Originally posted by Cow Poke
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Russian Bounty on U.S. military in Afghanistan.
Collapse
X
-
The same pattern emerges, doesn't it?
Left-leaning poster raises news report of some bad thing that Trump has done. Is outraged that a President could do/say/think/allow such a thing.
Other poster enquires as to whether the report is completely accurate.
Back and forth ensues over details of news report, how credible it is.
Other poster is not particularly outraged, because they don't find the report very credible.
Left-leaning poster is even more outraged that other poster is not outraged. (Having entirely skipped the part where they actually establish the facts of what Trump reportedly said/did/allowed/thought)
Other poster maintains their 'wait and see' position. LL poster gets more outraged, begins personal attacks 'Why are you not outraged, like meeeee!!!'
Increase in hysteria and accusation by LL poster.
Rinse and repeat....>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostThe same pattern emerges, doesn't it?
Left-leaning poster raises news report of some bad thing that Trump has done. Is outraged that a President could do/say/think/allow such a thing.
Other poster enquires as to whether the report is completely accurate.
Back and forth ensues over details of news report, how credible it is.
Other poster is not particularly outraged, because they don't find the report very credible.
Left-leaning poster is even more outraged that other poster is not outraged. (Having entirely skipped the part where they actually establish the facts of what Trump reportedly said/did/allowed/thought)
Other poster maintains their 'wait and see' position. LL poster gets more outraged, begins personal attacks 'Why are you not outraged, like meeeee!!!'
Increase in hysteria and accusation by LL poster.
Rinse and repeat.
1) On or before Feb 27th intel was made available to Trump that Russia was offering bounties to the Taliban.
2) After February 27th Trump publicy asked Russia back into the G7, something they very, very much want
3) ~2 weeks ago the existence of the bounty intel was made available to the public
4) In the past 2 weeks Trump has offered no public statement against Russia, nor even promised to get the bottom of this matter
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostWhy don't you point out which of these facts you think are in dispute?
1) On or before Feb 27th intel was made available to Trump that Russia was offering bounties to the Taliban.
2) After February 27th Trump publicy asked Russia back into the G7, something they very, very much want
3) ~2 weeks ago the existence of the bounty intel was made available to the public
4) In the past 2 weeks Trump has offered no public statement against Russia, nor even promised to get the bottom of this matter
Are we to react to every single unsubstantiated rumor?
If Trump had responded to this in the manner you are now demanding you would have then started a thread about how Trump is going to get us into WWIII because he responds to every rumor without waiting for verification.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Liberals: "This is terrible! Trump is going to start World War 3!"
Also liberals: "This is terrible! Trump isn't starting World War 3 fast enough!"Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostThe same pattern emerges, doesn't it?
Left-leaning poster raises news report of some bad thing that Trump has done. Is outraged that a President could do/say/think/allow such a thing.
Other poster enquires as to whether the report is completely accurate.
Back and forth ensues over details of news report, how credible it is.
Other poster is not particularly outraged, because they don't find the report very credible.
Left-leaning poster is even more outraged that other poster is not outraged. (Having entirely skipped the part where they actually establish the facts of what Trump reportedly said/did/allowed/thought)
Other poster maintains their 'wait and see' position. LL poster gets more outraged, begins personal attacks 'Why are you not outraged, like meeeee!!!'
Increase in hysteria and accusation by LL poster.
Rinse and repeat.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostWhy don't you point out which of these facts you think are in dispute?
1) On or before Feb 27th intel was made available to Trump that Russia was offering bounties to the Taliban.
2) After February 27th Trump publicy asked Russia back into the G7, something they very, very much want
3) ~2 weeks ago the existence of the bounty intel was made available to the public
4) In the past 2 weeks Trump has offered no public statement against Russia, nor even promised to get the bottom of this matter
(1) 'intel' is not the same as 'proven facts which nobody doubts'. It wasn't credible enough to be pushed to the top of things Trump was directly briefed on, as many sources already cited have said. There's nothing solid there that Trump should certainly have taken action on.
(2)
(3) Yeah, and that's a worry. Looks like people playing politics rather than caring about doing things the correct way.
(4) Because there's nothing there to get to the bottom of, most likely.
Also you seem quite naive, or gullible, or (most likely) you want Trump to be a bad President, which means you overlook the sketchiness of the evidence, because it points to Trump being bad.
(a) 'Intel' doesn't mean 'a completely reliable report'. Some intel is no more than suggestions or rumours, and the experts concerned didn't think enough of this to ensure the President knew about it and acted on it. IF Trump launched a military attack - revenge - on Russian troops based on something as weak as this, the press and people like you would be screaming for his head.
(b) Presidents shouldn't just take public and direct action in response to every possible provocation. That's how stupid wars start. Countries play realpolitick. That may mean not responding immediately / directly at times.
