Null

[ozso]

Thousands are dying, millions are displaced, and millions of children are living in fear. Does this situation not affect Americans? Has American society lost a sense of humanity?

That should be a worldwide concern. It shouldn't come down to only one nation really doing anything about it. Much less it being left up to only one man.

 

[Gene2memE]

Trump can't even end fighting between his own advisors.

The claims that he could end the Russia-Ukraine conflict on day 1, or within his first 100 days, were dumb lies.

It's apparent from his public statements that Mr Trump doesn't understand this war. He doesn't understand the Russian motivations around the invasion, he doesn't understand Ukrainian motivations around its defence and he doesn't understand broader European concerns around the security environment on the Continent.

I feel this conflict is a problem that fundamentally lies outside his available frames of reference. Its an OCP (for fans of Ian Banks). Trump won't be able to solve it unless he changes the terms of how he thinks about it. And, if he could do that then Trump wouldn't be Trump.

 

[Bradskii]

I feel this conflict is a problem that fundamentally lies outside his available frames of reference. Its an OCP (for fans of Ian Banks). Trump won't be able to solve it unless he changes the terms of how he thinks about it. And, if he could do that then Trump wouldn't be Trump.

You're right. But, being picky, don't forget the M. He wrote sci-fi as Iain M Banks. Some of the ship names might be applicable. 'It'll Be Over By Xmas'? Although which Xmas is a debatable point.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

That should be a worldwide concern. It shouldn't come down to only one nation really doing anything about it. Much less it being left up to only one man.

Why do we wait to see who else is showing compassion before we do so ourselves? Isn't it our human responsibility to help those in need and show humanity to those suffering, rather than hiding behind the excuse that others are not helping?

 

[ozso]

Why do we wait to see who else is showing compassion before we do so ourselves? Isn't it our human responsibility to help those in need and show humanity to those suffering, rather than hiding behind the excuse that others are not helping?

For some reason that level of concern doesn't seem to be applied much to all those suffering right here.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

For some reason that level of concern doesn't seem to be applied much to all those suffering right here.

Who is suffering here?

 

[ozso]

Who is suffering here?

All the homeless as one example.

 

[Nithavela]

All the homeless as one example.

You mean the homeless that are useful for arguing against foreign aid but who never seem to get any aid even when foreign aid is reduced?

 

[ozso]

You mean the homeless that are useful for arguing against foreign aid but who never seem to get any aid even when foreign aid is reduced?

Probably because we're still $36 trillion in debt.

 

[durangodawood]

Probably because we're still $36 trillion in debt.

Freedom isnt free. Letting tyranny proliferate can come back to haunt us.

 

[ozso]

Freedom isnt free. Letting tyranny proliferate can come back to haunt us.

That's not what put us in such deep debt. Although us footing the lion's share of it probably didn't help any.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

All the homeless as one example.

Are you suggesting the federal government buy homes or provide rent for homeless people? Isn't that a Democrat and liberal ideology?

I want to confirm if you support those left / democrat/ liberal social programs where American who are capable of working but do not work , and you want US government to pay for their housing.

 

[ozso]

Are you suggesting the federal government buy homes or provide rent for homeless people? Isn't that a Democrat and liberal ideology?

I want to confirm if you support those left / democrat/ liberal social programs where American who are capable of working but do not work , and you want US government to pay for their housing.

The US government should use US tax payer dollars look after US needs in all aspects ahead of foreign needs.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

The US government should use US tax payer dollars look after US needs in all aspects ahead of foreign needs.

Do you support social programs that provide food assistance, housing support, childcare funding, free education, and free healthcare?

 

[durangodawood]

That's not what put us in such deep debt. Although us footing the lion's share of it probably didn't help any.

So Ukr is a US debt issue. Then it isnt? You seem to be bouncing around here.

My sense is that we should expend resources to defend liberty. This is a valid cost we should shoulder. Especially when we dont have to ask Americans to risk their lives. The bar for American blood should be very high of course.

I do agree with the presidents goal of pressuring Europe to step up in this regard, tho youd think there would be a way thats not so alienating. We do need the decent regard of allies in this world.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

So Ukr is a US debt issue. Then it isnt? You seem to be bouncing around here.

