Even some Members of Congress are feigning shock--"*gasp* the President should confer with us before taking military action", which is complete balderdash--both Bush and Obama took military action without conferring with Congress and for the most part they all just mumbled quietly without really pushing the issue.
I'm pretty sure ALL presidents have taken military action without conferring with Congress. If not all, then a sizable majority. America has been in too many wars for too long. There has not been one decade since at least 1750 that America, or the British Colonies, not been involved in a war somewhere.
Anyways, the mere use of military force does not require a declaration of war and falls under the President as CinC. The continued use obviously requires congressional oversight and authorizations, and probably declarations of war.
So, sure, Trump has the authority to just launch a strike. But if he wants to do more than that, he needs congressional approval. Which he'd probably get, because nothing stirs up patriotic nationalism like a military operation.
The point is, a single act doesn't do a damned thing. It's an empty gesture.
MEANWHILE, Gorsuch is getting appointed to the SC. See how long it takes for Roe v. Wade and Obergefell to get overturned when something even incidentally related comes before them.
I'm not holding my breath for one microsecond that Gorsuch means one damn thing he said about his impartiality.
Even some Members of Congress are feigning shock--"*gasp* the President should confer with us before taking military action", which is complete balderdash--both Bush and Obama took military action without conferring with Congress and for the most part they all just mumbled quietly without really pushing the issue.
I'm pretty sure ALL presidents have taken military action without conferring with Congress. If not all, then a sizable majority. America has been in too many wars for too long. There has not been one decade since at least 1750 that America, or the British Colonies, not been involved in a war somewhere.
Anyways, the mere use of military force does not require a declaration of war and falls under the President as CinC. The continued use obviously requires congressional oversight and authorizations, and probably declarations of war.
So, sure, Trump has the authority to just launch a strike. But if he wants to do more than that, he needs congressional approval. Which he'd probably get, because nothing stirs up patriotic nationalism like a military operation.
The point is, a single act doesn't do a damned thing. It's an empty gesture.
MEANWHILE, Gorsuch is getting appointed to the SC. See how long it takes for Roe v. Wade and Obergefell to get overturned when something even incidentally related comes before them.
I'm not holding my breath for one microsecond that Gorsuch means one damn thing he said about his impartiality.
Yeah no Gorsuch's a religious zealot and a corporate tool. Swell. I'm glad Republican's like Ted Cruz really asked the tough questions like how was Byron White's jump shot?
Just look at the fawning ridiculousness of this. This was all scripted bullcrap that they'd worked out before hand probably part of the 10 million dollar dark money campaign to get Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.
I guess this play was to show Gorsuch in a human light or something but it's so ridiculous. Just look at Cruz's face he's falling in love. Yeah maybe he should be asking about his views on the constitution or something for this lifetime appointment. No https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jEE954RgzQ
The sabotage of Merrick Garland and the confirmation of Gorsuch has set one of the most insane precedents in the history of the Republic: that only a Party that controls both the Executive Branch and has a majority in the Senate can name Supreme Court Justices. Otherwise, from this day forward, that seat will remain vacant based on what Republicans did. This is inarguable.
This is sure to make some hardcore anti-Trumpers froth at the mouth
This is simply not how we view things, and if you're going to comment on our motives, you need to be aware of that.
I've been a Trump opponent since he entered the primaries, and ever since November 8th, I've been hoping that he succeeds as president. I made that very clear long ago in this thread.
And I'm not alone in this, either. The day after the election, Clinton and Obama publicly called on all Americans to wish Trump well and hope for his success. That's the mainstream view among Democrats.
We don't want Trump to fail. We want Trump to succeed, because a successful Trump presidency means a successful America.
