Is Stopping Regime Change Wars Not Important?

[yerrag]

Have been thinking for a long time as the Democratic Party goes through its selection process for nominee to next year's presidential election. How is it that the only candidate with this message, Tulsi Gabbard, with her vow to stop needless wars, not getting much traction in the polls? Why is Amy Klobuchar easily getting higher poll numbers?

Are the polls rigged? Or is the Democrat electorate really for the. continuation of regime change wars? I don't ever get to see polls on this subject alone, but I assume that the country does not like the regime change wars. But maybe I'm wrong. What am I missing?

I don't like to make hasty conclusions, but I fear the thought that regime change wars have the implicit blessing of the US electorate.

Is this a matter of jobs? Won't the troops coming back to home soil be looking for jobs that can't be met, and then they'll create mayhem in home soil? Is the public somehow conscious of this probable consequence and would rather not deal with yet another problem? Such that the continuation of the policy of regime change wars is a better alternative? Protect the home soil, and damn other soils?

 

[tankasnowgod]

Are the polls rigged? Or is the Democrat electorate really for the. continuation of regime change wars? I don't ever get to see polls on this subject alone, but I assume that the country does not like the regime change wars. But maybe I'm wrong. What am I missing?

As a member of this forum, you should know that the way polls are conducted leaves it to be very poor information at the least. It's a survey, often done by phone or the internet, where they get people's opinions on a candidate or policy or whatever. But, they never get quite the right breakdown that they are looking for (be it by party or whatever), so they then "adjust" the data, which just means that they change the results based on a preconceived hypothesis of how the results should have come out if they had a "better" sample.

These issues have existed for decades in polling, but likely are more exaggerated now, as the historically great polling companies have left the polling business (like Gallup). They tend to be conducted by the same organizations that report the data, and those orgs tend to have bias of their own.

So, whether or not the polls are "rigged," I don't think most polling data is all that reliable. Think of the polls as on par with a poorly conducted dietary recall study.

 

[yerrag]

I didn't notice Gallup's gone. How did it fold and go into the sunset? Such a waste. All that knowledge and statistical science isn't useful to gaming the political process, I guess. Just like news, all that journalism school teaches - in the workplace all school teaches is not applicable anymore. How marginalized the people are who seek accuracy and veracity while massaging and spinning data- the school of hard knocks- is what brings home the bacon.

Hard to think that the polls aren't rigged though. Incompetence is a good excuse for malice.

Then again, I believe there are still a lot of people who haven't cut the cord, and rely on cable and broadcast news as their daily info feed. Still very sick, still programmed, and still fearful of what the networks want them to fear. Most of my high school friends are. Most of my family is. They are not the exception.

Most seem to embrace the straitjacket they're on, used to it and happy with it. Having to veer off the mental straits and be challenged is overwhelming. The next football game is on.

With that said, we deserve what we passively allow into our lives. I don't feel the slightest sympathy for what fate we face. Sad thing is that I feel the only way to stay ourselves is to extricate from all the hubbub. We can't be merry, but we'll be on our own way.

 

[kyle]

Why would they be against war when theyre openly waging war against Americans?

Democrats unaminously defend child abuse by transgenderism and replacing the native people through open border invasion.

What principle can they use to object to waging war in the middle east?

 

[yerrag]

Why would they be against war when theyre openly waging war against Americans?

Democrats unaminously defend child abuse by transgenderism and replacing the native people through open border invasion.

What principle can they use to object to waging war in the middle east?

They have these peripheral and trivial issues to contend with. They're exhausted enough to not care about more important things on the larger stage. Their tunnel vision trumps those of carriage horses. Such is the view of being contained in a biosphere of their own.

 

[postman]

Most people just care about things that directly affect what them, and whatever the media tells them to care about.

It's not a left-right issue. Most republicans would support more wars for Israel if something got instigated with Iran. Plenty of republicans wanted regime change in Venezuela. Trump still hasn't fully withdrawn from Syria, and he's still in Afghanistan and Iraq, and his CIA is probably attempting regime change in Iran.

 

[yerrag]

Most people just care about things that directly affect what them, and whatever the media tells them to care about.

It's not a left-right issue. Most republicans would support more wars for Israel if something got instigated with Iran. Plenty of republicans wanted regime change in Venezuela. Trump still hasn't fully withdrawn from Syria, and he's still in Afghanistan and Iraq, and his CIA is probably attempting regime change in Iran.

Yup. Apparently the populace hasn't seen enough of what is meant by the phrase "you reap what you sow." 911 didn't get the message across. They didn't warm up to the message that this was blowback for what the US forces have been doing. They still hew to the idea that the USA is safer when regimes termed dangerous by our intelligence agencies are changed.

Seems like as long as they have jobs, and the government offers them security, they are willing to wink wink and turn a blind eye to the carnage in regime change wars. They continue to go to church, they donate to the church, they go on mercy missions, go to social projects (funded by corporations) in the developing world for a social justice vacation, they contribute to disaster relief efforts - thus feeling good about themselves. Meanwhile, they sit pat on their charitable actions while they do nothing, much less raise a finger, at what their military is doing in other countries. They believe their military is keeping the peace, or liberating people from dictatorships, while they see a continuous stream of refugees heading their way, and remain oblivious to how their apathy is central to the perpetual refugee crisis.

 

[Homo Consumericus]

If you invade the world, you invite the world. Lots of New Americans and New Europeans to look forward to.

But to answer your question, I don't think Democrats vote based on this issue. Foreign regime change is at least less important if not a non-issue entirely. They are voting to defeat Trump. They are voting to not be racist. And they are voting to have women with penises and women who used to have penises compete against women who have never had penises in physical sports.

 

[yerrag]

If you invade the world, you invite the world. Lots of New Americans to look forward to.

But to answer your question, I don't think Democrats vote based on this issue. Foreign regime change is at least less important if not a non-issue entirely. They are voting to defeat Trump. They are voting to not be racist. And they are voting to have women with penises and women who used to have penises compete against women who have never had penises in physical sports.

Such is how the trivia has been molded to become central with the Democratic Party, by design by the elites and the masses fall for it hook line and sinker. How could they not, after being brainwashed by media, by Hollywood, and by the public school system?