If Trump gets into a war, we as Dems pretty much HAVE to oppose it!

[Ken Burch]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by DonViejo (a host of the DU Community Help forum).

It goes without saying that any conflict he sends our troops into is going to be stupid, pointless and utterly unwinnable in military terms.

The American people will insist on having the chance to vote to stop Trump's war, whatever it is.

There is no possible way that "we can do it better" is going to work, because whatever he does with force won't be something that can be done better, or even done right.

There won't be a half way position to take on it.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. I am fantasizing about how great it would be if everybody last year had just

aggressively and positively and actively SUPPORTED HER, CUZ there is WAY more of us than them.

We wouldnt have to do any of this crap now.

[Ken Burch]

4. You're talking to someone who did that in the fall campaign.

The vast majority of us, whoever we backed in the primaries, did.

[sheshe2]

2. I don't understand your title.

If Trump gets into a war, we as Dems pretty much HAVE to oppose it!

Why would you think ANY Democrat would support WWIII?

[Ken Burch]

3. There's a fear of being seen as "antiwar" in the elected segment of the party.

It's much more a mindset of the party leaders than the rank-and-file. Those of us working from below will have to make sure they elected Dems don't "fall in line" with any war.

It wasn't a comment against the base. I know that virtually all other Dems on the grassroots level, would instinctually get in touch with their inner Barbara Lees.

The base has learned from Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya. That part goes without saying.

[sheshe2]

5. So which Dems are you talking about?

It's much more a mindset of the party leaders than the rank-and-file. Those of us working from below will have to make sure they elected Dems don't "fall in line" with any war.

[NurseJackie]

6. As you can see, it's a P/A BS post that's attacking the Democratic Party leaders...

... with an ever-so-sly backhanded accusation that they're "pro-war," or that they'll have to struggle with their "natural inclinations" or their "gut instinct" or whatever propensity they may have to be in favor of war.

It's a variation on a theme that's frequently used to attack Democrats. Susan Sarandon did the same thing against Hillary during the general election and it was one of the explicit and oft-stated reasons that she preferred Stein.

It's absolute nonsense to smear Democratic party leaders in this manner and with these types of bullshit "concerns".

[sheshe2]

7. Yep.

I agree, NJ.

[Ken Burch]

8. It's not "attacking" anyone, and I'm as much a Democrat as you are.

It's about pointing out the task the activists and the base have.

The OP is simply calling on us to learn from history.

You would agree that we'll have to mobilize against any military intervention Trump would lead, right?

I have nothing in common with Sarandon and her choices.

[NurseJackie]

10. Yes it is.

8. It's not "attacking" anyone,

You're splitting hairs. It's not an attack against any one... it's an attack against Democratic party leaders (and by extension, the Democratic party itself). I think you've forgotten that I'm much smarter than you give me credit for, Ken. I'm not easily confused by word-games or hair-splitting.

and I'm as much a Democrat as you are.

Irrelevant faux-defense. A diversion. Nobody said anything about that at all. Nobody has accused you of not being a Democrat.

It's about pointing out the task the activists and the base have.

No it's not. What you're doing is smearing party leaders with a backhanded insinuation and smear that they're naturally inclined to be pro-war.

The OP is simply calling on us to learn from history.

LOL ... at the risk of repeating myself, I must remind you that I'm much smarter than you give me credit for.

You would agree that we'll have to mobilize against any military intervention Trump would lead, right?

Irrelevant. That has nothing to do with the original post. It's not a defense of anything previously said. This is just an attempt to change the subject by making an obvious statement in which everyone can agree.

I have nothing in common with Sarandon and her choices.

Irrelevant faux-defense. A diversion. Nobody said you did. What I am saying, however, is that this type of attack/smear against Democrats (in the OP and your first follow-up) is the same type of smear that's very similar to the ones used by Sarandon to insinuate that Democrats are "pro-war".

Please stop. Just... stop.

[ehrnst]

11. +1000. (nt)

[ehrnst]

14. Which party leaders are going to "fall in line with any war" if we don't make sure

don't?

I won't hold my breath for you coming through with any actual names to back up your vague and insulting innuendo towards "elected Democrats."

[Ptah]

9. Community Help (Forum): About This Forum

Statement of Purpose

Get help from your fellow DU members and share tips about DU, in a positive, supportive environment.

[ehrnst]

13. Seriously... (nt)

[ehrnst]

12. Your post implies they won't

by stating that they should NOT go "halfway" on it.

[lapucelle]

15. This is insulting.

I don't know any Democrat who will be on board with a Trump-instigated war. What a patronizing implication.

As an actively engaged Democrat working with my local office to GOTV next week, I find your post bewildering at best. Rather than lecturing apocryphal Democratic "war-mongers", go make phone calls or knock on doors this weekend. Election day is TUESDAY. We need all hands on deck.

[DonViejo]

16. Locking....

This is not the correct Forum for this OP, please post it in the General Discussions Forum