The sabotage of Merrick Garland and the confirmation of Gorsuch has set one of the most insane precedents in the history of the Republic: that only a Party that controls both the Executive Branch and has a majority in the Senate can name Supreme Court Justices. Otherwise, from this day forward, that seat will remain vacant based on what Republicans did. This is inarguable.
more bad news as well for the nation that they changed the rules to let simple majority have ALL appointments. "Yeah but harry reid did it first" true but he did it because Republicans were filibustering and not going with ANY nominees of the nations first black president. So that's on Republicans too. Now there's literally NO incentive to compromise at all for the party with majority. So Republicans won't compromise and will shit all over democrats causing Democrats to be elected who are at least as radical. Republicans assume it will be them forever in power and maybe they'll at least be a little inclined to cheat to make it so. What do I mean maybe, look at the fuss the governor of North Carolina threw when he lost re-lection, demanding a recount because there were probably dead voters or something and giving time for the legislature to knee-cap the incoming govenor.
The sabotage of Merrick Garland and the confirmation of Gorsuch has set one of the most insane precedents in the history of the Republic: that only a Party that controls both the Executive Branch and has a majority in the Senate can name Supreme Court Justices. Otherwise, from this day forward, that seat will remain vacant based on what Republicans did. This is inarguable.
more bad news as well for the nation that they changed the rules to let simple majority have ALL appointments. "Yeah but harry reid did it first" true but he did it because Republicans were filibustering and not going with ANY nominees of the nations first black president. So that's on Republicans too. Now there's literally NO incentive to compromise at all for the party with majority. So Republicans won't compromise and will shit all over democrats causing Democrats to be elected who are at least as radical. Republicans assume it will be them forever in power and maybe they'll at least be a little inclined to cheat to make it so. What do I mean maybe, look at the fuss the governor of North Carolina threw when he lost re-lection, demanding a recount because there were probably dead voters or something and giving time for the legislature to knee-cap the incoming governor.
I don't care about the nuclear option nearly as much as I care about them stealing the pick in the first place. I always knew McConnell would use the nuclear option no matter what. I would have bet everything I owned on it from the moment Trump got elected. They've nuked the filibuster now COMPLETELY. It doesn't exist anymore. That won't stop them from making the argument years down the road when Democrats pull the same thing. They'll just assume their voters forgot, and they'll be correct. But, you know, whatever in regards to that. Since it's something I could have easily predicted would happen the very next time Republicans took total power, it's not what I'm generally concerned about. That part of it was written in stone a long time ago.
What the main issue here is is that the previous President had his pick STOLEN from him by a party who simply violated every political norm of the the last 250+ years. And when you break apart ANY sense of fair play and ignore the will of the American voter so blatantly (Obama was elected twice by WIDE margins to make these picks), the entire system will begin to fall apart. Republicans stated that not only would the sitting President no longer be able to name Supreme Court picks with a year left in his term, but it very quickly became that NO DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT would be allowed to make ANY picks EVER. That's not me being hyperbolic, those are quotes from top Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. THIS is how Democracy falls apart. And it's on ONE party, not both sides.
Haven't heard from @vanatos in a while. I don't always agree with him but I like hearing his perspective...
I know personally, there are times where I just want to bow out from a mental health perspective. One thing that can't be argued is that the Trump era is going to be completely exhausting if you are interested in politics. It's one of the main reasons I think he fails. I don't know how you can keep people on all sides of the political spectrum running at this kind of torque for 4 whole years. It's not good for anyone.
Haven't heard from @vanatos in a while. I don't always agree with him but I like hearing his perspective...
I know personally, there are times where I just want to bow out from a mental health perspective. One thing that can't be argued is that the Trump era is going to be completely exhausting if you are interested in politics. It's one of the main reasons I think he fails. I don't know how you can keep people on all sides of the political spectrum running at this kind of torque for 4 whole years. It's not good for anyone.
I like the dialogue though. It helps to temper emotions to see things from other perspectives. At least for me...
Haven't heard from @vanatos in a while. I don't always agree with him but I like hearing his perspective...
