I get all that. The point is that those are really just semantic arguments- which I believe we agree on.

?? For the record, I know everything he's stating. The point is that it being "illegal" doesn't mean anything. Care to dispute that or would you just prefer to continue posting (pretty weak) snarky comments? I suspect we know the answer….

Ashton Kutcher is only into milfs, right? Is that too 00's?

Or Duke.

I wish it would happen too. I think the best thing for the country, related to your other post, is that we wind up with a far right, far left, and centralist party. I'd be fine with that- at least working within our current system and not being as transformative as I truly believe we should be.

A country is "allowed" to do anything it wishes. The only repercussion is whatever other countries are willing to do to curb the behavior. Pacts like Kellogg-Briand can provide a rationale for other countries to moderate the behavior of an aggressive country, but it is only "illegal" in the most literal sense. There…

Having lived in a racist, parliamentary society for many years, I can see how horrible this would be. I think it would be the opposite of "healthy".

What is illegal? Going to war? How??

Agreed. Personally, I tend to be a moderate Republican, but there's no way party can go before country and Trump is a clear benchmark for that concept. I think there are lots of "never Trump" pundits which helps, but, at the end of the day, they will be labeled as "RHINOS" (whatever the hell that matters) by the Trump…

My post wasn't clear upon re-reading. I mean to say that there weren't 100sk Iraqis killed in the initial invasion to overthrow Saddam. That number is derived from the years of continual suicide bombings, raids, etc between 2003 and ISIS.

I think the argument is that Trump is already worse in some ways. It is true the outcome isn't yet horrible, but he's not been challenged with anything either.

Yes. "Basically no reason at all" is throwing out Saddam. That is a good thing. Also, hundreds of thousands weren't killed in the effort to overthrow Saddam.

That's a totally fair synopsis.

I still wonder how much of that was purposeful when you really look at how little they gave a fuck about rebuilding. Also, it's shocking to me, not that they didn't care about Iraqis, but they didn't see the issue of an empowered Iran if we didn't rebuild effectively.

Expanding political parties is a horrible idea. I don't think we need the "black people" party or the "religious party"….which is what would happen with the decade of "expanding" parties.

Did the people only realize they were racist after voting for the black guy once or twice?

That's only true if you accept partisan politics is where change happens. There's some good arguments that is totally false. 75% of what the "feds" do is just for show.

I agree, but the part missing from your analysis is exactly how tired the GOP is with the Bush family. I sincerely don't know, but evidence points at "really tired".

Yeah, but intentions still matter…..even if only you and the sky-people are fully aware of it.

No disagreement from me. I just think it's obvious that Trump will do (or has done) all of those things for way, way, dumber reasons. It's only been a month. A loooong month.