It’s not meant to be. It’s an inference that the Cold War anti-commie imperialist way of thinking never stopped. As much as we’d like to think that there is dynamic change with each new president, there really isn’t that much other than the surface diplomacy. The US has been conducting geopolitical business very much the same as it has been for multiple decades. That should be pretty obvious when you view our involvement in world events.
It’s not meant to be. It’s an inference that the Cold War anti-commie imperialist way of thinking never stopped. As much as we’d like to think that there is dynamic change with each new president, there really isn’t that much other than the surface diplomacy. The US has been conducting geopolitical business very much the same as it has been for multiple decades. That should be pretty obvious when you view our involvement in world events.
So both sides do it.
And therefore Clinton being friends with him is NBD.
If this isn’t using “both sides” as a defense, it sure looks like it.
Again, reinterpreting what I said in a limited context to hyperbole.
No, both sides are not the same.
Clinton being friends with him is indicative of what her foreign policy was/would have been.
Exercise some nuance, man.
I see how it is.
“Both sides” is like “vote blue no matter who” in that it’s only meant to be used to dismiss criticism from the left.
You’re just making stuff up now.
You mean to tell me that you’ve never seen someone say “both sides” when someone to their left criticizes Democrats?
Why is there no insistence upon nuance then?