I know personally, there are times where I just want to bow out from a mental health perspective. One thing that can't be argued is that the Trump era is going to be completely exhausting if you are interested in politics. It's one of the main reasons I think he fails. I don't know how you can keep people on all sides of the political spectrum running at this kind of torque for 4 whole years. It's not good for anyone.
I was just thinking that a couple hours ago. "Man, it's so tiring just keeping abreast of all the political crap going on now. Not even 100 days into Trump's term (only about 80). God help the people who actually have to keep up with this for a living, such as the Congresscritters and media people."
I have nothing against the (ever declining) sensible progressive. However there is no denying that sheltered, spoiled, whinging, upper-middle class, cultural-Marxist, Caucasian-hating American millennial's (aka SJW's) are an international laughing stock. Even many older mature ones aren't much better, Hillary to this day won't stop whining that her twice failed presidential runs was mostly due to "misogyny" lol.
Now please remind me of the next scheduled college-cry-in for anti-Trumpers #notmypresident
Edit: @Artona Many (though I think "philosophers" is an overstatement for them). On a side note below in this post you will notice I actually admit to liking the unadulterated ideas Karl Marx (and even some neo-marxists). Too bad the left keep screwing the ideology up so much that they are making former leftists like me jump to the conservative bandwagon.
This is simply not how we view things, and if you're going to comment on our motives, you need to be aware of that. I've been a Trump opponent since he entered the primaries, and ever since November 8th, I've been hoping that he succeeds as president. I made that very clear long ago in this thread.
And I'm not alone in this, either. The day after the election, Clinton and Obama publicly called on all Americans to wish Trump well and hope for his success. That's the mainstream view among Democrats. We don't want Trump to fail. We want Trump to succeed, because a successful Trump presidency means a successful America.
That is what is important to us.
Okay to be a little more serious now you say: "this is not how we view things"
Who is "we"? the mainstream left? If this is the case then why does the mainstream left keep pandering to militant cry baby protest groups such as Antifa, BlacklivesMatter, #notmypresident, or any movement wearing a pink vagina hats on ones head...
Hillary Clinton your former "moderate" leftist leader advocates three of these insane movements mentioned and even funded one of them.
I can appreciate that there are (some) sensible progressives left but the problem is you are being drowned out completely by your insane "allies". For heavens sake I am a progressive-at-heart (what can I say, I am a fan of Robin Hood) but even I have swung so far to the right that you could compare me to a GGer on steroids. Dave Rubin a popular centre-left personality said it quite well "the left is no longer liberal"...
Indeed. One other commonly cited axis is the open/closed one. How clearly these axes are expressed in politics is often a function of the voting system. Political parties used to operating on the left / right axis can easily be torn apart- e.g. the British Labour party.
Politics does seem more interesting now to me than when I was younger. A certain segment of our populations probably wish that the elites would stuff the genie of populism back in its bottle and go back to mismanaging the economy and being acceptably corrupt and hypocritical in a lower key. However I suspect that once politics has become entertainment, and a site for mass identity formation, it can be a little difficult to desensitize the public again. One of my resolutions for this year was to wean myself off 24 hour news and get back to better plotted unrealities, but 'tis hard in interesting times.
The St Petersburg blast, Navalny protests, Belarussian demonstrations, and American show of force in Syria are trouble for Putin. The coronation style election he wanted is going to be difficult when he has few good positive moves to make. A crippled Hilary Clinton would have been better for him than Trump's impulsiveness.
Edit: @Artona Many (though I think "philosophers" is an overstatement for them). On a side note below in this post you will notice I actually admit to liking the unadulterated ideas Karl Marx (and even some neo-marxists). Too bad the left keep screwing the ideology up so much that they are making former leftists like me jump to the conservative bandwagon.
This is simply not how we view things, and if you're going to comment on our motives, you need to be aware of that. I've been a Trump opponent since he entered the primaries, and ever since November 8th, I've been hoping that he succeeds as president. I made that very clear long ago in this thread.
