The Donald Trump Thread

Ian,

Back then the Left recognised that provoking a war with Russia would be a disaster for all.

In addition,

The Georgia 'invasion' happened after the Georgian military fired on some pro-Russian villages - it was not an invasion, and Georgia still exists.

The Ukrainian 'invasion' happened after the lawfully elected president of Ukraine was ousted by demonstrations in Kiev encouraged by the EU, who wanted to extend their empire still further. The new Kiev government tried to retake the Eastern pro-Russian provinces by force. That is like the UK trying to retake Scotland by force if they had voted to separate! The citizens of Crimea were asked to vote on whether to join Russia once more, but they were not likely to refuse because the new Kiev government were threatening to attack Crimea to get it back!

In Syria, the US has prosecuted a war against Assad using supposedly moderate freedom fighters. Some of these moderate freedom fighters recently filmed themselves cutting off the head of a 12-year old boy. Using US weapons they were holed up in East Aleppo, terrorising the citizens of that unfortunate city. The Russians have got the terrorists out, just as the US are trying to do in Mosul.

The US has wrecked too many countries in the Middle East. I went on 2 demos against the second Iraq war, and also a demo against the first war. More recently, Hillary Clinton and David Cameron turned Libya into yet another failed state. Yes, living under Gaddafi or Saddam must have been unplesant, but not as bad as having total instability with ISIS on the loose.

The US needs a president that understands the real picture and fixes it.

David
 
Last edited:
I keep wondering how much longer our resident Trump supporters are going to keep pretending that he's an anti establishment saviour and that he saved us from the evil establishment.

He's admitted in his recent rallies that half the stuff he said was nonsense that he didn't mean, and we have his cabinet of billionaires full of lobbyists and people from the swamp he was supposedly gonna drain.
Could you please be a little more specific. In order to refute your assertions one would have to provide specific details and I think people might be reluctant to make an effort refute something when they are not sure exactly what they are refuting. What did Trump say exactly, and which cabinet nominees are lobbyists, what do you think he meant by swamp? What specifically are the facts you think support your assertion?

Below I don't mean to defend the assertion that trump is anti-establishment because whether you think Trump is anti-establishment depends on what you consider establishment. But some of his cabinet nominees seem to be against the very existence or purpose of the agencies they are nominated to run.
  • His nominee for dept of labor is a fast food mogul, an industry known for low wages.
  • His nominee for the EPA is a global warming skeptic.
  • His nominee for department of energy was a candidate in the republican primaries during which he vowed to eliminate that department if elected president.
  • His nominee for department of education is a strong proponent of charter schools that are run by private, not government, organizations.
  • Trump himself has taken a phone call from Taiwan, something no other president has done in decades.
  • His ambassador to Israel wants to move the embassy to Jerusalem.
  • Trump's nominee for homeland security is a retired general, someone who should know something about defending borders. Trump a wants to end illegal immigration and H1-B visa abuse, which is the opposite of what the corporate establishment wants because they benefit from cheap labor, and the opposite of what democrat politicians want.
Trump's tweets about airforce one and the F35 indicate he is going to run military procurement programs like a businessman not like a government (establishment) employee looking for a job at a defense contractor (establishment). He plans to use the same negotiation skills for his infrastructure spending to get the most value for taxpayers instead using them as boondoggles for senators and corporations.

Trump, a billionaire who spent much of his own money on his campaign, is much less dependent on corporate and special interest donation than other candidates.

I think different people can have a different understanding of what anti-establishment is, and the point of this post is not to define or support a definition of anti-establishment, but I do think Trump wants to take the status quo and turn it upside down and shake it until the government does not resemble anything we have seen before in this country.

Furthermore I think we have to wait and see what happens when Trump is in office. If you want to go against established interests, huge government bureaucracies, multinational corporations, and investment banks, you need people who know how they work from the inside.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/us/politics/donald-trump-cabinet-picks.html?_r=0


Mr. Trump has recruited people to lead his government who can be roughly grouped into categories that appeal to the different parts of his psyche. In addition to the disrupters, there are the dealmakers, the loyalists, the establishment and the generals.
...

Outsiders Selected by Trump Aim to Unnerve Washington


They are President-elect Donald J. Trump’s disrupters.

Seven men and one woman named by Mr. Trump to run vast government agencies share a common trait: once they are confirmed, their presence is meant to unnerve — and maybe even outright undermine — the bureaucracies they are about to lead.

