General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: DO NOT BE FOOLED!!! [View all]BainsBane
(53,171 posts)Troskyites, who got their start in a salon run by Irving Kristol. One can see the influence of Trotsky's concept of permanent revolution in their conception of foreign policy, but observing that requires having read Trotsky. Kissinger stands in contrast to neocons. Real politik contains none of zeal to remake the world for the cause of "freedom" as neoconcervatism does. It's a conception of foreign policy that is unashamedly about American interests. There have been hawks for centuries, while neoconservatism is an ideology of the late-20th early 21st century. I'm not going to read articles to discern points you refuse to substantiate yourself. If you knew what you were talking about, you would do more than post links and photos. Your point about fascism is equally erroneous and shows no more understanding of that model than neoconservatism. You make a lot of noise but say nothing.
You seem to think the purpose of a President is to express your anger rather than govern. The idea that one Secretary of State is culpable for associating with a former Secretary is the kind of thing one sees from Tea Party members, who want to ensure that government accomplishes nothing.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was you who said the number one goal was defeating Clinton--not any particular cause or foreign policy goal, but defeating a single woman running for the President. You express contempt for Obama and Clinton, while treating JFK as a saint (again, I apologize if I confused you with someone else), despite the fact he was a hawk and slashed taxes on the wealthy, his own kind. I can't help notice the stark difference in attitude, which cannot be explained by policy differences or accomplishments.