And I'm not alone in this, either. The day after the election, Clinton and Obama publicly called on all Americans to wish Trump well and hope for his success. That's the mainstream view among Democrats. We don't want Trump to fail. We want Trump to succeed, because a successful Trump presidency means a successful America.
That is what is important to us.
Okay to be a little more serious now you say: "this is not how we view things"
Who is "we"? the mainstream left? If this is the case then why does the mainstream left keep pandering to militant cry baby protest groups such as Antifa, BlacklivesMatter, #notmypresident, or any movement wearing a pink vagina hats on ones head...
Hillary Clinton your former "moderate" leftist leader advocates three of these insane movements mentioned and even funded one of them.
I can appreciate that there are (some) sensible progressives left but the problem is you are being drowned out completely by your insane "allies". For heavens sake I am a progressive-at-heart (what can I say, I am a fan of Robin Hood) but even I have swung so far to the right that you could compare me to a GGer on steroids. Dave Rubin a popular centre-left personality said it quite well "the left is no longer liberal"...
Nor is Dave Rubin, whose calculated, slow swerve into this alt-right, anti-PC, ex-progressive has been nakedly transparent in how disingenuous it was. Dave Rubin didn't have a political awakening. He saw dollar signs and walked the line slowly to where he is now because he knew he wouldn't be accepted cold turkey.
And, again, you do realize those hats are a direct result of what Trump said on the Access Hollywood Tape during the campaign, right?? This is what gets me about the anti-PC crowd. They spend all day talking about how anyone should be able to say anything they want, but get upset at the slightest things themselves. It's perfectly fine for Trump to use "locker room talk" (a phrase I buried in a previous post), but when women decide to wear "pussy hats" to protest him, they are the ones being vulgar and "whiny".
Black Lives Matter is a cry baby protest group?? I'm willing to bet you would label ANY protest group a "crybaby" group if it has liberal/progressive goals. This is a fun exercise. Ask someone who bitches about protest groups and, indeed, just the idea of protests themselves, what form of dissent they DO favor. Most of the time it turns out they aren't in favor of ANY. They dislike them all. Which is typical of an authoritarian mindset.
I have nothing against the (ever declining) sensible progressive. However there is no denying that sheltered, spoiled, whinging, upper-middle class, cultural-Marxist, Caucasian-hating American millennial's (aka SJW's) are an international laughing stock. Even many older mature ones aren't much better, Hillary to this day won't stop whining that her twice failed presidential runs was mostly due to "misogyny" lol.
Now please remind me of the next scheduled college-cry-in for anti-Trumpers #notmypresident
A couple pictures of a couple people is not representative of the whole group. I don't think that all Trump supporters are like these guys:
Not all Trump supporters are like these people are they? just like all people that oppose him are not like the "whining children" from that video.
And SJWs are less of an international laughing stock than the current President. If you travel internationally now and say you are from the USA you'll get sympathy not because of SJWs in the country but because our President is a bigly embarrassment.
I mean, we could all spent hours upon hours finding ridiculous people to counter the ridiculous people on the other side, and it would go on like a never-ending ping-pong match. I do find it interesting that the media and nearly everyone else has forgotten the Tea Party rallies of 2009 when there were signs with pictures of Obama with a bone in his nose telling him to go back to Kenya, while people walked around with assault rifles talking about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. But hey, the whole point of the Tea Party was to erase the Bush Administration and absolve conservative voters of their culpability for it, so it's no surprise they have been forgotten as well.
Didn't @Nonnahswriter post something similar saying, "lets not go down this rabbit hole"
and I agree completely. You need to criticize the ideas being presented and not the presenters themselves. Once you start labeling the presenters of arguments with names and dismissing them as such, you are not adding anything to the debate.
Whining? maybe... But yet again, definitely not crying or being violent. Looks more like he is talking passionately than whining, almost like a rebelmedia interview at a conversion maybe?