Some of those chosen — 17 picks so far for federal agencies and five for the White House — are among the most radical selections in recent history. Other presidents’ nominees, even when controversial, were often veterans of the Washington bureaucracy and generally believed in it. But a number of Mr. Trump’s most important selections have no experience in federal government and a great drive to undo it.

Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma state attorney general who was picked to lead the E.P.A., rejects the established science of human-caused climate change and has built his career on fighting environmental regulations. At the Education Department, Betsy DeVos wants to steer government money away from traditional public schools. Rick Perry was picked to head the Energy Department — unless he eliminates it, as he once promised.

Representative Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, the conservative Republican who was chosen as White House budget director, refused to back the 2011 deal to raise the federal debt limit and helped to bring the United States to the brink of default.

...

Few things made Mr. Trump’s campaign supporters roar with approval more than when he hammered the “political class in Washington,” telling people at his rallies that the government had betrayed them, and vowing that change was coming.

At many agencies, it may soon arrive. In addition to Ms. DeVos, Mr. Pruitt, Mr. Perry and Mr. Mulvaney, the disrupters include Ben Carson, chosen to lead the Housing Department; Andrew Puzder as labor secretary; Representative Tom Price of Georgia to oversee the Health and Human Services Department; and Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama as attorney general.

The disrupters appear to have been picked in part for their singular ability to shake up the normal course of business at their agencies.

Mr. Sessions, whose 1986 nomination as a federal judge was rejected by the Republican-controlled Senate because of testimony from colleagues that he was a racist, is likely to push for wholesale changes at the Justice Department by imposing conservative positions on immigration, terrorism, crime, drugs and guns. He is almost certain to reverse Obama-era efforts to confront civil rights violations, sentencing disparities and police abuses.

Mr. Carson, a surgeon who has no experience in housing or running a large government agency, has already put housing advocates on notice that he does not think much of current programs for the poor. Mr. Puzder, who owns fast-food chains and is opposed to raising the minimum wage, is a longtime critic of his department’s approach. Mr. Price, who waged a crusade against the Affordable Care Act in Congress, could soon be in a position at H.H.S. to lead the drive to repeal and replace it.

Mr. Trump demonstrated his desire for a disruptive force when he named Mr. Pruitt to head the nation’s top environmental agency. While saying that his administration “strongly believes in environmental protection,” he previewed the kind of change he is looking for.

“For too long, the Environmental Protection Agency has spent taxpayer dollars on an out-of-control anti-energy agenda that has destroyed millions of jobs,” he said, adding that Mr. Pruitt “will reverse this trend.”

 
Last edited:
What exactly is this about? I am indeed a supporter of Donald Trump, and Nigel Farage. I think there are a few other Brits here that lean that way.

By the standards of the Left when I was a young man, both these guys would count as left of centre.

David
Trump and Farage left of centre?

Objectively speaking - no.

And the 'centre' has moved to the right.
 
Could you please be a little more specific. In order to refute your assertions one would have to provide specific details and I think people might be reluctant make an effort refute something when they are not sure exactly what they are refuting. What did Trump say exactly, and which cabinet nominees are lobbyists, what do you think he meant by swamp? What specifically are the facts you think support your assertion?

Below I don't mean to defend the assertion that trump is anti-establishment because whether you think Trump is anti-establishment depends on what you consider establishment. But some of his cabinet nominees seem to be against the very existence or purpose of the agencies they are nominated to run.
  • His nominee for dept of labor is a fast food mogul, an industry known for low wages.
  • His nominee for the EPA is a global warming skeptic.
  • His nominee for department of energy was a candidate in the republican primaries during which he vowed to eliminate that department if elected president.
  • His nominee for department of education is a strong proponent of charter schools that are run by private, not government, organizations.
  • Trump himself has taken a phone call from Taiwan, something no other president has done in decades.
  • His ambassador to Israel wants to move the embassy to Jerusalem.
  • Trump's nominee for homeland security is a retired general, someone who should know something about defending borders. Trump a wants to end illegal immigration and H1-B visa abuse, which is the opposite of what the corporate establishment wants because they benefit from cheap labor, and the opposite of what democrat politicians want.
Trump's tweets about airforce one and the F35 indicate he is going to run military procurement programs like a businessman not like a government (establishment) employee looking for a job at a defense contractor (establishment). He plans to use the same negotiation skills for his infrastructure spending to get the most value for taxpayers instead using them as boondoggles for senators and corporations.

