Pictures and Videos for R&P

[hepcat]

Dennis Rodman is like Donald Trump: firstly a brand, secondly a fame whore.

[Rip]

[GreenGoo]

He is if like most Americans, world is just another word for USA.

Hilarious to see these "threats" mentioned while the US simultaneously retreats from the world stage into a new era of isolationism.

[Skinypupy]

Considering Bolton's answer to every issue on the left side of that board is "THE US SHOULD JUST KILL THEM ALL", I'd say that's fairly accurate.

[Rip]

TeeHee, you guys are a riot. One says we are retreating to isolationism while the other says Bolton wants to blow everyone up. Which is it, you can't both be right?

[Enough]

TeeHee, you guys are a riot. One says we are retreating to isolationism while the other says Bolton wants to blow everyone up. Which is it, you can't both be right?

Isn't this the same dynamic in play with every whatabout Obama post you make? Tee hee indeed.

[Holman]

TeeHee, you guys are a riot. One says we are retreating to isolationism while the other says Bolton wants to blow everyone up. Which is it, you can't both be right?

Modern isolationism doesn't mean closing the doors on the world like 18th-century Japan.

It means rejecting international diplomacy and agreements in favor of lashing out with force and threats like a tiny-handed bone-spurred moron and hoping that'll #MAGA.

[Skinypupy]

One solution to deal with significant global challenges would be to engage in cooperative diplomatic efforts to solve them. Another is to simply threaten to blow the problem up and walk away. Bolton seems to prefer the latter, which would still qualify him as an isolationist in my book. YMMV.

TeeHee.

[GreenGoo]

TeeHee, you guys are a riot. One says we are retreating to isolationism while the other says Bolton wants to blow everyone up. Which is it, you can't both be right?

Yes we can, and we are.

[Freyland]

TeeHee, you guys are a riot. One says we are retreating to isolationism while the other says Bolton wants to blow everyone up. Which is it, you can't both be right?

You normally reserve this level of poorly conceived foolishness to your links. You really need to think things through before you post.

[Rip]

TeeHee, you guys are a riot. One says we are retreating to isolationism while the other says Bolton wants to blow everyone up. Which is it, you can't both be right?

Modern isolationism doesn't mean closing the doors on the world like 18th-century Japan.

It means rejecting international diplomacy and agreements in favor of lashing out with force and threats like a tiny-handed bone-spurred moron and hoping that'll #MAGA.

Now you are just making shit up.

[Freyland]

TeeHee, you guys are a riot. One says we are retreating to isolationism while the other says Bolton wants to blow everyone up. Which is it, you can't both be right?

Modern isolationism doesn't mean closing the doors on the world like 18th-century Japan.

It means rejecting international diplomacy and agreements in favor of lashing out with force and threats like a tiny-handed bone-spurred moron and hoping that'll #MAGA.

Now you are just making shit up.

I agree (ugh) that paragraph two is awfully...specific. But paragraph one is closer to the truth, except acknowledging that other countries exist, but to interact with us you have to kow-tow to diplomacy that places us in a superior position no matter the cost. It may sound good on paper, but it ain't gonna happen that way and we're going to suffer for it since we are incapable of just flipping a switch to self-sufficiency.

[Skinypupy]

Roger Stone: "The US Intelligence community had me poisoned!!"
Anderson Cooper: "Wow, that's a serious allegation. Can you provide any proof of this? A medical report? A doctor's testimony? Would you agree to medical tests to prove it?"
Roger Stone: "Absolutely not, but you can read about how I'm 100% sure of it on Infowars". **smokebomb**



What a maroon.

[Isgrimnur]

How the fuck did these people even live to old age?

[Holman]

How the fuck did these people even live to old age?

Amyl nitrite, or so I hear.

[Isgrimnur]

How the fuck did these people even live to old age?

Amyl nitrite, or so I hear.

What are these goddamn animals?

[Rip]

TeeHee, you guys are a riot. One says we are retreating to isolationism while the other says Bolton wants to blow everyone up. Which is it, you can't both be right?

Modern isolationism doesn't mean closing the doors on the world like 18th-century Japan.

It means rejecting international diplomacy and agreements in favor of lashing out with force and threats like a tiny-handed bone-spurred moron and hoping that'll #MAGA.

Now you are just making shit up.

I agree (ugh) that paragraph two is awfully...specific. But paragraph one is closer to the truth, except acknowledging that other countries exist, but to interact with us you have to kow-tow to diplomacy that places us in a superior position no matter the cost. It may sound good on paper, but it ain't gonna happen that way and we're going to suffer for it since we are incapable of just flipping a switch to self-sufficiency.

You can mind twist it all you want. It is a common and well defined term. Words have meaning. I find no empirical reference to the phrase "modern isolationism".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/17/ame ... -election/

Looking for what has been written on the subject does bring up some things that seem to come from a parallel universe.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/opin ... onism.html

Isolationism is strong in the Tea Party, where mistrust of executive power is profound and where being able to see Russia from your front yard counts as mastery of international affairs. But sophisticated readers of The New York Times are not immune, or so it seems from the comments that arrive when I write in defense of a more assertive foreign policy. (In recent columns I’ve advocated calibrated intervention to shift the balance in Syria’s civil war and using foreign aid to encourage democracy in Egypt.) Not our problems, many readers tell me.

