Continuation The Trump Presidency: Part 19

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

<snip>

Afghanistan IMO might have worked out, or at least might have had a chance to, if the U.S. had stayed focused.

<snip>

That's some real rose-colored optimism right there. Verging on fantasy thinking.

Afghanistan is where great empires go to die, It has been the subject of invasions by countries far more powerful than they are over and over again and those invaders all ended up going home licking their wounds, with their tails between their legs. Great Britain tried it three times in the same century, with the same results. (I guess they get props for perseverance, if not intelligence.)

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Sorry, but I see some of the same blind devotion,some of the same "Our Leader Is Above Criticism" the same "If you do not agree with us you are stupid or evil" mentality the Trump supporters have applying to some..not all..Berniie Bros.
I have a deep dislike of personality cults, period. And that is what the Bernie movement has become with many people.

Have you seen any of them threaten to nuke an American city (if they had the means) if that's what it takes to support Bernie?

Because I've seen that out of Trump supporters.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

For certain very idiosyncratic definitions of the term "negotiate".

A negotiation which went something like this;

"Bin Laden is a bad guy. Hand him over"

"Show us the evidence and we'll try him here."

*Bomb Afghanistan for eight days*

"Bin Laden is a bad guy. Hand him over."

"Show us the evidence and we'll hand him over to a neutral third government for trial"

*Invade Afghanistan, occupy it and kill Afghans for eighteen years ... also some bombing.*

Not that there was much alternative, I guess, since no evidence was ever going to be forthcoming. (Well, some alternatives, like not bombing the hell out of the country and then invading it, but that would take a rather creative mind, and none of those were forthcoming either. Best to stick with the old tried-and-true methods.)

Yeah, that's some straight-up negotiating right there. Not entirely like an Imperial mentality showing how tough it can be against a nearly third world country, but remarkably close.


If we could bomb anywhere we wanted to in Afghanistan why not just stick with taking out Al Qaeda hideouts, and leave the rest alone? Eighteen years of occupation didn't provide any results superior to that approach ...

And now we're back to negotiating with the Taliban, only this time we're the ones who want out.

Eighteen years wasted. At a pretty steep price tag for us and them. How many Afghans died who weren't Al Qaeda?

Well that depends on if you ask their families or the U.S. State Dept.

Because the vast majority are in the murky middle where we don't want to say "civilian" but don't want to outright call them "terrorists" while "trying to win hearts and minds" so we call them "suspected militants."

ETA: Compromise has been a hot topic around here lately, so I'll go on record as saying this is an example of one of those "compromises" that is just awful.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

Have you seen any of them threaten to nuke an American city (if they had the means) if that's what it takes to support Bernie?

Because I've seen that out of Trump supporters.

I grant that Trump supporters act a great deal like cult followers, but volunteering to nuke a city if their leader requested it, doesn’t that fall into the category of whack-a-doodle, far-out outliers? How many folks made that claim? One? Two? Three?

If less than 1 in 1,000,000 people in a group display a trait, it is not really fair to say that characteristic is representative of the group?

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I grant that Trump supporters act a great deal like cult followers, but volunteering to nuke a city if their leader requested it, doesn’t that fall into the category of whack-a-doodle, far-out outliers? How many folks made that claim? One? Two? Three?

If less than 1 in 1,000,000 people in a group display a trait, it is not really fair to say that characteristic is representative of the group?

That's actually a very good point. Yes, I would very much like to compare what ratio of Trump supporters believe in him like a Cult God with the ratio for Bernie's supporters. Again, I'm willing to bet Bernie's come out much better.

I'd also like to remind everyone: Don't take for granted that everyone presenting themselves on social media as Bernie (or Trump) supports are legit. I'd also be willing to bet that a significant number are trolls (Russian and otherwise), many times trying to portray the supporters in a bad light, many times trying to radicalize the legit supporters.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

Have you seen any of them threaten to nuke an American city (if they had the means) if that's what it takes to support Bernie?

Because I've seen that out of Trump supporters.

In *this* election some fraction of disaffected Berniebros biting off their noses to spite their faces by sitting it out could mean the difference between restoration (even if slight) of the country and the further slide into chaotic, kleptocratic despotism. That's a hell of a lot more consequential than some rando ranting about nukes.