Trump, a billionaire who spent much of his own money on his campaign, is much less dependent on corporate and special interest donation than other candidates.

I think different people can have a different understanding of what anti-establishment is, and the point of this post is not to define or support a definition of anti-establishment, but I do think Trump wants to take the status quo and turn it upside down and shake it until the government does not resemble anything we have seen before in this country.

Furthermore I think we have to wait and see what happens when Trump is in office. If you want to go against established interests, huge government bureaucracies, multinational corporations, and investment banks, you need people who know how they work from the inside.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/us/politics/donald-trump-cabinet-picks.html?_r=0


Mr. Trump has recruited people to lead his government who can be roughly grouped into categories that appeal to the different parts of his psyche. In addition to the disrupters, there are the dealmakers, the loyalists, the establishment and the generals.
...

Outsiders Selected by Trump Aim to Unnerve Washington


They are President-elect Donald J. Trump’s disrupters.

Seven men and one woman named by Mr. Trump to run vast government agencies share a common trait: once they are confirmed, their presence is meant to unnerve — and maybe even outright undermine — the bureaucracies they are about to lead.

Some of those chosen — 17 picks so far for federal agencies and five for the White House — are among the most radical selections in recent history. Other presidents’ nominees, even when controversial, were often veterans of the Washington bureaucracy and generally believed in it. But a number of Mr. Trump’s most important selections have no experience in federal government and a great drive to undo it.

Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma state attorney general who was picked to lead the E.P.A., rejects the established science of human-caused climate change and has built his career on fighting environmental regulations. At the Education Department, Betsy DeVos wants to steer government money away from traditional public schools. Rick Perry was picked to head the Energy Department — unless he eliminates it, as he once promised.

Representative Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, the conservative Republican who was chosen as White House budget director, refused to back the 2011 deal to raise the federal debt limit and helped to bring the United States to the brink of default.

...

Few things made Mr. Trump’s campaign supporters roar with approval more than when he hammered the “political class in Washington,” telling people at his rallies that the government had betrayed them, and vowing that change was coming.

At many agencies, it may soon arrive. In addition to Ms. DeVos, Mr. Pruitt, Mr. Perry and Mr. Mulvaney, the disrupters include Ben Carson, chosen to lead the Housing Department; Andrew Puzder as labor secretary; Representative Tom Price of Georgia to oversee the Health and Human Services Department; and Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama as attorney general.

The disrupters appear to have been picked in part for their singular ability to shake up the normal course of business at their agencies.

Mr. Sessions, whose 1986 nomination as a federal judge was rejected by the Republican-controlled Senate because of testimony from colleagues that he was a racist, is likely to push for wholesale changes at the Justice Department by imposing conservative positions on immigration, terrorism, crime, drugs and guns. He is almost certain to reverse Obama-era efforts to confront civil rights violations, sentencing disparities and police abuses.

Mr. Carson, a surgeon who has no experience in housing or running a large government agency, has already put housing advocates on notice that he does not think much of current programs for the poor. Mr. Puzder, who owns fast-food chains and is opposed to raising the minimum wage, is a longtime critic of his department’s approach. Mr. Price, who waged a crusade against the Affordable Care Act in Congress, could soon be in a position at H.H.S. to lead the drive to repeal and replace it.

Mr. Trump demonstrated his desire for a disruptive force when he named Mr. Pruitt to head the nation’s top environmental agency. While saying that his administration “strongly believes in environmental protection,” he previewed the kind of change he is looking for.

“For too long, the Environmental Protection Agency has spent taxpayer dollars on an out-of-control anti-energy agenda that has destroyed millions of jobs,” he said, adding that Mr. Pruitt “will reverse this trend.”


Jim

If we're going to have a debate can you at least try to condense your posts a little?
 
Could you please be a little more specific. In order to refute your assertions one would have to provide specific details and I think people might be reluctant make an effort refute something when they are not sure exactly what they are refuting. What did Trump say exactly, and which cabinet nominees are lobbyists, what do you think he meant by swamp? What specifically are the facts you think support your assertion?