My sense is that we should expend resources to defend liberty. This is a valid cost we should shoulder. Especially when we dont have to ask Americans to risk their lives. The bar for American blood should be very high of course.

I do agree with the presidents goal of pressuring Europe to step up in this regard, tho youd think there would be a way thats not so alienating. We do need the decent regard of allies in this world.

Those who argue that America should not be involved in international affairs, whether it be humanitarian aid or war efforts to save lives, often use the rationale that the US should prioritize caring for its own citizens rather than spending money internationally.

Same individuals oppose social programs initiated by the US government, advocating for a smaller government that does not engage in providing assistance. These views are commonly associated with conservative perspectives.

But .. wait .. if that is their ideology and principle then I could respect it.

Some individuals who currently argue against US involvement in the European war and spending money in Ukraine previously supported W. Bush's efforts to promote democracy in Iraq and the Middle East. Additionally, they backed efforts to establish democracy in Gaza, leading to the election of Hamas in 2006. They voted for W Bush twice ( I am one of them)

The argument at the time was that American democracy should be promoted globally and that efforts should be made to eliminate terrorism wherever it exists. This concept was outlined by President George W. Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address. And every conservative ( I am one of them) supported W Bush’s vison of spreading the democracy.

Today, some people believe Ukraine is not worth saving. It raises the question of whether this belief stems from support for a president whose vision of U.S. foreign policy is completely opposite to that of George W. Bush. If individuals who supported and voted for George W. Bush twice now hold this view, it prompts consideration of whether they truly believed in his ideology at the time, or if their votes were primarily intended to defeat the Democratic candidate. Perhaps their primary motivation is to oppose liberals and Democrats rather than adhering to any particular ideology.

 

[Nithavela]

Probably because we're still $36 trillion in debt.

I'm sure the homeless will get their turn once every single cent of that debt has been paid back.

 

[durangodawood]

Those who argue that America should not be involved in international affairs, whether it be humanitarian aid or war efforts to save lives, often use the rationale that the US should prioritize caring for its own citizens rather than spending money internationally.

Same individuals oppose social programs initiated by the US government, advocating for a smaller government that does not engage in providing assistance. These views are commonly associated with conservative perspectives.

But .. wait .. if that is their ideology and principle then I could respect it.

Some individuals who currently argue against US involvement in the European war and spending money in Ukraine previously supported W. Bush's efforts to promote democracy in Iraq and the Middle East. Additionally, they backed efforts to establish democracy in Gaza, leading to the election of Hamas in 2006. They voted for W Bush twice ( I am one of them)

The argument at the time was that American democracy should be promoted globally and that efforts should be made to eliminate terrorism wherever it exists. This concept was outlined by President George W. Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address. And every conservative ( I am one of them) supported W Bush’s vison of spreading the democracy.

Today, some people believe Ukraine is not worth saving. It raises the question of whether this belief stems from support for a president whose vision of U.S. foreign policy is completely opposite to that of George W. Bush. If individuals who supported and voted for George W. Bush twice now hold this view, it prompts consideration of whether they truly believed in his ideology at the time, or if their votes were primarily intended to defeat the Democratic candidate. Perhaps their primary motivation is to oppose liberals and Democrats rather than adhering to any particular ideology.

I think a lot of Bush II voters were genuinely disillusioned over time by the colossal waste of lives and treasure in Iraq, and the enduring suffering that followed many service people back here. Their recent turn toward isolationism is genuinely felt and not just a partisan reflex against the Ds.

My sense tho is that these same voters are in many ways radical. They are bouncing back and forth between failure prone radical positions. First: nation building and the whole starry-eyed optimism of the neo-con project. Then later: isolationism - which really is an untenable sort of myopic optimism that all we need for a revolutionary flourishing is ourselves in this complex world.

