The Trump Presidency

[DaBigTrain]

What's fascinating is, there was once a time when ProgLibs wanted the U.S. out of NATO.   The ProgLib considered NATO to be a tool for U.S. Hegemony (they were right based on what was to happen in the course of future events), the ProgLib considered NATO a direct threat to the Soviet Union, the ProgLib was fully in concert with Soviet propaganda.

One would think the ProgLib would be fully on board with whittling down the (once every component is factored in) the nearly $1 trillion dollars annually the U.S. spends on defense.   

Once upon a time the ProgLib lamented and chastised the United States for its nearly ubiquitous military presence across the globe.

The ProgLib . . . a total 180, in one presidency.

Amaze

Can you create a chart with every 180 from both sides during your lifetime(may have to be many charts)?  That way we(you) can see the hypocrisy from both sides and get a real kick out of it.

[sonofdaxjones]

What's fascinating is, there was once a time when ProgLibs wanted the U.S. out of NATO.   The ProgLib considered NATO to be a tool for U.S. Hegemony (they were right based on what was to happen in the course of future events), the ProgLib considered NATO a direct threat to the Soviet Union, the ProgLib was fully in concert with Soviet propaganda.

One would think the ProgLib would be fully on board with whittling down the (once every component is factored in) the nearly $1 trillion dollars annually the U.S. spends on defense.   

Once upon a time the ProgLib lamented and chastised the United States for its nearly ubiquitous military presence across the globe.

The ProgLib . . . a total 180, in one presidency.

Amaze

stereotyping everybody based on one comment he heard third hand from Alex Jones is my favorite Dax move.

The second you play the Alex Jones card just means you should say "I'm tapping out".

[sonofdaxjones]

What's fascinating is, there was once a time when ProgLibs wanted the U.S. out of NATO.   The ProgLib considered NATO to be a tool for U.S. Hegemony (they were right based on what was to happen in the course of future events), the ProgLib considered NATO a direct threat to the Soviet Union, the ProgLib was fully in concert with Soviet propaganda.

One would think the ProgLib would be fully on board with whittling down the (once every component is factored in) the nearly $1 trillion dollars annually the U.S. spends on defense.   

Once upon a time the ProgLib lamented and chastised the United States for its nearly ubiquitous military presence across the globe.

The ProgLib . . . a total 180, in one presidency.

Amaze

Can you create a chart with every 180 from both sides during your lifetime(may have to be many charts)?  That way we(you) can see the hypocrisy from both sides and get a real kick out of it.

Vis-a-vis NATO there's really only hypocrisy on one side, unless you want to believe in that stupid little head of yours that the people on the streets in Germany (and elsewhere) protesting NATO in general and the possibility of deploying Nuclear tipped Pershing missiles and the possible deployment of the Neutron Bomb in the 70's and 80's weren't ProgLib types?

Or that those that have historically bitched and moaned about U.S. military expenditures in general and the expanding U.S. military presence across the globe etc. etc. were in fact, hardcore conservatives?

[DaBigTrain]

What's fascinating is, there was once a time when ProgLibs wanted the U.S. out of NATO.   The ProgLib considered NATO to be a tool for U.S. Hegemony (they were right based on what was to happen in the course of future events), the ProgLib considered NATO a direct threat to the Soviet Union, the ProgLib was fully in concert with Soviet propaganda.

One would think the ProgLib would be fully on board with whittling down the (once every component is factored in) the nearly $1 trillion dollars annually the U.S. spends on defense.   

Once upon a time the ProgLib lamented and chastised the United States for its nearly ubiquitous military presence across the globe.

The ProgLib . . . a total 180, in one presidency.

Amaze

Can you create a chart with every 180 from both sides during your lifetime(may have to be many charts)?  That way we(you) can see the hypocrisy from both sides and get a real kick out of it.

Vis-a-vis NATO there's really only hypocrisy on one side, unless you want to believe in that stupid little head of yours that the people on the streets in Germany (and elsewhere) protesting NATO in general and the possibility of deploying Nuclear tipped Pershing missiles and the possible deployment of the Neutron Bomb in the 70's and 80's weren't ProgLib types?

Or that those that have historically bitched and moaned about U.S. military expenditures in general and the expanding U.S. military presence across the globe etc. etc. were in fact, hardcore conservatives?

No need for name calling.  I’m looking more for an entire history of flip-flopping because a vast majority of us weren’t alive or even eligible to register to vote in the 70’s like you.  It’s hard to know what our party(and yours) was like back then, since we all know views for every group have always been historically stagnant for centuries(except for the past year and a half of course).

[bucket]

What's fascinating is, there was once a time when ProgLibs wanted the U.S. out of NATO.   The ProgLib considered NATO to be a tool for U.S. Hegemony (they were right based on what was to happen in the course of future events), the ProgLib considered NATO a direct threat to the Soviet Union, the ProgLib was fully in concert with Soviet propaganda.

One would think the ProgLib would be fully on board with whittling down the (once every component is factored in) the nearly $1 trillion dollars annually the U.S. spends on defense.   

Once upon a time the ProgLib lamented and chastised the United States for its nearly ubiquitous military presence across the globe.

The ProgLib . . . a total 180, in one presidency.

Amaze

Can you create a chart with every 180 from both sides during your lifetime(may have to be many charts)?  That way we(you) can see the hypocrisy from both sides and get a real kick out of it.

Vis-a-vis NATO there's really only hypocrisy on one side, unless you want to believe in that stupid little head of yours that the people on the streets in Germany (and elsewhere) protesting NATO in general and the possibility of deploying Nuclear tipped Pershing missiles and the possible deployment of the Neutron Bomb in the 70's and 80's weren't ProgLib types?