Below I don't mean to defend the assertion that trump is anti-establishment because whether you think Trump is anti-establishment depends on what you consider establishment. But some of his cabinet nominees seem to be against the very existence or purpose of the agencies they are nominated to run.
  • His nominee for dept of labor is a fast food mogul, an industry known for low wages.
  • His nominee for the EPA is a global warming skeptic.
  • His nominee for department of energy was a candidate in the republican primaries during which he vowed to eliminate that department if elected president.
  • His nominee for department of education is a strong proponent of charter schools that are run by private, not government, organizations.
  • Trump himself has taken a phone call from Taiwan, something no other president has done in decades.
  • His ambassador to Israel wants to move the embassy to Jerusalem.
  • Trump's nominee for homeland security is a retired general, someone who should know something about defending borders. Trump a wants to end illegal immigration and H1-B visa abuse, which is the opposite of what the corporate establishment wants because they benefit from cheap labor, and the opposite of what democrat politicians want.
Trump's tweets about airforce one and the F35 indicate he is going to run military procurement programs like a businessman not like a government (establishment) employee looking for a job at a defense contractor (establishment). He plans to use the same negotiation skills for his infrastructure spending to get the most value for taxpayers instead using them as boondoggles for senators and corporations.

Trump, a billionaire who spent much of his own money on his campaign, is much less dependent on corporate and special interest donation than other candidates.

I think different people can have a different understanding of what anti-establishment is, and the point of this post is not to define or support a definition of anti-establishment, but I do think Trump wants to take the status quo and turn it upside down and shake it until the government does not resemble anything we have seen before in this country.

Furthermore I think we have to wait and see what happens when Trump is in office. If you want to go against established interests, huge government bureaucracies, multinational corporations, and investment banks, you need people who know how they work from the inside.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/us/politics/donald-trump-cabinet-picks.html?_r=0


Mr. Trump has recruited people to lead his government who can be roughly grouped into categories that appeal to the different parts of his psyche. In addition to the disrupters, there are the dealmakers, the loyalists, the establishment and the generals.
...

Outsiders Selected by Trump Aim to Unnerve Washington


They are President-elect Donald J. Trump’s disrupters.

Seven men and one woman named by Mr. Trump to run vast government agencies share a common trait: once they are confirmed, their presence is meant to unnerve — and maybe even outright undermine — the bureaucracies they are about to lead.

Some of those chosen — 17 picks so far for federal agencies and five for the White House — are among the most radical selections in recent history. Other presidents’ nominees, even when controversial, were often veterans of the Washington bureaucracy and generally believed in it. But a number of Mr. Trump’s most important selections have no experience in federal government and a great drive to undo it.

Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma state attorney general who was picked to lead the E.P.A., rejects the established science of human-caused climate change and has built his career on fighting environmental regulations. At the Education Department, Betsy DeVos wants to steer government money away from traditional public schools. Rick Perry was picked to head the Energy Department — unless he eliminates it, as he once promised.

Representative Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, the conservative Republican who was chosen as White House budget director, refused to back the 2011 deal to raise the federal debt limit and helped to bring the United States to the brink of default.

...

Few things made Mr. Trump’s campaign supporters roar with approval more than when he hammered the “political class in Washington,” telling people at his rallies that the government had betrayed them, and vowing that change was coming.

At many agencies, it may soon arrive. In addition to Ms. DeVos, Mr. Pruitt, Mr. Perry and Mr. Mulvaney, the disrupters include Ben Carson, chosen to lead the Housing Department; Andrew Puzder as labor secretary; Representative Tom Price of Georgia to oversee the Health and Human Services Department; and Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama as attorney general.

The disrupters appear to have been picked in part for their singular ability to shake up the normal course of business at their agencies.

Mr. Sessions, whose 1986 nomination as a federal judge was rejected by the Republican-controlled Senate because of testimony from colleagues that he was a racist, is likely to push for wholesale changes at the Justice Department by imposing conservative positions on immigration, terrorism, crime, drugs and guns. He is almost certain to reverse Obama-era efforts to confront civil rights violations, sentencing disparities and police abuses.

Mr. Carson, a surgeon who has no experience in housing or running a large government agency, has already put housing advocates on notice that he does not think much of current programs for the poor. Mr. Puzder, who owns fast-food chains and is opposed to raising the minimum wage, is a longtime critic of his department’s approach. Mr. Price, who waged a crusade against the Affordable Care Act in Congress, could soon be in a position at H.H.S. to lead the drive to repeal and replace it.