So yes not all Trump supporters are passionate elderly men with tooth decay? However even if they were I honestly don't see it being a problem. They are doing nothing uncivil, bad or idiotically funny.
@Teo_live: To summarize the points of several recent posts, we can't stereotype our political opponents based on a few vocal extremists. I can name plenty of things in modern American liberalism that I dislike, but I don't stereotype liberals as whiny or irrational because of it.
For every liberal extremist, there are a hundred people like @smeagolheart and @jjstraka34. For every conservative extremist, there are a hundred people like @Balrog99 and @vanatos. But if you base your views of them on Youtube or partisan outlets or online media, you're not going to see moderates, because those sources profit from showcasing attention-grabbing and therefore extremist voices.
In this thread in the past, I've stood up for conservatives when people stereotyped them. Now I'm doing the same thing for liberals.
Another very telling stat illustrating, basically, that you can subvert the will of the people by obstruction and pay NO price for it at the ballot box. By 2013, 5 years into his term, 79 of Obama's Court picks had been blocked by filibusters. Previous to that, there had been 68 in the entire history of the Republic.
@semiticgod You sound like a nice guy, very open minded to all sides. I (partially) agree with what you say and I like that you set yourself some good standards.
Anyway back on topic yes every side has an insane vocal minority. This is obvious so their isn't much point talking about it (so not exactly a "woosh" moment like @FinneousPJ thinks, which I will get to later).
However nothing addresses my initial point of these so called "moderates" claiming to not be extremists even though they openly support and sometimes even endorse extremists. It would be like saying "I don't support Black Lives Matter nor do I believe in Feminism yet I vote for Democrats". This is totally hypocritical as Hillary strongly supports both and your vote went towards both. Now I understand you won't always get what you want in a political party but it should at the very least be close to your ideology.
Furthermore what you say doesn't address the observation that one side of politics potentially has much more vocal extremists than the other side of politics. I am almost willing to say this is a fact in learning institutions. I have actually found it impossible to pass any written assignment in any form of education without giving it a "left-leaning touch". Writing assignments as a conservative I find is a great way to score a 0%... I guess we aren't entitled to a "safe space"
Every outlet imo is partisan, so your point about media is sort of redundant as it works both ways. The only decently balanced (and entertaining) outcome you will ever get in media is when two opposite sides clash at the same time e.g Milo Yiannopoulos on CNN, SJW's on Fox, Hillary debating Trump, etc.
Whining? maybe... But yet again, definitely not crying or being violent. Looks more like he is talking passionately than whining, almost like a rebelmedia interview at a conversion maybe?
Well, since it's been quoted, I'd just like to say, I want to know what is up with that shirt on the guy in the background.
This is why you want serious people running things. They may be right, they may be horribly wrong, but they don't treat the situation like a game. Hillary Clinton would be taking this seriously.
Being "serious" is exactly why we've been mired in Iraq for close to two decades - and we have Hillary to co-thank for that. Regardless of what Trump's (ulterior?) motive(s) may be, Hillary's proposal of a vigorously-defended "no fly zone" is FAR worse, and would result in infinitely more bloodshed (which she herself has even admitted) - and in the worst case scenario, lead to open conflict with Russia.
The Syrian situation may be THE single worst quagmire I've ever seen in my lifetime - it's a MULTI-way civil war. And who exactly are the "good guys" in this conflict? - the rebels? This is who they are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEQFmZrQAx8
We should be avoiding this hellhole like the plague. If Russia wants to become embroiled in this mess, and make themselves an even bigger target for ISIS to boot, then I say we should just let them do it - it'll become just like Afghanistan for them in the '80s.
Comments
Asylum or refugee status and acceptance to the USA? Nope. Ground troops? Nope. Money? Food? Other resources besides bombs? Nope.
Anyways, the mere use of military force does not require a declaration of war and falls under the President as CinC. The continued use obviously requires congressional oversight and authorizations, and probably declarations of war.