(c) How do you know Trump hasn't done anything at all? Is he meant to call a press conference and announce beforehand everything America is doing? "OK, Russia, that's it! I'm going to sink one of your subs for this..." You're assuming nothing has been done. Making a response public would likely lead to a counter-response and an escalation that could turn very nasty. Doing something low-key and deniable shows your opponent you aren't to be messed with, AND allows them a graceful retreat while saving face....>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View Post(c) How do you know Trump hasn't done anything at all? Is he meant to call a press conference and announce beforehand everything America is doing? "OK, Russia, that's it! I'm going to sink one of your subs for this..." You're assuming nothing has been done. Making a response public would likely lead to a counter-response and an escalation that could turn very nasty. Doing something low-key and deniable shows your opponent you aren't to be messed with, AND allows them a graceful retreat while saving face.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postwow. You are truly a jackass, aren't you? You can't seem to help yourself in your attacks. Do you really hate me and this site this much? Why are you still here?
I don't hate anyone who truly loves this country (that I can think of at least).
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostAs I have stated repeatedly, at this point I'm just here for the spectacle. In the coming months I will get to witness an apocalyptic shattering of cognitive dissonance which is something I've never been able to see firsthand before.
I don't hate anyone who truly loves this country (that I can think of at least).
ETA: To JimL's credit, I don't recall him every pitching a wall-eyed fit over somebody "not being a Patriot" simply for not being outraged about the same things over which he is outraged.Last edited by Cow Poke; 07-09-2020, 10:20 AM.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostAs I have stated repeatedly, at this point I'm just here for the spectacle. In the coming months I will get to witness an apocalyptic shattering of cognitive dissonance which is something I've never been able to see firsthand before.
I don't hate anyone who truly loves this country (that I can think of at least).
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostIt's pretty much been done to death already in this thread.
(1) 'intel' is not the same as 'proven facts which nobody doubts'. It wasn't credible enough to be pushed to the top of things Trump was directly briefed on, as many sources already cited have said. There's nothing solid there that Trump should certainly have taken action on.
1) worry the military
2) inform our allies
(2)
(4) Because there's nothing there to get to the bottom of, most likely.
I disagree with that statement (as do many "named sources") but it doesn't matter. The CiC's duty is to protect the troops for every possible threat and it is his duty to make this clear to the military whenever the situation calls.
Also you seem quite naive, or gullible, or (most likely) you want Trump to be a bad President, which means you overlook the sketchiness of the evidence, because it points to Trump being bad.
(a) 'Intel' doesn't mean 'a completely reliable report'. Some intel is no more than suggestions or rumours, and the experts concerned didn't think enough of this to ensure the President knew about it and acted on it. IF Trump launched a military attack - revenge - on Russian troops based on something as weak as this, the press and people like you would be screaming for his head.
(b) Presidents shouldn't just take public and direct action in response to every possible provocation. That's how stupid wars start. Countries play realpolitick. That may mean not responding immediately / directly at times.
1) Trump sought to richly reward Russia with a invite back into the G7. It is unconscionable to do that while there was credible and plausible intelligence that they were involved in a murder for hire scheme against our troops. Do I really have to explain this to an adult?
2) Being fully transparent with Congress to demonstrate the weakness of the intel would significantly help to reassure us all that threats like this are taken seriously.
3) Giving a press conference in which the president assures the public that he will get to the bottom of this and deliver "swift justice" if this intel is found to be credible (Trump instead went golfing for two days after this broke).
[
(c) How do you know Trump hasn't done anything at all? Is he meant to call a press conference and announce beforehand everything America is doing? "OK, Russia, that's it! I'm going to sink one of your subs for this..." You're assuming nothing has been done. Making a response public would likely lead to a counter-response and an escalation that could turn very nasty. Doing something low-key and deniable shows your opponent you aren't to be messed with, AND allows them a graceful retreat while saving face.
I'm not necessarily asking for a military response. I'm asking that the president show he is taking this matter seriously. He has shown to be doing anything but that. Just like a traitor would. And you all are sanctifying that behavior. Just like traitors would.Last edited by DivineOb; 07-09-2020, 10:30 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostI'm not necessarily asking for a military response. I'm asking that the president show he is taking this matter seriously. He has shown to be doing anything but that. Just like a traitor would. And you all are sanctifying that behavior. Just like traitors would.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seanD, Yesterday, 01:20 PM
|
18 responses
105 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 03:27 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 09:42 AM
|
169 responses
757 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Stoic
Today, 08:09 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 05:32 AM
|
14 responses
106 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Today, 06:41 AM
|
||
Started by Slave4Christ, 06-30-2024, 07:59 PM
|
13 responses
115 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 04:33 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 06-29-2024, 03:49 PM
|
49 responses
280 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 07:42 PM
|
Comment