first time in American history a mob of our fellow citizens overran the U.S. Capitol in an effort to overturn the results of a free and fair election. It was also the first time such an assault had been inspired by the sitting president of the United States.

Click to expand...

1. Actual motive still hasn't been determined. As usual, you're condemning them without a trial.

2. First-time events don't provide an excuse for double-standards in prosecuting federal property crimes. And BLM/Antifa is still way ahead in the contest for biggest mob.

3. "Inspired" doesn't fit the actual timeline. Again, your hyperbolic rhetoric oversteps reality.

A2SG said:

Actually, that legal right has been exercised, over 50 times, in many different jurisdictions. Since there was no evidence of widespread fraud, the plaintiffs did not get the specific redress they wanted.

Click to expand...

Refusing to hear a case does not mean the legal system was "exercised."

Refusing to hear evidence does not mean no evidence existed.

If, "there's nothing to see here," then why refuse to hear the case?

rambot said:

Trump Supporter: A person who supports Trump and his policies.

Click to expand...

Is Trump "literally Hitler?" <-- Heard it 24/7 nonstop for four years straight. Nothing odd about this.

rambot said:

If her sentence was commuted by Bill Clinton, she at least served some prison time.

Click to expand...

Commutations of Trump supporters will not be tolerated.

rambot said:

I'm going to talk to you about January 6. And it should be rubbed in your faces until you recognize it for what it is: An attack on American Democracy.

Click to expand...

So it's only an attack on American Democracy when Trump supporters do it. Got it.

rambot said:

1)"leftist cancel culture". Pull your head out. It was your COURTS that decided that.

Click to expand...

This was already refuted in this thread. "COURTS" refused to hear the cases. You either can't or won't tell me which comes first: Agreeing to hear the case, then presenting the evidence, or presenting the evidence before agreeing to hear the case. That's how the lefty scam works.

rambot said:

It's kinda funny to me really. Courts have been punishing blacks far harsher than whites for decades. Whites start losing cases around elections and bam.....time to over throw the government.

Click to expand...

Your racialized motive fallacy is ignored.

rambot said:

Boy oh boy do I LOVE how the right is justifying terrorism now. And I'm not at ALL surprised that with all of the wargame LARPing, that of COURSE they have to glorify themselves as revolutionaries because they aren't going to call THEMSELVES terrorists.

Click to expand...

^ Can't decide if it's real terrorism or mere LARPing. Can you at least try to get your story straight before posting, please?

rambot said:

NOW you have one lying president and that's all it has taken. Well, that and Russia; whether they were in league with each other is irrelevant. Russia influenced the election, whether you choose to accept it or not.

Click to expand...

^ Still confused about Russian collusion. Pick a lane, buddy.

Paulomycin said:

Surprise! You're essentially admitting to the basic facts, while quibbling about minor details. Even when they're included, it still remains a double-standard on your part. Petty "gotcha" attempts notwithstanding.



1. Actual motive still hasn't been determined. As usual, you're condemning them without a trial.

2. First-time events don't provide an excuse for double-standards in prosecuting federal property crimes. And BLM/Antifa is still way ahead in the contest for biggest mob.

3. "Inspired" doesn't fit the actual timeline. Again, your hyperbolic rhetoric oversteps reality.

Click to expand...

1. Motive obvious
2.All Federal property was not created equal
3.Timeline of The Big Lie began in 2016, not January 6, 2021.

and....
AHA! Nobody denied the conviction, sentence, commutation, post prison release and proper spelling of her name.

Glad I can help you with a better understanding.

Paulomycin said:

Refusing to hear a case does not mean the legal system was "exercised."

Click to expand...

It was heard over 60 times and rejected by the courts, the Supreme Court (which just tossed another Kraken case), and both Houses of Congress.

If, "there's nothing to see here," then why refuse to hear the case?

Click to expand...

Because there’s nothing here to see. See?

The Big Lie is part conspiracy theory and part fantasy.

****read my signature!

cow451 said:

1. Motive obvious

Click to expand...

Ah. So, you're saying you want to double-down on your motive fallacy and add a proof-by-assertion on top of it to make things worse?

cow451 said:

2.All Federal property was not created equal

Click to expand...

"Some animals are more equal than others."

I'm sure you believe there's an actual law on the books to that effect.

cow451 said:

3.Timeline of The Big Lie began in 2016, not January 6, 2021.

Click to expand...

"Lies" are not determined by a framed lefty narrative.

cow451 said:

Glad I can help you with a better understanding.

Click to expand...

Of what, your desperation?

cow451 said:

It was heard over 60 times and rejected by the courts, the Supreme Court (which just tossed another Kraken case), and both Houses of Congress.

Click to expand...

Oh, so now they were all heard and not a single one of them dismissed before hearing? Which is it?

cow451 said:

Because there’s nothing here to see. See

Click to expand...

lol. Nothing to see here, move along!

cow451 said:

****read my signature!

Click to expand...

"Fact" is not based on a framed narrative.

Paulomycin said:

Ah.

Click to expand...

Ah.
I’m at peace with my opinion. BTW, do you like my signature?

cow451 said:

Ah.
I’m at peace with my opinion.

Click to expand...

The sad truth is that only objective opinions count for anything.

cow451 said:

BTW, do you like my signature?

Click to expand...

Why should I?

Is it true because you said so, or is it true because Mona Charen said so?

Paulomycin said:

Oh, so now they were all heard and not a single one of them dismissed before hearing? Which is it?

Click to expand...

True, many of the cases were so lame, they were tossed on the paperwork alone. Pretty bad when even your own party’s appointees find anything worth a hearing.

BTW, what elected or appointed officials are you accusing of committing this massive fraud?

cow451 said:

True, many of the cases were so lame, they were tossed on the paperwork alone. Pretty bad when even your own party’s appointees find anything worth a hearing.

Click to expand...

Was that before or after they looked at the evidence?

You can't answer that.

cow451 said:

BTW, what elected or appointed officials are you accusing of committing this massive fraud?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't make accusations before following the evidence. That's a lefty tactic.