Or that those that have historically bitched and moaned about U.S. military expenditures in general and the expanding U.S. military presence across the globe etc. etc. were in fact, hardcore conservatives?

We're hypocrites because some Germans in the 70's and 80's were protesting NATO? 

[Phil Titola]

Dax doesn't want you guys to actually research what he says, just take him at his word....everybody is a hypocrite except him.

[star seed 7]

Those German nato protests in the 70's have shook me to the core. Everything I have ever believed is a lie

[sonofdaxjones]

Research it all day long.

The German protests had similar protests in the United States in the 70's and 80's.

Too try and say that the Political Left in this country hasn't historically and repeatedly fought against and spoke out against U.S. military expansion globally (until about 8 years ago or so), and U.S. military expenditures in general,  is intellectually disingenuous or you're just completely unaware, which is both fascinating and scary.

Which makes this New NeoCon bent all the more fascinating to observe.   The apparent grave concern by the political left that Trump might try and disengage the United States from it's massive financial obligation to NATO (while some of the biggest NATO partners either barely or do not as of yet meet their 2% of GDP obligation which they committed to do years ago) is  from an historical perspective.

The United States spends 3.2% of GDP on NATO, the highest of all NATO partners.







 

[bucket]

Research it all day long.

The German protests had similar protests in the United States in the 70's and 80's.

Too try and say that the Political Left in this country hasn't historically and repeatedly fought against and spoke out against U.S. military expansion globally (until about 8 years ago or so), and U.S. military expenditures in general,  is intellectually disingenuous or you're just completely unaware, which is both fascinating and scary.

Which makes this New NeoCon bent all the more fascinating to observe.   The apparent grave concern by the political left that Trump might try and disengage the United States from it's massive financial obligation to NATO (while some of the biggest NATO partners either barely or do not as of yet meet their 2% of GDP obligation which they committed to do years ago) is  from an historical perspective.

The United States spends 3.2% of GDP on NATO, the highest of all NATO partners.

Speaking out against military spending and being a member of NATO are not one in the same, Dax.

[DaBigTrain]

So no charts then?

[ChiComCat]

Everybody, just let Dax call whatever protesters from the 70s and 80s hypocrites already

[sys]

We're hypocrites because some Germans in the 70's and 80's were protesting NATO? 

amazing.

[star seed 7]

It may make me a hypocrite, but I have to be honest, I am against nato using nuke tipped missiles and neutron bombs

[sonofdaxjones]

Research it all day long.

The German protests had similar protests in the United States in the 70's and 80's.

Too try and say that the Political Left in this country hasn't historically and repeatedly fought against and spoke out against U.S. military expansion globally (until about 8 years ago or so), and U.S. military expenditures in general,  is intellectually disingenuous or you're just completely unaware, which is both fascinating and scary.

Which makes this New NeoCon bent all the more fascinating to observe.   The apparent grave concern by the political left that Trump might try and disengage the United States from it's massive financial obligation to NATO (while some of the biggest NATO partners either barely or do not as of yet meet their 2% of GDP obligation which they committed to do years ago) is  from an historical perspective.

The United States spends 3.2% of GDP on NATO, the highest of all NATO partners.

Speaking out against military spending and being a member of NATO are not one in the same, Dax.

They absolutely are relative to the U.S.'s current commitment to NATO which is in the hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

If there's no concern, then why bother to post what you posted?   I forgot I'm dealing with a bunch of youngsters who only know politics from the 1990's on, but in the 70's and 80's the ProgLib movement was essentially in lock step with Soviet Propaganda and was anti-NATO and anti US Military (and anti CIA, anti NSA etc. etc. etc).

The ProgLibs concocted an entire narrative starting in the 90's of "just wars" (The Balkans:  All 5 or 6 primary NATO players had left leaning to outright socialists governments in place at the time), and this progressed to almost total complicity to Obama administration and their wars of regime change.   The only time during that period that ProgLibs actually spoke against wars and the military on any scale was when, wait for it, a Republican was in office.     

Now there's all kinds of hand wringing about the NK's marching into Seoul and hints about a lessor U.S. role in NATO.   We've even got some ProgLibs upset that we might be pulling out of Syria. 

[star seed 7]

Nixon would love the crap out of dax

[sonofdaxjones]

Nixon would love the crap out of dax

That makes absolutely no sense and is indicative of how clueless you really are.

[star seed 7]

Goddamn peaceniks and jews giving aide and comfort to the enemy 

[sonofdaxjones]

Goddamn peaceniks and jews giving aide and comfort to the enemy 

Just such a dumbass take.   Only the dumbest of the dumb would derive any hint of ethnicity in what I've been saying. 

LibBot7:  Defining and redefining Godwin's Law with every post.

[star seed 7]

That was the voice of nixon

[sonofdaxjones]

That was the voice of nixon

Tapping out over and over again.

So, very, sad

[420seriouscat69]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-trump-approval-rating-ticks-up-to-47-percent/ar-AAzfGJZ?li=BBnb7Kz

 

[Phil Titola]

Chiding the younger generation for not being alive and not opinion on those political things is pretty LOL

[Phil Titola]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-trump-approval-rating-ticks-up-to-47-percent/ar-AAzfGJZ?li=BBnb7Kz

 

banner hangin' time fellas

[sonofdaxjones]

Chiding the younger generation for not being alive and not opinion on those political things is pretty LOL

Translation:  I don't really get it

[Phil Titola]

Chiding the younger generation for not being alive and not opinion on those political things is pretty LOL

Translation:  I don't really get it

nobody gets what you post bud....thought you already knew that.