They are, basically, fantasy driven. They like to think of themselves as the hard headed realists. But thats the opposite of what they are. So no surprise that here they are in thrall to a charismatic salesman who peddles transparently absurd promises of redemption on every front.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I think a lot of Bush II voters were genuinely disillusioned over time by the colossal waste of lives and treasure in Iraq, and the enduring suffering that followed many service people back here. Their recent turn toward isolationism is genuinely felt and not just a partisan reflex against the Ds.

My sense tho is that these same voters are in many ways radical. They are bouncing back and forth between failure prone radical positions. First: nation building and the whole starry-eyed optimism of the neo-con project. Then later: isolationism - which really is an untenable sort of myopic optimism that all we need for a revolutionary flourishing is ourselves in this complex world.

They are, basically, fantasy driven. They like to think of themselves as the hard headed realists. But thats the opposite of what they are. So no surprise that here they are in thrall to a charismatic salesman who peddles transparently absurd promises of redemption on every front.

What you're saying makes sense.

Some Americans, regardless of political affiliation, frequently shift their ideologies due to dissatisfaction with the government, country, and personal lives. They often attribute their misfortunes to immigrants, the international community, the wealthy, the educated, and those who look different. Every four years, they switch sides hoping the next president will improve their situation.

What puzzles me are the conservatives who voted for Ronald Reagan, H. Bush, W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Did they truly believe in their conservatism? If so, it's hard to understand their support for President Trump and his political ideology. Though I am an independent, I consider myself a Reagan-Bush conservative with a similar ideology. While I don't approve of every action or policy from Reagan or Bush, I support their broader concepts of free market, capitalism, globalization, spreading democracy and freedom, strong NATO, and solid alliances with traditional allies like Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia. I also back W. Bush's immigration reform. These views today contradict MAGA ideology.

Most evangelical Christians did not endorse all the ideologies of Reagan or Bush but voted for the GOP due to their pro-life stance and the belief that character matters. However, the national GOP no longer advocates a pro-life position. In the 2024 GOP convention, the pro-life stance was removed, and the GOP has shown no interest in pursuing national abortion ban legislation. Yet, eighty percent of Evangelicals voted for President Trump in the 2024 election. You have to wonder if they truly believe in pro-life or have a different agenda.

 

[durangodawood]

What you're saying makes sense.

Some Americans, regardless of political affiliation, frequently shift their ideologies due to dissatisfaction with the government, country, and personal lives. They often attribute their misfortunes to immigrants, the international community, the wealthy, the educated, and those who look different. Every four years, they switch sides hoping the next president will improve their situation.

What puzzles me are the conservatives who voted for Ronald Reagan, H. Bush, W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Did they truly believe in their conservatism? If so, it's hard to understand their support for President Trump and his political ideology. Though I am an independent, I consider myself a Reagan-Bush conservative with a similar ideology. While I don't approve of every action or policy from Reagan or Bush, I support their broader concepts of free market, capitalism, globalization, spreading democracy and freedom, strong NATO, and solid alliances with traditional allies like Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia. I also back W. Bush's immigration reform. These views today contradict MAGA ideology.

Most evangelical Christians did not endorse all the ideologies of Reagan or Bush but voted for the GOP due to their pro-life stance and the belief that character matters. However, the national GOP no longer advocates a pro-life position. In the 2024 GOP convention, the pro-life stance was removed, and the GOP has shown no interest in pursuing national abortion ban legislation. Yet, eighty percent of Evangelicals voted for President Trump in the 2024 election. You have to wonder if they truly believe in pro-life or have a different agenda.

I agree with a lot of those tenets of Reaganism too (tho I cant stand the man himself). One glaring flaw in that philosophy tho is: what happens to people, and whole regions really, when they become the victims of globalism? The Reagan / Milton Friedman / Ayn Rand solution so hot at time was: tough it out and find your bootstraps. But you know what?.... most people dont have that in them 100%. They expect society to be arranged, or invested-in, such that they can get by with just a normal amount of gumption and not have to become Ayn Rand heros. Everyone is not exceptional - by definition.

That why R people changed, and the party changed with it - all the while pumping even harder on the social "outrage" issues to stave off any apostasy. Its a blame seeking party now, not a solution seeking one. Blame gets the blood running hotter, and brings out the votes. Its easy too. Solutions are hard.