The annoying thing is he was probably fired because he didn't like the colour of Trump's tie that day rather than because of the many many many reasons he should have been fired
[Politics] Trump fires national security advisor John Bolton
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
...How did I know it would be Tucker Carlson? XDAsita said:
Because I was about 80% sure it HAD to be him.
Only this guy can see "The actual point" (Bolton is a terrible, dangerous warmonger) without needing binoculars, only to then turn around and mess it up completely by being his usual idiot self.
MAN I hate that guy and his perpetually confused face.
He was fired apparently because he did lots of things Trump didn't like, and didn't get on with other major players in Trump's administration. First and foremost, I suspect what's done for him is that he pushed the hardline stance on Iran, and it's been a total bust.Palindromemordnilap said:
Well okay. But again, it goes to yet more evidence that Trump is clearly fucking awful at hiring.
I like the part where he thinks that Bolton was part of the Left becuase he thought he could brute force problem with the government.aegix drakan said:
Because the Right never consistently brute forces problems with the government....
I'm certain it's disingenuous bullshit.aegix drakan said:
But liberals and even the politicians of the left are making it easy for him:
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1171898043274354689"]
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1171485918093406208"]
Tweets that implicitly support Bolton from Democratic lawmakers? What's not to get?Kwak said:
AOC's is particularly gross, as her clarification seems to possibly indicate opposition to the Korean peace process.
I don't think it's all that meaningful given that the tweets are more about persons than policies, but progressives should be united in saying fuck John Bolton, may he rot in hell.
Good. Now replace him with somebody who isn't a warmonger.
Also, when somebody is right, they are right. Just because it's Trump or Kim Jong-Un or somebody else scummy who wants Bolton fired, doesn't mean firing Bolton isn't unequivocally a good thing
Also, when somebody is right, they are right. Just because it's Trump or Kim Jong-Un or somebody else scummy who wants Bolton fired, doesn't mean firing Bolton isn't unequivocally a good thing
I've gotta do a whole lot of squinting to make any of what you said make sense. Pointing out that Trump treated Bolton like crap is not supporting Bolton. It's pointing out that he's not the best boss. Also, what peace process? Kim has been doing whatever he wants despite what anyone does.Seanchaidh said:
Ro Khanna, at least, had a better take than the ones I gestured at above:
https://www.thenation.com/article/bolton-war-ro-khanna/
https://www.thenation.com/article/bolton-war-ro-khanna/
You may wish to get your eyes checked, then.trunkage said:
It is absent much of anything else. Bolton should never have been hired in the first place. They should have put that front and center.trunkage said:
The peace process most recently suspended by the North Korean reaction to provocative joint US-South Korean military exercises? Maybe the US should stop doing that, just a thought?trunkage said:
Good things can and regularly are done through bad intentions. It doesn't make the doer right; it's not like they have really learnt anything, have they? It was just another power grab. People are able to distinguish between these and apply caution to the context... congratulate the newfound absence of a psycho, but not the other psycho who caused it through their own selfish desires. The road to heaven is paved with bad intentions, and all that jazz.Pseudonym said:
I don't know, in this case. Kim Jong-Un's desire not to be invaded might be selfish but I don't disagree with the idea of not causing further conflict with North Korea. Trump, though he sucks in twelve other ways, has the vague inclination against war, which I approve of. It's not altogether clear here that Trump or Kim even have such bad intentions in this specific case. More importantly, I don't see the point in bringing it up. Kim and Trump are obviously horrible people, and we can show as much by pointing to all manner of other things such as North Korean concentration camps and Trump's treatment of immigrants and refugees and his environmental policy. Maybe he fired Bolton for nefarious or dumb reasons, but in politics I'll take all the temporary allies I can get. You can make sour remarks about how its probably for a bad reason and it might be, but that hardly matters. Worse, you might be taken to oppose this decision.Neurotic Void Melody said:
Maybe a news article has far more chance for nuance than a tweet? Also, clearly I'm blind. Made you can point out the specific word that prove that they supported him. Because, clearly, they didn't supporting Bolton. At all. They criticised Trump. Just because you criticise someone, doesn't mean your are for their opponents. I would say that this kind of connection probably would be made by Tucker Carlson because he just makes stuff up to suit his narrative. Maybe that's your point.Seanchaidh said:
Hey, all for Bolton being shown as inappropriate for the job. He can also be used as proof that Trump doesn't know what he's doing. You cant do both in one tweet. (You can in two https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-headline-donald-trump-john-bolton_n_5d79ffb4e4b06028fd376656. Where is describes that Bolton being gone as a good thing.) You can in one article.
If your trying to push for political discourse not being on twitter, all for that. It becomes a game of Got Ya, leaves nuance at the door and is just a series of talking point. I think that train left the station a long time ago. If you offended that Bolton was insulted enough, she did it in another tweet
Christmas come early. If we listened to Bolton we would be in 4 wars right now.
North Korea, Syria, Iran, and Venezuela.
And I am talking all of them involving ground troops.
North Korea, Syria, Iran, and Venezuela.
And I am talking all of them involving ground troops.
I'm sure they all do.Seanchaidh said:
But he's already out of office, and the guy they really need to take down is the guy who set him loose in the first place.
It's going to take some serious work to prevent ground troops in one of those.Gergar12 said:
Trump's middle eastern foreign policy has essentially been to give Israel and Saudi Arabia anything they like - and both are huge opponents of Iran. What did they think - Iran was just going to lie down and take it? There's a disturbing, growing risk of major conflict there which may compel the USA to get involved militarily or face massive, global, economic disruption. I have no faith that the current US leadership is capable of exercising its influence wisely to dampen down hostilities: not least because many of the measures it could take (like restoring the Iran nuclear treaty) would be viewed as a defeat for the USA which its president will not tolerate.
Yeah, but if what you're seeming to criticize is that the firing may have given us a momentary interruption in our bellicose foreign policy, I'm not sure that's the most fruitful grounds for criticism. He still employs Elliott Abrams and many other hawks: criticize that, not the fact that Trump is kind of bad at executing our heinous foreign policy.Agema said: