Total posts: 5,890
-->
@sadolite
The Congo, Venezuela to name a few
Is that where you live, or is there some other reason you care so much about what they’re doing?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If I decided to use my car as a lawn decoration, that would be its goal. That doesn’t make the statement “cars are made for lawn decorations” accurate.
If you’re going to chime in please have something productive to say. Thanks.
If you’re going to chime in please have something productive to say. Thanks.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
why aren't corporations run by democratic principles ?why can't people vote for their managers and executives ?
Because corporations and countries are two entirely different types of entities with two different sets of goals.
The purpose of a corporation is to make a profit.
The purpose of a government is to solve society’s problems thereby improving life for all of its citizens.
These are not the same thing at all, so the idea that they should take the same approach makes no sense.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
And for the record, Democracies suck ass, they are nothing more than "MOB RULE". I much prefer a Republic.
Republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
Can you name one of these democracies that suck so bad?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Edit: I forgot the sarcasm tags the first time. I have to be careful about the special needs around here.
Was someone talking to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conservallectual
Yes it is irrational. I don't get why people even want to be atheists
If your beliefs about what is true are based on what you want that’s the opposite of rational.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Democracy good. Dictatorship bad.It shouldn't be, but apparently this has become a contentious issue over the last few years.
There’s nothing controversial here, everyone believes democracy is good. Don’t be silly.
It’s just that some people believe only those who look like them and/or agree with them get to partake in it, otherwise it’s illegitimate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The thing that really gets me is, what [does DART user Greyparrot] believe?
That better?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If we can't trust news on something as small as a State bill protecting kindergarteners, we surely can't trust them covering anything else.
Then why do you trust thefederalist.com?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why do all progressive movements regardless of the nation result in more central planning and more authority?
Because progressives believe in the notion that society should actively work to solve its problems. That requires a central authority, otherwise society wouldn’t have fallen into such problems in the first place.
The thing that really gets me is, what do conservatives believe? Do you believe in the concept of society? Do you believe society should work to solve its problems? If so, how does society do that without some form of authority?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
It is not an analogy. It is treason. And as for whether anything can threaten God misses the point. God created a world to love and worship Him. What was threatened was not so much God as the world he created to love and worship Him.
You used the legal notion of treason and the way our justice system treats such offenses as a point of comparison to what God is doing with regards to hell. That is what we call an analogy.
And no, it doesn’t miss the point. You can’t point to the harsh sentences our system imposes to try and make your point without talking about why our system imposes them.
And I’m so sorry for god that he doesn’t get to have this world where everyone worships him. I have a difficult time understanding how that justifies in your mind the punishment of hell. When any man punished others for not worshiping him we call that vile.
Your logic 101 is flawed since it does not take into account everything to with eternals. Unless you can explain why eternal mercy is justified for a finite act, you prove to much in your logic 101.
Not worshiping a god within a finite lifetime is by definition a finite crime.
An eternal punishment is by definition… eternal.
This isn’t rocket science. The fact that God himself is (if he exists) an eternal being is utterly irrelevant. We’re talking about the individual committing the “crime”. That individual could easily repent while in hell at which point they would spend the rest of eternity suffering for something they once did back when they were living their mortal life. To call that just is absurd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I suggest to you that sin - is treason against God. It is the most vile and offensive thing. And we do it knowing the consequences - and still sinning anyway.
Treason is held in such high regard in terms of seriousness not because it is vile or immoral, but rather because it threatens the state itself. Nothing can threaten God, so this analogy does not work.
I reject your assertion that there is no offence that deserves judgment in Hell. The bible clearly indicates there there is an offence and that all of us have broken it. You might not like the rules - that is a different matter altogether. How about you go and create your own world and make the rules.
Hell is eternal torture for a finite crime. That makes it infinitely unjust. Logic 101.
If I created your own world I would create far more just rules, which is the point here. If I can see the imbalance here why can’t God?
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Because you put the blame for American leadership incompetence squarely on democracy itself. You did go a step further to talk about the people but that’s kind of the point; democracy is the people.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
I find it puzzling whenever I hear or read someone rant about how terrible democracy is without providing an alternative.
At the end of the day you can either have a government in place to work on solving society’s problems or not. If not, please explain how that is better.
If so, then the only question is… who decides who gets who runs that government?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I think there's some recency bias in the highlighted bit here. Conservatives spent DECADES ignoring school issues
The school board thing is new, I was really just using that as an example. The point here is really a difference in culture. Conservatives tend to be more rural and more white, and I think in both of those groups politics is looked at differently. In conservatives circles you’re more likely to get into a discussion about politics at the dinner table or on thanksgiving. Here it seems more personal, leading to a greater sense of ownership. It’s why low turnout elections always favor republicans, because these groups are going to come out no matter what.