So, sure, Trump has the authority to just launch a strike. But if he wants to do more than that, he needs congressional approval. Which he'd probably get, because nothing stirs up patriotic nationalism like a military operation.
The point is, a single act doesn't do a damned thing. It's an empty gesture.
MEANWHILE, Gorsuch is getting appointed to the SC. See how long it takes for Roe v. Wade and Obergefell to get overturned when something even incidentally related comes before them.
I'm not holding my breath for one microsecond that Gorsuch means one damn thing he said about his impartiality.
Just look at the fawning ridiculousness of this. This was all scripted bullcrap that they'd worked out before hand probably part of the 10 million dollar dark money campaign to get Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.
I guess this play was to show Gorsuch in a human light or something but it's so ridiculous. Just look at Cruz's face he's falling in love. Yeah maybe he should be asking about his views on the constitution or something for this lifetime appointment. No
I've been a Trump opponent since he entered the primaries, and ever since November 8th, I've been hoping that he succeeds as president. I made that very clear long ago in this thread.
And I'm not alone in this, either. The day after the election, Clinton and Obama publicly called on all Americans to wish Trump well and hope for his success. That's the mainstream view among Democrats.
We don't want Trump to fail. We want Trump to succeed, because a successful Trump presidency means a successful America.
That is what is important to us.
What the main issue here is is that the previous President had his pick STOLEN from him by a party who simply violated every political norm of the the last 250+ years. And when you break apart ANY sense of fair play and ignore the will of the American voter so blatantly (Obama was elected twice by WIDE margins to make these picks), the entire system will begin to fall apart. Republicans stated that not only would the sitting President no longer be able to name Supreme Court picks with a year left in his term, but it very quickly became that NO DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT would be allowed to make ANY picks EVER. That's not me being hyperbolic, those are quotes from top Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. THIS is how Democracy falls apart. And it's on ONE party, not both sides.
I have nothing against the (ever declining) sensible progressive. However there is no denying that sheltered, spoiled, whinging, upper-middle class, cultural-Marxist, Caucasian-hating American millennial's (aka SJW's) are an international laughing stock. Even many older mature ones aren't much better, Hillary to this day won't stop whining that her twice failed presidential runs was mostly due to "misogyny" lol.
Now please remind me of the next scheduled college-cry-in for anti-Trumpers #notmypresident
Who is "we"? the mainstream left?
If this is the case then why does the mainstream left keep pandering to militant cry baby protest groups such as Antifa, BlacklivesMatter, #notmypresident, or any movement wearing a pink vagina hats on ones head...
Hillary Clinton your former "moderate" leftist leader advocates three of these insane movements mentioned and even funded one of them.
I can appreciate that there are (some) sensible progressives left but the problem is you are being drowned out completely by your insane "allies". For heavens sake I am a progressive-at-heart (what can I say, I am a fan of Robin Hood) but even I have swung so far to the right that you could compare me to a GGer on steroids. Dave Rubin a popular centre-left personality said it quite well "the left is no longer liberal"...
There may be some worth reading that I don't know, but you do.
Politics does seem more interesting now to me than when I was younger. A certain segment of our populations probably wish that the elites would stuff the genie of populism back in its bottle and go back to mismanaging the economy and being acceptably corrupt and hypocritical in a lower key. However I suspect that once politics has become entertainment, and a site for mass identity formation, it can be a little difficult to desensitize the public again. One of my resolutions for this year was to wean myself off 24 hour news and get back to better plotted unrealities, but 'tis hard in interesting times.
The St Petersburg blast, Navalny protests, Belarussian demonstrations, and American show of force in Syria are trouble for Putin. The coronation style election he wanted is going to be difficult when he has few good positive moves to make. A crippled Hilary Clinton would have been better for him than Trump's impulsiveness.
