Well, can you explain to me the liberal mindset when it comes to the Syria situation, cause I just don't get it.
What I hear from liberals is this :
- We lost the election because Trump and Putin are buddies.
- But Trump just bombed Putin's ally...
- Yes, but he notified Putin before he did it.
So...you guys not only want to bomb Syria, but ignite WW3 while doing it? What the hell?
Seriously, all I'm hearing here is "Hillary would have bombed Syria so much better". Liberals have somehow gone from well-meaning
but largely ineffective anti-war protesters in the 70's to trigger-happy warmongers?
When you don't understand who is in a party or group and who is not then it becomes easy to misunderstand what a group says.
It was clear you didn't know exactly who to classify as liberals when you said they were busy fawning over Clinton. No liberal or progressive has ever fawned over Clinton. That's just a bizarre thing to claim. She's center-left at-best, center-right when convenient, and only goes left when politically safe to do so (for example after the rest of the world has decided that black people aren't "superpredators").
Her only progressive policy as far as I recall was related to common-sense gun control—closing gun-show loopholes and not allowing no-fly people from acquiring guns. It was the right who somehow turned that into, "She's coming for our guns!!"
She's absolutely status-quo, which isn't progressive, and she is a war hawk, which isn't liberal, so it's really just bizarre that you have misunderstand that liberals are fawning over her. Anyone fawning over her is almost not liberal by definition.
So if I may simply correct you:
- We lost because Hillary Clinton:
** Worked with the establishment to undermine Sanders' campaign.
** Didn't herself get out the vote. It is her job to motivate people to vote. She didn't because she got cocky and lives in a little bubble where people around her tell her she has X state in-the-bag.
- Since moving to America I haven't kept up with the news much so I have not heard of any bombings in Syria, but just based on what I gather from your post, my thoughts are:
** Trump absolutely has a deal with Putin. We know that for a fact. But Trump's main gain from the deal is monetary. Others in his cabinet are politically motivated, monetarily motivated, and otherwise motivated here-and-there.
** But Trump is also insecure and he knows his ties to Russia are making him look bad in the eye of the public. We know how much he cares about living up to daddy's expectations—just ask him about the size of his…inauguration crowd (not to mention the size of his…ahem…hands). It's perfectly reasonable to assume he will take action against Russia starting with very small steps such as bombing an ally with a polite notification before-hand. Remember, he also has to start building a case for plausible deniability once the FBI uncovers just a few more smoking guns.
Seriously, all I'm hearing here is "Hillary would have bombed Syria so much better".
Not from liberals.
Liberals have somehow gone from well-meaning but largely ineffective anti-war protesters in the 70's to trigger-happy warmongers?
It's just you assigning the term "liberal" to the wrong people. This happens frequently when you get your idea of a liberal group based on certain news organizations trying to "smear" other news organizations simply as a means of industry competition. MSNBC isn't actually liberal, and in fact only has very rare moments of being liberal or progressive, but you may have misunderstood that they are liberal if you listen to other news programs.
Liberals used to be known for being anti-war, but with the rise of technology and the ways that both the enemy can attack and in which we can respond the position is more nuanced these days.
War should generally be avoided (especially pointless ones), but ISIS is generally considered a valid target as they are a huge source of oppression and violence, violations of other liberal positions.
Bombs have clearly not been effective and taking out civilians is never considered acceptable, so the tactics should be changed.
An example would be that if ISIS is successful at recruiting online then we should use strategies to decrease this effectiveness, such as online ads (etc.) showing how horrible life is inside ISIS.
If ISIS is able to recruit people who are disenfranchised more easily, then a strategy would be to stop disenfranchising people. Show them that America welcomes people of all backgrounds.
There may be a few liberals who are against the war on ISIS, but it is generally about how we are fighting the war. We are doing everything we can to make ISIS stronger, and it is completely stupid.
We are sending people to ISIS by creating a clear exclusionary culture, and we are raising a generation of Middle-Easterners who hate America because we bombed their innocent families.
It necessarily takes a person with a biased view to misconstrue a liberal saying, "Hillary is more qualified to be president," which is a factual statement, into, "Hillary is more qualified to bomb Syria better."
That is not what liberals said, and the fact that Hillary would continue to bomb them is exactly why liberals didn't vote for nor rally behind Hillary. But she would not have made 2 Muslim bans that both make America less safe.
The right only knows brute force and financial irresponsibility. Liberals want to fight smarter, using effective tactics that do not waste money on bombs which are mostly ineffective at harming the target and which are effective at helping the target foster hate against us and thus recruit.
L. Spiro