The most extreme of the crazies can be largely discounted for either the impossibility of their claims, the obstacles against achieving them, or the ineffectuality due to smallness of scale.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

That's actually a very good point. Yes, I would very much like to compare what ratio of Trump supporters believe in him like a Cult God with the ratio for Bernie's supporters. Again, I'm willing to bet Bernie's come out much better.

I'd also like to remind everyone: Don't take for granted that everyone presenting themselves on social media as Bernie (or Trump) supports are legit. I'd also be willing to bet that a significant number are trolls (Russian and otherwise), many times trying to portray the supporters in a bad light, many times trying to radicalize the legit supporters.

I agree.
Poe’s Law and all that. Which makes it hard to tell if all the Trumpsters who insist that he has never told a lie.are sincere or are just playing.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by Lurch

In *this* election some fraction of disaffected Berniebros biting off their noses to spite their faces by sitting it out could mean the difference between restoration (even if slight) of the country and the further slide into chaotic, kleptocratic despotism. That's a hell of a lot more consequential than some rando ranting about nukes.

Nevertheless, I don't think that makes them comparable to Trump supporters. Hell, some Obama voters ended up voting for Trump in 2016, does that make you want to wage a hate campaign against Obama, too? I think some of you are holding Bernie to a ridiculous and unique standard.

[TofuFighter]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

Nevertheless, I don't think that makes them comparable to Trump supporters. Hell, some Obama voters ended up voting for Trump in 2016, does that make you want to wage a hate campaign against Obama, too? I think some of you are holding Bernie to a ridiculous and unique standard.

This post is kinda off the rails.

There's no evidence in this thread of anyone 'waging a hate campaign' against Bernie Sanders or even suggesting it. None of the above posts even make reference to Bernie himself, so it makes no sense to me to assert that anyone here is holding him to any kind of standard, let alone a ridiculous one.

All that's been pointed out is that there are, and will always be, supporters of any given strong political personality (trump, Sanders, Obama all included) that will say things or act in a particular way, due to their emotional investment in 'their candidate' that is irrational, and that irrationality is exactly the similarity between them.

Criticism of some supporters of any given personality is not a criticism of them all, and it's not a criticism of you, as your response seems to suggest is the way you feel. Naturally a lot of democratic voters would balk at any suggestion that they are in any way like trump supporters, as you have, but there's a pretty reasonable argument that, in some ways, it's just an inescapable fact.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Hitler should have listened to Rommel. If he had, instead of believing he knew better, D-Day could have had a completely different ending.

No it wouldn't.

[Captain_Swoop]

U.S. Embassy Refused to Test Exposed Staff for Coronavirus

Quote:

Symptoms of bureaucratic blindness: Tokyo embassy employees who visited infected America patients from the cruise ship Diamond Princess were told they didn’t need tests.
At least five embassy employees were exposed to fully virulent coronavirus sufferers and when they all asked to be tested Deputy Consul General Timothy G. Smith not only refused to do so he strongly discouraged them from getting outside testing.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-us...or-coronavirus

[Captain_Swoop]

Trump Tweets

There can be few things worse in a civilized, law abiding nation, than a United States Senator openly, and for all to see and hear, threatening the Supreme Court or its Justices. This is what Chuck Schumer just did. He must pay a severe price for this!

This is a direct & dangerous threat to the U.S. Supreme Court by Schumer. If a Republican did this, he or she would be arrested, or impeached. Serious action MUST be taken NOW!

Quote Tweet
Rep. Jim Jordan
@Jim_Jordan

Today's Left:
First Schumer tells President-elect Trump: "You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you."
Today he threatens 2 Supreme Court justices: "You will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."

[Worm]

Trump claiming the moral high ground when it comes to threatening behaviour?

Really?

Wow.

[BobTheCoward]

"won't see what hit him" is an idiom. An idiom is a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words.

[SuburbanTurkey]

It's about time for D's to wake up to the reality of the partisan SCOTUS. Republicans have long ago abandoned the polite fiction of the impartial court.