That sense of ownership comes from a place of trust in the system itself, or at least the idea that you’re supposed to be able to trust it. It’s why the stolen election narrative is such a big thing on the right. To them the system is supposed to work, so invoking a sense of threat is very effective. On the left the notion tends to be that the system never worked, so claiming the election was stolen really wouldn’t have an impact. Liberals instead tend to focus on the people, which is why cancel culture is more prevalent there.
I think theres a polling phenomenon going on of, basically:"Do you support X?" 65% yes, 30% no"Do you support doing the things required to get to X?" 52% no, 41% yes etc etc
I just don’t think that’s it. The simple fact is that it’s always easier to give something than to take it away. Conservatism is about conservation, so it will always be the position on the losing end of change. In part because of that, and in part because of everything I just said above, these folks end up with a disproportionate say in how our government works because these are always going to be the people who show up to vote.
Take background checks for instance; it has something like 93% support. But if democrats put a bill on the floor what happens? Here come the conspiracy theories about democrats trying to take everyone’s guns. By the time the fear mongers are done every conservative in America is standing by with an ak47 in their hand declaring war on the imaginary gun snatchers. Ok I’m exaggerating, but not really. It’s just easier to rile people up than to inspire them, so change is difficult to say the least.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I think we should add a color line running down the side of the page on debates. I remember DDO had it but the color was based on the round, I would do it based on whether it’s Pro or Con’s argument.
I noticed the need for this when casting my last vote. Most users like myself are probably on their cell phones, and long debates often have no marker anywhere on the screen as you scroll up and down. I think having a green or red down the side would have helped develop a greater sense of who’s argument I was reading, especially once I finished and started flipping back and forth between arguments and rounds to ensure I understood everything properly before writing my RFD. It would have also helped me find what I was looking for because it was often hard to tell what round I was on when scrolling backwards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Because ultimately this kind of behavior comes from an ever present feeling among many liberals that they must DO SOMETHING!
I don’t think the difference is that liberals feel the need to do something where conservatives do not. The difference I see is how the two sides focus their energy. Liberals tend to focus their activism on platforms and through spaces like the Oscar’s or through sports. Conservatives focus their energy at the voting booth and also things like school board meetings. It’s why despite the fact that most liberal policies enjoy overwhelming support nationally, national elections are still so close.
If liberals treated politics the way conservatives do, either the parties would shift dramatically left or the republicans would be an insignificant minority.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
TDS
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
So, now you’re (unintentionally) making a case for the US leaving NATO not being a big deal?
Uh, no. I am explaining how the “strength of the US president” is not the sole factor other countries look at when making decisions.
You’re the one implying that Putin invaded because Biden and not Trump is in the Oval office. NATO has absolutely nothing to do with that argument.
My problems with Bolton’s thesis:1. (First and foremost) Putin has invaded Ukraine with the US in NATO… it’s just a blunt fact now…2. Bolton gave a totally different reason in another interview— he is grasping, it seems to me3. Bolton has sour grapes from being openly fired, so him complaining about Trump is hardly compelling or profound4. I already caught Bolton in a fib in an interview, so his credibility is in question (related to problem #3)5. Bolton also complains about Biden’s decisions, so if he is to be listened to on Trump, he should also be listened to on Biden, the president you have opined as superior (the purportedly objective MSM also neglects to do this… not that I wonder why)
1. That’s not relevant. The point he was making is that Putin would have rather not had the US in NATO when he tried this, so it was worth waiting since that’s what he expected to happen.
2. Again, irrelevant. Bolton is not the point, his thesis makes perfect sense and addresses the claim that Putin’s timing is best explained by the lack of Trump’s ‘great strength’ in the oval office
3. This is such a tired Trump defender retort. People in high government positions get fired all the time. Never before have we ever seen such an onslaught of former officials coming out to tell the country what really happened during their time in the president’s administration.
4. Addressed in #2
5. Again, he’s not the point. But the fact that his words are used against Trump and not Biden is not hypocrisy, it’s common sense. Bolton didn’t serve in Biden’s administration, and Bolton is a life long Republican so him attacking democrats is not newsworthy.
You don’t think our pages long back and forth constitutes engagement?
Writing words and engaging are not the same thing. I give you credit more recently, but most of your points in the first few exchanges were focused more on me than it was on what I actually had to say. This was another example. I made my approach to evaluating a president clear, an essential factor in both of our positions. You’ve ignored that entire point which suggests a lack of seriousness on trying to make and any progress on our differences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Yup I love reading opinion rather than fact lmao. That was the dude’s opinion.