Mr. Trump demonstrated his desire for a disruptive force when he named Mr. Pruitt to head the nation’s top environmental agency. While saying that his administration “strongly believes in environmental protection,” he previewed the kind of change he is looking for.

“For too long, the Environmental Protection Agency has spent taxpayer dollars on an out-of-control anti-energy agenda that has destroyed millions of jobs,” he said, adding that Mr. Pruitt “will reverse this trend.”

A good start is Steve Mnuchin - his secretary of treasury, who worked for Goldman Sachs for 17 years. How is that 'draining the swamp'?

His team are collectively worth billions - I wonder why rich individuals would want to be involved in the running of the US government? Could it be to make money?

Give me a break.
 
I don't know of any Trump supporters here on Skeptiko, other than Hurmanetar? I do think they are a few British sympathizers, though.
I'm a Brit (although now non-resident) and I would like to make it categorically clear that I have no time for either Trump or Farage. For me, Brexit was (and remains) a nightmare outcome but Trump is even worse. Had I been a US voter I would have gone for Bernie. In the UK, I've been a life-long Liberal Democrat and my favourite politician was the late, lamented Charlie Kennedy.
 
Trump and Farage left of centre?

Objectively speaking - no.

And the 'centre' has moved to the right.
Well consider why it was that it was poor urban areas that voted most heavily for Brexit, and why it was that Trump gained most support from poorer people.

Of course, you can persuade yourself that Trump and Farage were just fooling ordinary people, but can't it ever dawn on you that they have the welfare of ordinary people at the heart of their agenda?

The essentially pro-war agenda of the left was the real shocker for me.

David
 
Last edited:
I don't think the left have a pro war agenda. However I don't really understand why they seem quite content to ignore some undeniable facts ? Blinkers on straight ahead ignoring everything but their ideals appears to be their only way.
Well I knew the statement was provocative, but the fact is, the 'left' media have colluded in hiding the fact that the US has been arming terrorists in Syria, and blaming the chaos on Russia. Hillary also had some very war-like policies, and even now, the 'Left' seems to want to blame Russia for their defeat.

David
 
Well I knew the statement was provocative, but the fact is, the 'left' media have colluded in hiding the fact that the US has been arming terrorists in Syria, and blaming the chaos on Russia. Hillary also had some very war-like policies, and even now, the 'Left' seems to want to blame Russia for their defeat.

David
Yes I tend to agree with that David. I guess I was talking more at grass roots level. But I honestly think a totally new type of thinking is required of everyone if we are to halt this current insanity.
 
I'm a Brit (although now non-resident) and I would like to make it categorically clear that I have no time for either Trump or Farage. For me, Brexit was (and remains) a nightmare outcome but Trump is even worse..
Well you have stated this view more than once, but wouldn't you like to explain what exactly is wrong with Brexit or Trump - particularly in the light of the rest of the conversation going on here.

David
 
Well you have stated this view more than once, but wouldn't you like to explain what exactly is wrong with Brexit or Trump - particularly in the light of the rest of the conversation going on here.

David
I'm not that bothered about Brexit, but I'm not pro Trump. As a man he appears to be most of the things that he is generally said to be. But honestly, what do we really know about any of them? I could probably write pages about this, but is anybody that bothered? I'm too tired to care this morning as I was up at 5am. :eek:

What I don't like is the way people have reacted to his election win, the democrats and generally the labour voters in the U.K. To me, they are in such a blind rage that they can't see anything any longer. The left and the right are both capable of such insanity. That, to me, implies we all must be. Would my own preferred candidate, Bernie Saunders, have been all that I'd hoped he'd be? Doubtful. It's interesting stuff.
 
I'm not that bothered about Brexit, but I'm not pro Trump. As a man he appears to be most of the things that he is generally said to be. But honestly, what do we really know about any of them? I could probably write pages about this, but is anybody that bothered? I'm too tired to care this morning as I was up at 5am. :eek:

What I don't like is the way people have reacted to his election win, the democrats and generally the labour voters in the U.K. To me, they are in such a blind rage that they can't see anything any longer. The left and the right are both capable of such insanity. That, to me, implies we all must be. Would my own preferred candidate, Bernie Saunders, have been all that I'd hoped he'd be? Doubtful. It's interesting stuff.
If Trump had lost, Trump supporters would not have rioted. They would have merely cited this as another example of illuminati control and then they would have doubled up on their preps assuming nuclear war had become more likely.
 