The machine really failed in RGB. There should have been a concerted effort to have her retire during the Obama era and replaced with young, healthy justice. Seems like decent odds that Trump will be naming her replacement from the roster of Federalist society hacks.

Republicans wouldn't have blundered such a thing.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

It's about time for D's to wake up to the reality of the partisan SCOTUS. Republicans have long ago abandoned the polite fiction of the impartial court.

The machine really failed in RGB. There should have been a concerted effort to have her retire during the Obama era and replaced with young, healthy justice. Seems like decent odds that Trump will be naming her replacement from the roster of Federalist society hacks.

Republicans wouldn't have blundered such a thing.

Yeah but Moscow Mitch would've found some excuse to not consider her replacement's nomination.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

It's about time for D's to wake up to the reality of the partisan SCOTUS. Republicans have long ago abandoned the polite fiction of the impartial court.

The machine really failed in RGB. There should have been a concerted effort to have her retire during the Obama era and replaced with young, healthy justice. Seems like decent odds that Trump will be naming her replacement from the roster of Federalist society hacks.

Republicans wouldn't have blundered such a thing.

I would bet federalist society judges are doing a better job than any liberal justice. If I had to pick the judge best able to grasp the meaning from 18th century white rich people who owned humans as property and didn't let women vote, it would be kavanaugh.

[JoeMorgue]

The whole "Everyone in a position of power is post-mandatory retirement age in any other scenario" house of cards can't hold period. SCOTUS is just the most obvious example of it.

Even beyond that there's the aspect of I don't like having major, far reaching decisions made by people who know damn well they aren't going to have to live to deal with the consequences. You can't tell me that doesn't make a difference.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Even beyond that there's the aspect of I don't like having major, far reaching decisions made by people who know damn well they aren't going to have to live to deal with the consequences. You can't tell me that doesn't make a difference.

Considering they're usually very wealthy and powerful, no I don't think it makes much difference. The powerful rarely have to deal with the consequences of their decisions.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Yeah but Moscow Mitch would've found some excuse to not consider her replacement's nomination.

There were years in the Obama presidency in which the Senate was controlled by a Democratic majority. They nominated a replacement and, if necessary, changed the rules so McConnell couldn't block it. They could have railroaded Republicans in the exact same way that Republicans have railroaded Democrats.

If RGB retires or dies during a Trump presidency, it will rightly tarnish her legacy. She passed a perfect opportunity to safeguard the seat.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

There were years in the Obama presidency in which the Senate was controlled by a Democratic majority. They nominated a replacement and, if necessary, changed the rules so McConnell couldn't block it. They could have railroaded Republicans in the exact same way that Republicans have railroaded Democrats.

If RGB retires or dies during a Trump presidency, it will rightly tarnish her legacy. She passed a perfect opportunity to safeguard the seat.

Yeah but hindsight is 20/20.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by TofuFighter

This post is kinda off the rails.

There's no evidence in this thread of anyone 'waging a hate campaign' against Bernie Sanders or even suggesting it. None of the above posts even make reference to Bernie himself, so it makes no sense to me to assert that anyone here is holding him to any kind of standard, let alone a ridiculous one.

All that's been pointed out is that there are, and will always be, supporters of any given strong political personality (trump, Sanders, Obama all included) that will say things or act in a particular way, due to their emotional investment in 'their candidate' that is irrational, and that irrationality is exactly the similarity between them.

Criticism of some supporters of any given personality is not a criticism of them all, and it's not a criticism of you, as your response seems to suggest is the way you feel. Naturally a lot of democratic voters would balk at any suggestion that they are in any way like trump supporters, as you have, but there's a pretty reasonable argument that, in some ways, it's just an inescapable fact.

It's an inescapable fact yet for some reason some people persist in pointing it out over and over and over again with respect to Bernie Sanders, but not others (except Trump, of course)? If it's so routine and unnoteworthy then I question why some keep bringing it up. I claim it is in fact due to hate of Sanders himself.

I haven't heard similar criticisms from Democrats with respect to Obama, for example (except for me, in my previous post, making this precise point). Why do you think that is?

Thread continues here.

Posted By:zooterkin