Search results

The national security argument for taking down ISIS is one I can understand and sympathise with though. Can you? I mean the alternative is to let things play out, stick to humanitarian aid etc. Maybe Assad and Russia defeat ISIS. Maybe ISIS forms its own state and we have to start dealing with...

Gonna be awkward when Trump turns out to be the beast and the USA takes over the world. :P

One is born out of moralistic interventionism, the other is born out of national security. Not that I necessarily agree with either.

Curbing the toppling of regimes, yes. "Destroying ISIS", and thereby being involved in Syria, was always a central pledge. He even said "paid for by the Gulf states", not wanting the US to pay for it themselves.

Which group has benefited from the decrease? Which is the group that is being targeted by the formerly discriminated and the former discriminators?

Yes, like I said, being an actor doesn't make you special. Neither does it make you stupid. So I don't see your point. Reagan's policies as President themselves were admired, not his ability as an actor.

Quite incredible how Trump changed the entire party's views. There's statistics about views on free trade as well. A couple years ago, Republican voters were staunch free traders. Now they're largely protectionists.

Are you getting talking about safe spaces on college campuses that bar free speech or ban guns, and safe zones in Syria for refugees to take shelter? Clearly one is entirely different from the other.

Because culturally as a whole the sentiment is decreasing.

Well then I'm not going to randomly trust the CIA's authority either.

I wouldn't say they take up the resulting reduction, or make up for it.

What a terrible guy. Technically the President isn't supposed to order the attorney general around to prosecute people anyway. Attorney General Sessions decides what to do himself on this one, so Hillary isn't entirely out of it yet.

I just said that without any qualifications, anyone can make a valid point, including an actor. At the same time, their opinion is nothing special.

In what sense? A lot of the open racism and hostility towards non-white folk has decreased. You won't see a lot of racial slurs on the street, not like they used to. Though depends which neighbourhood you might walk through...

I didn't say it did exist, did I? I was simply saying what should be the case. There will always be those who seek to divide us by race, but there are less now than there have been. There is progress in this regard.

I respect the right of the electors to come to that conclusion, though I would disagree with them.

That's hilarious. Where did I say or imply any of that? I'm just saying what is technically true. If you are a US citizen then Donald Trump will be your President, as President of the United States. This is a fact. Feel free to criticise him or what have you.

The implication of the picture, about white people having a right to exist, or standing up for white rights, whatever that means, is silly and exacerbates identity politics. There shouldn't be any black, white, or brown identity politics, we're all human beings, and citizens of our respective...

If these are large no-fly zones without the explicit permission of Russia, in areas that would impede Russian aircraft, then yes this could set up confrontation. Thing is, we don't actually know what these 'safe zones' are, and if Trump can work with the Russians on this.

One purpose of the electoral college is to prevent unfit/dangerous/authoritarian people from becoming President. I don't think Trump is any of those things, but the Founding Fathers had reason for the electors to be there as a final stop. However, despite all this, if an elector is swayed by...