Isolationism is not just an aversion to war, which is an altogether healthy instinct. It is a broader reluctance to engage, to assert responsibility, to commit. Isolationism tends to be pessimistic (we will get it wrong, we will make it worse) and amoral (it is none of our business unless it threatens us directly) and inward-looking (foreign aid is a waste of money better spent at home).

“We are not the world’s policeman, nor its judge and jury,” proclaimed Representative Alan Grayson, a progressive Florida Democrat, reciting favorite isolationist excuses for doing nothing. “Our own needs in America are great, and they come first.”

[tjg_marantz]

Pictures and videos!

[Skinypupy]

You can mind twist it all you want. It is a common and well defined term. Words have meaning.

Oh, so now this is suddenly important to you?

We'll all be sure to remember that the next time you jump in here to steadfastly defend one of Trump's easily disprovable lies.

[Holman]

TeeHee, you guys are a riot. One says we are retreating to isolationism while the other says Bolton wants to blow everyone up. Which is it, you can't both be right?

Modern isolationism doesn't mean closing the doors on the world like 18th-century Japan.

It means rejecting international diplomacy and agreements in favor of lashing out with force and threats like a tiny-handed bone-spurred moron and hoping that'll #MAGA.

Now you are just making shit up.

I agree (ugh) that paragraph two is awfully...specific. But paragraph one is closer to the truth, except acknowledging that other countries exist, but to interact with us you have to kow-tow to diplomacy that places us in a superior position no matter the cost. It may sound good on paper, but it ain't gonna happen that way and we're going to suffer for it since we are incapable of just flipping a switch to self-sufficiency.

You can mind twist it all you want. It is a common and well defined term. Words have meaning. I find no empirical reference to the phrase "modern isolationism".

Why is this so hard for you?

Obviously the US could never be truly "isolationist" in the sense of complete autarky. That's simply impossible. Modern economies don't work like that.

But Trump's claim to "Put America First" is wholly based on trashing long-standing arrangements and balances and going it alone, making new deals on the fly and intimidating/pressuring/out-maneuvering our foes and former friends, always Winning Winning Winning because Trump is the best deal maker the world has ever seen. Alliances and shared interests are unnecessary or illusory because #MAGA.

It's a kind of isolation not from the world but from the contemporary world order, with the aim of blowing up the latter. If John Bolton wants to get in a few wars of choice, that only helps the project.

[Rip]

That literally isn't isolationism.

[Holman]

No, not literally. But it does describe the "America First" ethos that wants to withdraw America from world leadership while breaking up the world order, all to no possible good result.

[em2nought]

it ain't gonna happen that way and we're going to suffer for it since we are incapable of just flipping a switch to self-sufficiency.

We've been pretty much self sufficient in the past. Seems like a pretty good thing to aim for. I think we'd suffer more if there weren't any jobs left here at all.

[Fitzy]

it ain't gonna happen that way and we're going to suffer for it since we are incapable of just flipping a switch to self-sufficiency.

We've been pretty much self sufficient in the past. Seems like a pretty good thing to aim for. I think we'd suffer more if there weren't any jobs left here at all.

Myth.

Without foreign aid we wouldn't have won our Independence. We've relied on imports to accelerate wealth since Jamestown and Plymouth. We imported labor (often forced) to build and tend to the infrastructure and to grow and mine raw materials.

There are many great moments in our history for which we can be proud. However, we should acknowledge that our country is built on the backs and blood of people who were considered less than human by the people and government of this nation.

We are not now and have never been self sufficient as a nation.

[Holman]

it ain't gonna happen that way and we're going to suffer for it since we are incapable of just flipping a switch to self-sufficiency.

We've been pretty much self sufficient in the past. Seems like a pretty good thing to aim for. I think we'd suffer more if there weren't any jobs left here at all.

Myth.

Without foreign aid we wouldn't have won our Independence. We've relied on imports to accelerate wealth since Jamestown and Plymouth. We imported labor (often forced) to build and tend to the infrastructure and to grow and mine raw materials.

There are many great moments in our history for which we can be proud. However, we should acknowledge that our country is built on the backs and blood of people who were considered less than human by the people and government of this nation.

We are not now and have never been self sufficient as a nation.

+1

[Zarathud]

Adam ruins the Pilgrims

[Holman]

[Daehawk]

I dont think this has been posted yet. the Netherlands welcome Trump./....

[GreenGoo]

That literally isn't isolationism.

You can tell your grandkids that you were there the moment isolationism's meaning changed slightly to focus more on economic and geopolitical isolation.

If you can't get over that hump, just substitute economic and geopolitical isolation everywhere you see isolationism in this thread.

If that's too much to ask, then feel free to find something more productive to do.

[Rip]

That literally isn't isolationism.

You can tell your grandkids that you were there the moment isolationism's meaning changed slightly to focus more on economic and geopolitical isolation.

