PANEL - LOW BAR SET FOR DONALD TRUMPAPRIL 28, 2016 - Bakari Sellers, Rory Albanese and Holly Walker discuss the extremely low bar set for Donald Trump and gear up for his likely electoral battle against Hillary Clinton. (7:48)
Like Hillary for example, we know she went after black kids ("super predators"). We know she went after Obama for being black (& foreign, I think, starting the whole "birther movement"). BUT she does ACT presidential by not saying this stuff out loud... that's a ridiculously low bar for ANY President. i.e. Knowing Hillary is a racist but as long as she's polite about it it's OK. This sort of out right hypocrisy seems to permeate corporate, and thus American, culture.
Good point here that Obama shouldn't have gotten a Nobel Peace Prize for a speech (it's stupid & out of context... prizes should be given for ACTUAL accomplishments and not because of how some bleeding heart feels about it)
This is another interesting example showing how 'as long as you are polite you can get away with murder' if you want;
Here is the point in question... this sudden, John McCain like, narrative of American Isolationism, which is the language pro-war people use to beat an opponent (I don't think this guy is that smart, he's probably just repeating talking points as most of these media people do);
Isolationism is the argument John McCain used against Ron Paul's idea of not mass murdering innocent people like Kissinger's philosophy which Hillary and our foreign policy elite have adopted.
Clarification of Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Position
Ron Paul believes in non-interventionism NOT isolationism. In other words, Ron Paul's positions on dealing with other countries is primarily about diplomacy and only going to war when attacked but NEVER getting involved in nation building.
ABC News Interview (Foreign Policy - Wars)
Ron Paul: 'America is not the worlds policeman'.
When they say 'we have to murder innocent people because of 9/11', Ron Paul would reply with a study that showed that it was our mass murdering and genocidal mania in the first place that was making people angry and fight back;
On The O'Reilly Show on National Security and Terrorism
Mind blowing: Islamic radicals attacked on 9/11 for having military bases in the Holy Land NOT for the United States people's 'freedom'. This is true. the stated reason by Al-Qaeda for attacking the United States is the military bases in the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia) and the support of tyraniccal regimes in the middle east. With the Arab Spring one reason is beginning to dissolve the other reason would dissolve with Ron Paul's Presidency as he would remove all bases saving a ton of money and there would be non of the nonsense that Al-Qaeda is attacking America's because of their 'freedom' or 'way of life' - that never was, and still isn't, a stated purpose of the terrorists. It was a Bush Administration slogan, which was incorrect as many other statements (see above)
Every normal analysis begins with the knowledge of America's history in the middle east and actual grieviences about ACTIONS taken in the middle eastern countries... this is the source of terrorism as Ron Paul obviously realizes (or he has done some general reading on the topic over the years)...
terrorism primarily because of its engagement on the world
scene and its choice of allies. Extremist groups in countries
around the world have targeted United States interests in an
effort to achieve radical political change at home. The
United States military presence, whether in assisting local
regimes or in peacemaking exercises, attracted terrorism,
but so too did diplomatic and cultural institutions.
(extract from page 7 - conclusion)
(Note: Ron Paul also makes a comparison of how it would feel if China invaded US - a method even professionals use to encourage empathy and understanding)
Ron Paul's Views on Iran is Based in Careful Research...
About 5 minutes into the video Ron Paul is asked about Jihad/Suicide Attacks and he highly recommends the research done by Robert Pape
Take a look at the research he is talking about (or, watch a presentation of his on C-Span)...
The American Conservative: Your new book, Dying to Win, has a subtitle: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Can you just tell us generally on what the book is based, what kind of research went into it, and what your findings were?
Robert Pape: Over the past two years, I have collected the first complete database of every suicide-terrorist attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004. This research is conducted not only in English but also in native-language sources—Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, and Tamil, and others—so that we can gather information not only from newspapers but also from products from the terrorist community. The terrorists are often quite proud of what they do in their local communities, and they produce albums and all kinds of other information that can be very helpful to understand suicide-terrorist attacks.
This wealth of information creates a new picture about what is motivating suicide terrorism. Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think. The world leader in suicide terrorism is a group that you may not be familiar with: the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.
This is a Marxist group, a completely secular group that draws from the Hindu families of the Tamil regions of the country. They invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the suicide vest from the Tamil Tigers.
TAC: So if Islamic fundamentalism is not necessarily a key variable behind these groups, what is?
RP: The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.
TAC: That would seem to run contrary to a view that one heard during the American election campaign, put forth by people who favor Bush’s policy. That is, we need to fight the terrorists over there, so we don’t have to fight them here.
RP: Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.(apparently when our rich white elite look at colored people, seriously, all they see is apes who should run because we bombed them... if they fight back we get confused, call em savages and wipe them out... and no, I'm not referring to ISIS but to the Native Americans... I think Bill O Reilly wanted to reuse "savages" to try and bring it back into use as a good thing to say about your enemies... when he wasn't helping them with thier propaganda)
OK. Let just say upfront that maybe America should probably have entered the war earlier. But definitely after the attack on Pearl Harbour, America would have jumped in... EVEN IF WE HAD WON THAT "SURPRISE" ATTACK!
DECLASSIFIED - Pearl Harbour Memo Shows US Warned Of Japanese Attack;
Roosvelt probably wanted the people to pay for not listening to him earlier. Rich aristocrats tend to be the same whether as President or Monarch.
Sound familiar? Because it is familiar...
What we have with WW2 and Third Term Roosevelt here is the ridiculous (though completely reasonable strategy for a war general as declassified documents of Joint Chiefs of Staffs brainstorming sessions have shown), i.e. if American's are angry about something then they get more motivated to fight & kill (like any human group).
Moment Of Zen...
If NOTHING else... Hillary Clinton is a mass murderer who was complimented by a mass murderer;