Share this page!

Nicholas Grossman Profile picture
Twitter logo
7 Nov, 5 tweets, 2 min read
False. There's no standard by which Trump didn't "get us into any new wars" that doesn't also apply to Obama.
Both did drone strikes. Both added troops to some ongoing conflicts and withdrew some others. Both bombed regime targets in a new country but didn't invade (Libya, Syria)
Trump also generated greater confrontation with Iran by scrapping JCPOA without cause and bombed an Iran government target, Soleimani, the first military commander of a foreign state the US killed since WWII. In response, Iran bombed a US military target for the first time ever.
I've heard from various types of people that Trump is the first POTUS in a while not to start any new wars, or was more generally anti-war, and it's false. Some are lying, many are just misguided, but either way, it's wrong.
And yet, this inaccurate claim seems likely to persist.
Not all military actions are the same. Some forced by circumstances, some chosen. Some extensive, others quite limited. Important point.
Did Trump do something like invading and occupying Iraq? No. But neither did Obama, Clinton, HW Bush, or Reagan.
Yes, two of Trump's impacts on US military policy were (1) pardoning and celebrating war criminals, thereby encouraging worse behavior by US troops, and (2) loosening rules of engagement to be less concerned about civilian casualties.
Not exactly anti-war.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Nicholas Grossman

Nicholas Grossman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @NGrossman81

Nicholas Grossman Profile picture
9 Sep
The main reason DHS and other US gov security agencies consider white supremacists a threat is that white supremacist terrorists have killed more Americans in recent years than any other type of terrorist (see the El Paso Walmart shooting, the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, more)
Pittsburgh synagogue shooting was white supremacist because the terrorist targeted Jews because a Jewish org helped resettle Middle Eastern refugees.
El Paso shooting was because the terrorist targeted Latinos to defend whites from the "great replacement" of nonwhite immigration.
.@ConceptualJames doesn't understand terrorism, nor how terrorist analysts classify some attacks as white supremacist.
By fixating on personal bugaboos, he's effectively apologizing for white supremacist terrorism.
And that's the charitable interpretation.
Read 6 tweets
Nicholas Grossman Profile picture
13 May
The argument here is it was totally unfair that the sitting administration's top foreign policy, national security, and law enforcement officials found out who was conducting secret conversations with Russia's ambassador about undermining the administration's foreign policy.
Try thinking it through:
US intelligence is monitoring Russia's ambassador--of course they are, not least because he's known to be involved with Russian intelligence--and catch him talking to an American about undermining US foreign policy. So they have to... willfully ignore it?
Logan Act stuff is silly. Incoming officials reaching out to foreign counterparts is fine.
But US officials knew Russia conducted a big intel op against the US, and knew this convo with Kislyak was hidden from the US gov. Not finding out who it was would be a dereliction of duty.
Read 5 tweets
Nicholas Grossman Profile picture
31 Mar
The accusation "fascist" gets thrown around too easily these days, and I've argued that defining fascism down is an analytical and political mistake.
But that Adrian Vermeule article in the Atlantic is fairly labeled, at minimum, fascist compatible.
That's because
1/x
Vermeule denounces "individualist autonomy" and calls for "respect for the authority of rule and rulers" and "hierarchies" that, he argues, should show a "candid willingness to 'legislate morality.'"
Fascist theorist Alfredo Rocco called this subservience "organicism."
2/x
As @ethanbdm notes, an authoritative state paradoxically creating "freedom" is a key component of fascism.
Vermeule's "common good" vision is explicitly religious, with the state forcing people to adhere to his version of traditional Catholic morality.
3/x
Read 5 tweets
Nicholas Grossman Profile picture
7 Mar
A few words about Bo Winegard (@EPoe187), who just lost his tenure-track job at Marietta College:
I don't know why they did it and can't evaluate it. But I can say it's unusual to let a prof go after < 3 years, especially one who, like Bo, has published peer-reviewed work.
1/x
No one on Twitter discusses contentious issues more civilly than Bo. I've disagreed with him on things minor & major, and he's always up for real dialogue. Many come at him aggressively, and he tries dialogue with them too.
Some preach civility and don't practice it. Bo does.
2/x
I'm familiar with criticisms of Bo--I've raised some myself--and while I'm not in the camp who thinks nothing should be out of bounds, placing Bo's arguments out of bounds is a mistake.
We're all better off when there's some space for real dialogue on controversial issues.
3/x
Read 5 tweets
Nicholas Grossman Profile picture
26 Feb
A problem with “indoctrination” debates: For people who demand unquestioning adherence to received wisdom, learning to consider a variety of perspectives and base conclusions on evidence can seem like indoctrination into an alternative belief, even though it’s not.
Let’s say your family likes Trump and believes his claim of “the biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan.” Then your kid goes to college, takes an American politics class, and learns that Trump’s win ranked 5th of 7, ahead of only GWB.
Was that left-wing indoctrination?
Let’s say you’re raised with hateful stereotypes of gay people. You go to college, meet some gay people, and find they’re just people. You don’t like a lot of “woke” politics, but you decide not to use anti-gay slurs anymore.
Were you indoctrinated into a left-wing belief system?
Read 6 tweets
Nicholas Grossman Profile picture
25 Feb
With Sanders now the Democratic front-runner, it's Debate Bernie's Electability Week. I'm among the few who don't like Bernie and also think he's electable.
One reason is a mistake @saletan makes here: assuming that what people think today is what they'll think in Nov.
(THREAD)
@saletan Saletan is right, Americans don't like socialism. However, much as head-to-head polls should be taken with a grain of salt because the general election campaign will matter, opinions of socialism will change if Bernie's the nominee. From partisanship, if nothing else.
2/
@saletan Impeachment polled in the 20s, and then as soon as Dems announced it, it polled in the 40s. Clearly some Dem partisans thought it was a bad idea, but got on board when there was no alternative.
Similarly, expect some Dems now saying they dislike socialism to change their mind.
3/
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get email notifications when new thread is out from this Author!

Check out other threads from this Author!

Read all threads by @NGrossman81