If you can't get over that hump, just substitute economic and geopolitical isolation everywhere you see isolationism in this thread.

If that's too much to ask, then feel free to find something more productive to do.

Nothing to tell them, people have been twisting the meaning of it for decades to use it as a political attack.

What the accused "isolationists" in the GOP and the Democratic Party are really describing would be far more accurately defined as foreign policy realism. The notion that the U.S. should be more restrained in where it chooses to engage militarily, for example, is rooted in the assumption not that the United States should never intervene but that perhaps it should do so more selectively. The "isolationist" argument that vital national interests should take precedence over notions of humanitarianism or global leadership, such as those that led the United States into Libya, is really about modifying the nature of America's dominant positions in the world, not about ending it.

To be sure, hurling the "isolationism" epithet is something of an old game in American politics. In the 1940s, President Franklin Roosevelt went after his GOP opponents (and not unreasonably) for opposing rearmament and active support for European Allies in the face of rising German aggression. That position did great damage to the Republican Party brand at the time. Only when Dwight Eisenhower defeated the isolationist wing of the party at the 1952 Republican convention did the GOP finally begin to wipe away the isolationist stain. Since then, the charge has remained a dirty word in American politics, even as it's frequently misaimed.

In 1972, when George McGovern (also quite reasonably) called on the country to "come home" from foreign entanglements after the disaster of Vietnam he, and the Democratic Party, were branded as too weak and too defeatist to safely manage global affairs. In the 1990s, when I served in the Clinton Administration as a foreign policy speechwriter, my colleagues and I regularly trotted out the claim that Republicans, by questioning the President's foreign policy positions, were returning to the isolationist spirit of the 1920s, '30s and '40s. It wasn't, but the sobriquet was an effective one that brought with it connotations of appeasement and weakness in the face of foreign threats.

Its return today, as well as the ease and frequency with which it is made, are a reminder that a step away from foreign policy orthodoxy and toward a position of urging restraint -- no matter how tepid -- can make one susceptible to the isolationist charge. It's only from the perspective of that orthodoxy would the recent warnings of American overstretch could be considered a retreat from the global stage.

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... sm/241927/

Of course I am sure The Atlantic didn't expect their words from 2011 would be used to defend Trump in 2018......

[GreenGoo]

Yawn.

"Economic and geopolitical isolationism".

You can do it.

[Rip]

Yawn.

"Economic and geopolitical isolationism".

You can do it.

Such a thing is not even possible. Just a false choice.

I am not arguing which is the more persuasive view. There is, perhaps, even a third option. But to label as isolationist a view that argues for a shift in prior US policy is in error. The isolationists in the past may have been wrong, but they weren’t really isolationists.

The US can’t be isolated from the world, as George Washington made clear. That being the case, the question is what should the United States’ involvement be? Washington did not have an expansive view of US involvement. He had a realistic view, seeing that the US had minimal resources at the time. His doctrine was to limit American involvement to what was necessary. Necessity shifts with circumstance, but Washington’s doctrine is self-evidently correct.

https://www.mauldineconomics.com/this-w ... se-choices

[Chaz]

Indeed, the meaning of words is utterly immutable, and can never change. Cool, bro?

[GreenGoo]

At this point I don't even know what you're talking about.

Are you suggesting that the US hasn't withdrawn from a leadership role in the world, or that Drumpf is not reducing external trade with tariffs, refusal to participate in trade treaties and threats to smash current ones?

This isn't arguing about more or less action in Syria, this is a fundamental change for the US on the world stage, one that is guaranteed to end badly for it.

The US is diminished by Drumpf's actions.

It's smaller, less important, and being left out of world decisions it used to take the lead in.

The US is less than it was before Drumpf was elected. That's something that I never expected.

[Holman]

Look, Rip is the one who declared that liberals think Trump is what has always been meant by "isolationist" in its simplest terms, so he's the one who gets to decide that we can't possibly mean what we mean when we clearly explain what we mean.

Case closed.

[Zarathud]

You can mind twist it all you want. It is a common and well defined term. Words have meaning. I find no empirical reference to the phrase "modern isolationism".

This made me LOL.

Rip spending time on wikipedia to justify his political understanding of this issue (of all issues) made me LOL more.

Rip still getting it wrong made me sad, but Rip quoting liberal Democrats made me LOL again.

Trump's View of Syria in 19 Tweets

[Fitzy]

I don't see the issue, I thought Rip's point was obvious.

In the history of the world, there have only been two true isolationist nations:

1. Japan prior to Perry
2. Wakanda prior to the Black Panther movie

[Holman]

In theory, North Korea is isolationist.

"Juche" means self-reliance on the basis of national purity and veneration of the leader's example, so I guess that's something Trump supporters can aspire to.

[Rip]

Isolationist is the opposite of interventionist.

Rand Paul is isolationist.

Trump is interventionist or at least he claims to be.

Bolton is a well known interventionist. That is why everyone is losing their cookies over Trump picking him.

[YellowKing]

There needs to be a new term for Trump's brand of policy. Maybe "narcissalationism." Which means if you're not 'Murrica we're either going to wall you off, tell you to fuck off, or blow you up.