And, again, you do realize those hats are a direct result of what Trump said on the Access Hollywood Tape during the campaign, right?? This is what gets me about the anti-PC crowd. They spend all day talking about how anyone should be able to say anything they want, but get upset at the slightest things themselves. It's perfectly fine for Trump to use "locker room talk" (a phrase I buried in a previous post), but when women decide to wear "pussy hats" to protest him, they are the ones being vulgar and "whiny".
Black Lives Matter is a cry baby protest group?? I'm willing to bet you would label ANY protest group a "crybaby" group if it has liberal/progressive goals. This is a fun exercise. Ask someone who bitches about protest groups and, indeed, just the idea of protests themselves, what form of dissent they DO favor. Most of the time it turns out they aren't in favor of ANY. They dislike them all. Which is typical of an authoritarian mindset.
Not all Trump supporters are like these people are they? just like all people that oppose him are not like the "whining children" from that video.
And SJWs are less of an international laughing stock than the current President. If you travel internationally now and say you are from the USA you'll get sympathy not because of SJWs in the country but because our President is a bigly embarrassment.
and I agree completely. You need to criticize the ideas being presented and not the presenters themselves. Once you start labeling the presenters of arguments with names and dismissing them as such, you are not adding anything to the debate.
Pretty sure that's what the 1% want, to pit us against each other while they loot the country.
...also looks like he hasn't brushed his teeth in 10 years Erm... whats bad about this man? He looks 100% calm and relaxed.
If anything he is a great role model for future protesters. So cool and collected Whining? maybe... But yet again, definitely not crying or being violent.
Looks more like he is talking passionately than whining, almost like a rebelmedia interview at a conversion maybe?
So yes not all Trump supporters are passionate elderly men with tooth decay? However even if they were I honestly don't see it being a problem. They are doing nothing uncivil, bad or idiotically funny.
*explains the definition of the word [satire] in a slow, monotonal voice*
..........................WOOOOOOOOOSH INDEED!
For every liberal extremist, there are a hundred people like @smeagolheart and @jjstraka34. For every conservative extremist, there are a hundred people like @Balrog99 and @vanatos. But if you base your views of them on Youtube or partisan outlets or online media, you're not going to see moderates, because those sources profit from showcasing attention-grabbing and therefore extremist voices.
In this thread in the past, I've stood up for conservatives when people stereotyped them. Now I'm doing the same thing for liberals.
For me to do any less would be a double standard.
Anyway back on topic yes every side has an insane vocal minority. This is obvious so their isn't much point talking about it (so not exactly a "woosh" moment like @FinneousPJ thinks, which I will get to later).
However nothing addresses my initial point of these so called "moderates" claiming to not be extremists even though they openly support and sometimes even endorse extremists. It would be like saying "I don't support Black Lives Matter nor do I believe in Feminism yet I vote for Democrats". This is totally hypocritical as Hillary strongly supports both and your vote went towards both. Now I understand you won't always get what you want in a political party but it should at the very least be close to your ideology.
Furthermore what you say doesn't address the observation that one side of politics potentially has much more vocal extremists than the other side of politics. I am almost willing to say this is a fact in learning institutions. I have actually found it impossible to pass any written assignment in any form of education without giving it a "left-leaning touch". Writing assignments as a conservative I find is a great way to score a 0%... I guess we aren't entitled to a "safe space"
Every outlet imo is partisan, so your point about media is sort of redundant as it works both ways. The only decently balanced (and entertaining) outcome you will ever get in media is when two opposite sides clash at the same time e.g Milo Yiannopoulos on CNN, SJW's on Fox, Hillary debating Trump, etc.
Sore Loserman 2009?
The Syrian situation may be THE single worst quagmire I've ever seen in my lifetime - it's a MULTI-way civil war. And who exactly are the "good guys" in this conflict? - the rebels? This is who they are:
We should be avoiding this hellhole like the plague. If Russia wants to become embroiled in this mess, and make themselves an even bigger target for ISIS to boot, then I say we should just let them do it - it'll become just like Afghanistan for them in the '80s.