https://x.com/shabbosk/status/1936674911617269885?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
I'm torn. He is absolutely correct on this, yet I would prefer that the DFL continue to pursue these idiotic positions and lose more elections.
https://x.com/stvengoldstein/status/1936801690872647795?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"MY PARTY IS WRONG. My Democratic party comes after my Americanism, my Judaism and my principles. And my party is dead wrong on Iran. Diplomacy failed for 46 years — Iran murdered Americans around the world and targeted Israel for another Holocaust. The strikes are justified."
https://x.com/jamiemetzl/status/1936771846214430904?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"I served on the National Security Council under President Clinton. I was Joe Biden’s Deputy Staff Director of the Senate foreign Relations Committee. I voted for Kamala Harris and have been a vocal critic of many dangerous and undemocratic actions taken by President Trump. But I’m not a blind tribalist and am perfectly comfortable praising President Trump for bold and courageous actions in support of America’s core national interests, as he took last night. Iran has been at war with the United States for 46 years. Its regime has murdered thousands of American citizens. Its slogan “death to America“ was not window dressing but core ideology. It was racing toward a nuclear weapon with every intention of using it to threaten America, our allies, and the Middle East region as a whole. No actions like this come without risks, and I imagine the story will get more complicated over time, but that’s why these types of decisions are complicated. Although I believe electing Kamala Harris would have been better for our democracy, society, and economy, as well as for helping the most vulnerable people in the United States and around the world, I also believe VP Harris would not have had the courage or fortitude to take such an essential step as the president took last night."
https://x.com/danturrentine/status/1936724740644749574?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"It was too depressing to write this last night, after we got off air, so I went to bed. But, it needs to be said by more Democrats: this was not an impeachable offense, and Trump did not need congressional approval for one precision attack under the circumstances, just as Obama did not when striking Bin Laden. Why can’t our Party just say it’s great we achieved the objective and destroyed Iran’s nuclear sites, god bless the soldiers who carried this out and made it home safely, god bless our country, military, allies, and we look forward to a full intel briefing. 
. If one must then assert Congressional authority at the moment, add that any escalation will require congressional approval. And if you must, express concern for where this may go and what might come next.
But, for so many in my Party to knee jerk with unhinged calls for impeachment - and sadly omit in their statement support for Iran not having nuclear weapons, which has been a principle of our Party for 40 years -is truly TDS."
https://x.com/joelwberry/status/1937118195095073265?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"I despise war and have become more skeptical on U.S. intervention after witnessing the quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m obviously disgusted by the weird war fetish of people like Lindsey Graham. But also, it’s childish to act like non-intervention is some kind of iron law that must be applied without exception, or that all countries and situations are the same. It’s also wrong to act like Israel is some uniquely evil entity, that Iran isn’t a threat to us, or that Israel’s interests don’t align with ours whatsoever. Foreign policy is the one area we all have equal chance of getting wrong, no matter our ideology. I trust Trump because he hates war, but he’s also a realist. It actually does matter who is doing the “intervening.” He’s done a better job with this stuff than any other president in my lifetime, and I think we have a good shot at some real stability with him at the helm."
5 comments:
However the Dems come to lose elections is a good thing. The third quote contains tons of caveats in the person's support for Trump's strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, but somehow continues to believe Harris would've been the better choice overall. I think it more likely than not that or a similar sentiment lies behind Dem expressions of support for this action. And while such expressions might have an effect on party loyalty fading, the expressions alone aren't deserving of great kudos, given how obviously correct the actions taken by Trump against Iran are.
But will it expose the stark difference in policy and philosophy which led to this decision? It certainly ought to open eyes to the reality of Dem incompetence and the dangers to us of having them in power. Lesser things have driven many away already. But its concerning that too many look at this and continue with their TDS attitudes and responses. I wonder how many keep in mind Trump has only 3.5 years left in office?
It's tough because them sticking with this losing playbook might get us through 2028. Yet, it is objectively a good thing for Iran to be denied nuclear weapons no matter who accomplishes that.
In this sense it's more about showing how far off the deep end the ASPL has gone.
Ultimately wouldn't it be better for both parties to move to the center on many issues so that they can actually govern rather than this headlong dash to the extremes? That the ASPL is actually claiming that the Ayatollah is on the "right side of history" for wanting nukes is freaking unhinged and insane. Yet that's what we're seeing.
I don't expect partisans to support everything that an opposition president does. Yet, just like it would have been insane to fail to support P-BO when Bin Laden was captured, it's insane now to not support Trump in this limited and measured response.
That they're almost salivating at the hope of "sleeper cells" going active and harming people in red states, is even worse.
"Ultimately wouldn't it be better for both parties to move to the center on many issues so that they can actually govern rather than this headlong dash to the extremes?"
That, of course, would depend on the issue as well as one's notion of what constitutes an extreme position. There was a time when even Democrats opposed abortion. To me, that's not an extreme position in the least. Now to too many on the left, it is. The same for SSM. At the moment, I can't think of a position on the GOP side which is really extreme in any sense.
That goes without saying, which is why you had to say it.
The reality is that if we go back to the mid '80s we had two parties that had significant disagreements on principle yet were able to negotiate and compromise in order to do their jobs. Now we have two parties that are so far apart on virtually every issue that the only way to do their jobs is to have 60 votes in the Senate and a large majority in the house.
That you can't "think of" something isn't really an objective measurement is it?
It could be argued that as the DFL positions and the positions of the electorate move further left, that the conservative positions become "extreme" by merely staying the same. FYI, when I'm using the term "extreme" I'm speaking more about the distance between the left and the right, than anything else.
The point remains, that it would be a good thing for both parties to return to the times you mention (move to the center) in an effort to actually govern.
The other issue with this is that the center has shifted to the left. Part of the problem is how to shift the center back to the center, which isn't a political issue as much as a social issue. I do think we are seeing signs of a shift in younger men, but women are still heavily tilted to the left. I think that the problem to overcome is that it's not about showing evidence. We have ample evidence that DFL policies result in negative outcomes, yet people keep voting for those policies for reasons other than a track record of success. Therefore it seems unlikely that showing the success of conservative policies are not likely to move the needle either. It's simply not something that'll be driven by rational, evidence based, metrics. If that is the case, I'm not sure that simply repeating the same old stuff is going to be persuasive.
Post a Comment