Well consider why it was that it was poor urban areas that voted most heavily for Brexit, and why it was that Trump gained most support from poorer people.

Of course, you can persuade yourself that Trump and Farage were just fooling ordinary people, but can't it ever dawn on you that they have the welfare of ordinary people at the heart of their agenda?

The essentially pro-war agenda of the left was the real shocker for me.

David
This response has nothing to do with your false claim that Farage and Trump are 'left of centre'.

I know that they don't have the welfare of ordinary people at the heart of their agenda, in Trump's history as a businessman, did he seem particularly bothered about ordinary people? Where's Farage now that we've voted to leave?

I also don't need to persuade myself that Trump and Farage are fooling ordinary people. The leave campaign that Farage was a part of outright lied at times and has already backtracked on some of their promises, and I have posted a video in this thread of Trump saying that he was just making stuff up or saying what he thought would get a cheer, with no intention of doing those things. There is no debate that Farage and Trump fooled ordinary people, we know that they have.

Who on 'the left' was pro war? The left in the UK were against air strikes in Syria and the Iraq war, Sanders and his supporters were hardly pro war, and Hilary Clinton may have been pro war but she is not part of 'the left'.
 
Well I knew the statement was provocative, but the fact is, the 'left' media have colluded in hiding the fact that the US has been arming terrorists in Syria, and blaming the chaos on Russia. Hillary also had some very war-like policies, and even now, the 'Left' seems to want to blame Russia for their defeat.

David
You shouldn't confuse 'liberal' and 'left' - they are two separate things. Hilary Clinton is not left wing.
 
I am having a big problem with the Dems trying to get "faithless electors" or "Hamilton electors" to give the presidency to Hilary or someone else. I also noticed our Electoral College is being demonized in the international press. I happen to agree with the EC for many reasons, but it's bizarre to see the press in action twisting it into something else.

I was reading this transcript of an interview with Julian Assange, which kind of summed up my problem with the liberal left in the US trying to influence electors to not vote the will of the people:

Look, let's pull back a bit. There's a deliberate attempt this week to conflate a whole lot of different issues together. It seems to be, as a desire, an extremely dangerous and foolish desire, to flip members of the US Electoral College around into getting up John Kasick or Hillary Clinton on the 19th. It's foolish because it won't happen, it's dangerous because the argument that it should happen can be used in 4 years time or 8 years time for a sitting government that doesn't want to hand over power. And that's a very dangerous thing.
 
This response has nothing to do with your false claim that Farage and Trump are 'left of centre'.

I know that they don't have the welfare of ordinary people at the heart of their agenda, in Trump's history as a businessman, did he seem particularly bothered about ordinary people? Where's Farage now that we've voted to leave?
Well unfortunately anyone who wants to start a new movement in politics has to have a lot of money. Nigel Farage spent about 20 years on the project to get us out of the EU, and he needs a break. He also helped to support Donald Trump in the election, and is, I think, advising him right now.
I also don't need to persuade myself that Trump and Farage are fooling ordinary people. The leave campaign that Farage was a part of outright lied at times and has already backtracked on some of their promises, and I have posted a video in this thread of Trump saying that he was just making stuff up or saying what he thought would get a cheer, with no intention of doing those things. There is no debate that Farage and Trump fooled ordinary people, we know that they have.
Have you come across many people who voted to leave the EU complaining that they were tricked? The biggest so-called lie was the figure of £350 Million a week going to Brussels. Sure it was the gross sum, but the reason the other side called it a lie was because they didn't want to give a net figure - which would still have been enormous.
Who on 'the left' was pro war? The left in the UK were against air strikes in Syria and the Iraq war, Sanders and his supporters were hardly pro war, and Hilary Clinton may have been pro war but she is not part of 'the left'.
Well most of the media pride themselves on being left, and they did their very best to conceal the fact that the US had given weapons to groups in Syria that are basically terrorists. The war would never have happened without the US giving weapons to those guys. I don't know how bad Assad really was, but I do know that the war and destruction must have been orders of magnitude worse.

If the media had stopped wasting time on the minutiae of gender politics, and explored the murky war in Syria, making comparisons with Libya and all the other countries in that region that have been ruined by US meddling, we might have stopped that war years ago.

David
 
Top