Polarizing the electorate seems to be the new fad. And I think that the American voters aren't yet so tired of the partisanship and of loathing the other party that they really would want a President who seeks consensus.On the other hand, ideally we want a President who most people feel represents the country as a whole, and not just the nutzo wing of one of the political parties. You know, after the election there is governing, which can be hard to do if the election totally polarizes the country — Jake
And I think that the American voters aren't yet so tired of the partisanship and of loathing the other party that they really would want a President who seeks consensus. — ssu
It's entirely reasonable to point to objections anyone might have with Mattis, but if it's not Mattis, then who do the critics of Mattis have in mind? — Jake
The story I heard on NPR, a media outlet I trust a bit more than anonymous strangers on the Internuts, that Mattis has been a life long Democrat — Jake
If yes, who do you propose that would have a better chance of beating Trump than Mattis? I'm entirely open to that conversation. — Jake
I will admit to growing weary of the usual forum routine where I reasonably correct people on basic facts pertinent to the thread and they react unreasonably.I will admit to growing weary of the usual forum routine of "whatever somebody else says is wrong, but we have no solutions of our own to offer". That's lazy, raise your game my good fellows! — Jake
A democrat, or at the very least someone who represents democratic aspirations and shares democratic values. — John Doe
If you're interested in an open conversation then I would suggest you consider following-up on facts which as they are presented and respond to reasonable comments without turning on the caps-lock. — John Doe
Well because it's your right as a voter to believe that some particular candidate is the most likely to win an election, or the only plausible winner, — John Doe
Personally, I think there are many excellent candidates available to the democrats. — John Doe
I also think you overestimate how dire the situation is for a party that won two presidential elections in a row then won the popular vote in the third election despite an historically disliked candidate, a massive October surprise, and significant foreign influence. — John Doe
Of course I want to beat Trump like any democrat, and I am not sure why you think this is in question. — John Doe
s that if you're reacting with such contempt to my presenting you with facts that you can verify for yourself, yet refuse to do so — John Doe
I can only imagine how you'll react to a speculative discussion about potential candidates and their merits. — John Doe
You have obviously concluded for some strange reason that Mattis is the only plausible candidate. — John Doe
I don't accept that you are serious about winning. — Jake
This is a philosophy forum. Each person making a claim bears the burden for supporting their own claim. — Jake
This is a philosophy forum. Each person making a claim bears the burden for supporting their own claim. Again, I'm not going to do your homework for you, but if you present good evidence that Mattis is a Republican I will accept that conclusion. — Jake
but if you present good evidence that Mattis is a Republican I will accept that conclusion. — Jake
I've never said anything like this, and you are now just making shit up. — Jake
How typical of the arrogant and ignorant hubris that is so usual. Let's see, how many times have Americans stated (and believed) that Al Qaeda/ISIS has been successfully erased and "mission accomplished"? I count three times at least.We were in Syria to help defeat ISIS, and now that ISIS no longer holds any territory and its "caliphate" has been erased from the map, that's been successfully accomplished. — yazata
And whom was the leader of ISIS? Wasn't it Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi? Formerly known as the leader of the Al Qaeda in Iraq? You see The Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) was also known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), was the Iraqi division of al-Qaeda. And that ISI became ISIS. Yeah, perhaps ISIS and Ayman al-Zawahiri aren't now in speaking terms, but they surely come from the same root.Al Qaeda and ISIS aren't even allied, much less the same thing. Less racism, please. — frank
The roots of ISIS trace back to 2004, when the organization known as “al Qaeda in Iraq” formed. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was originally part of Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda Network, founded this militant group.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq began in 2003, and the aim of al Qaeda in Iraq was to remove Western occupation and replace it with a Sunni Islamist regime.
When Zarqawi was killed during a U.S. airstrike in 2006, Egyptian Abu Ayyub al-Masri became the new leader and renamed the group “ISI,” which stood for “Islamic State of Iraq.” In 2010, Masri died in a US-Iraqi operation, and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi took power.
And I think that the American voters aren't yet so tired of the partisanship and of loathing the other party that they really would want a President who seeks consensus. — ssu
That I think is the correct term to describe it: a semi-civil (war) discourse.You may be right, it may be civil war in a kind of semi-civil discourse — tim wood
I don't feel that way. The best protection the US has against Trump is his own incompetence as a head of government (as opposed to his competence as a campaigner, which was high). That's what has prevented him from achieving most of his agenda. I shudder to think what could happen with a competent extreme rightist as president. For that reason I hope Trump doesn't get driven out of office before the next election by criminal proceedings. Because if that happens, the President will be Pence, who is - from what I've heard - extreme right, yet unlike Trump, clever and competent.In my view, the best candidate for the country is anybody but Trump. — Jake
My bad, yazata.You conveniently left out the next words that I wrote: "It probably remains as an Islamist insurgency, but the locals need to be the ones to tackle that. We don't need to become another participant in Syria's all-against-all civil war." — yazata
"We're on track now over the coming months to defeat what used to be the physical space that ISIS controlled," McGurk told CNBC's Hadley Gamble. "That will not be the end of ISIS." "Nobody is naive," McGurk said less than a week before Trump's decision. "The small clandestine cells, the individual terrorist attacks, will remain a threat for some time. That is why we have to remain together as a global coalition to keep the pressure on."
Personally, I don't think Warren would win because I don't think the US is grown-up enough yet to have a female leader. — andrewk
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.