Which is why I suggested you read the link. The opinion part was written after explaining what the job is, something you clearly do not understand being that you are still defending the notion that a president not be personally involved in choosing his own National security advisor.
A good portion of it is.
A bucket with holes in it does not hold water. You’re the one who claimed Trump “built it”. If all you’re saying is that he built portions of it then it’s not an accomplishment to be bragging about.
“Dumb.” Looks like you don’t care about our veterans and soldiers who have lost limbs and their lives throughout the decades.
Not worthy of a serious response.
Actually, I did cause I watched the GOP debates in 2016 :)
Congratulations. The vast majority of people propping this up as a major Trump accomplishment sure didn’t and if he were killed during the Biden or Obama administrations it would have gotten maybe one day of coverage on Fox News never to be spoken of again. Again, he wasn’t OBS. And then there was the whole photo op thing afterwards, I mean wow how pathetic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You clearly don’t know how stuff works in the White House lol. Might I suggest reading up on it first?
The National security advisor is one of if not the most important position on the president’s staff.
“You get to spend more time with the president than any other member of the president’s national security team. You are the first person to see the president in the morning when the president shows up for work in the Oval Office and the last person to see the president before he or she makes any major foreign policy or national security decision.”
Also, “you are the person most likely to know the president’s mind on these issues,” he said. “You are involved in consequential matters that span the globe and affect the world.”
The idea that the president would allow his team to pick the candidate is absurd. Clearly, you are the one here who needs to read up on this position and how important it is. Please read the link.
I also couldn’t help but point out the whip lash of arguing with you and Cristo on this. According to him everything that happens within the federal government is credited to the president because he picks the team, while according to you if he didn’t do it personally he’s not really responsible. Funny how you guys refute each others arguments.
This is demonstrably false. Any other GOP candidate would’ve had us in a new war. Any other GOP candidate wouldn’t have built a wall. I could go on and on. Nobody would killed terrorist Qasim Soleimani. He’s not your average GOP candidate. If 2016 primaries didn’t show you that then you need to rewatch the debates.
New war with who?
The wall is still not built
You’re probably right about Soleimani, no other president would have been that dumb enough to risk war with Iran in order to kill one of their top generals only for them to be replaced with a more extreme general.
You guys act like Trump killed Osama Bin Laden. He didn’t. I’m willing to bet you had no idea who he was until this.
And there is evidence to support that executive officials in key states within the Election Board changed rules at the last minute because of COVID without express authority from the legislature.
So what? We were in a pandemic, adjusting the rules to fit the circumstances is not stealing an election.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I didn’t care for it.
A US President takes a foreign dictator’s word over the unanimous conclusion of US intelligence in front of the entire world, and this is all you have to say about it?
Thing is, and there’s no escaping this: it *evidently* never prompted Putin to invade another country.
Actually, logic escapes it. First of all, the US is not the only country in the world. Whether Donald Trump is president is not the one and only thing every world leader thinks about before they decide what is best for their country and whether they should go for it. This is exactly the kind of arrogance that makes so many people around the world hate us, because so many Americans like yourself literally believe the world revolves around us.
Second, no one has a full understanding of why Putin chose this moment. The man is literally delusional.
Third, Trump’s own hand picked National security advisor (the Prez picks the team and is therefore responsible right?) has already shared his view that Putin didn’t do this before because he was counting on Trump to pull the US out of NATO in a second term. This answer makes so much more sense than the silly idea that Putin didn’t do it then because he was so afraid of Trump. As if a world leader’s calculation for war is based on how tough the other guy talks, or whether he uses all caps on Twitter.
No, I didn’t expect you to do that. I expected you— or, more realistically, anyone caring to read this forum— to see the conceivable possibility of tunnel vision (ie selection of detail to support a biased outlook) in the MSM reporting on Trump’s administration, regarding Russia in this case.
Yeah, that’s why I watch episodes of Tucker Carlson and Hannity. Spare me your tunnel vision blindness speech.
I already acknowledged that Trump did some good things and gave my prescription for how one goes about evaluating a president. Feel free to engage in the conversation instead of pretending my views are the result of some kind of delusion for some kind of reason which I never made any sense out of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You can pick a qualified individual but not agree with them. And Trump personally didn’t pick him. His advisors mainly did.
Does the Buck stop with Trump or not? The greatest president of our lifetimes and he can’t even pick his own National security advisor?
I know for a fact you’re delusional with TDS. Nothing Trump could’ve ever done would’ve been satisfactory to you. Even if he does something good, you say he didn’t do enough.
Because doing something good is not enough to erase all of the bad. President’s are judged by the totality of what they brought to the table. We could go on for days, but the simple fact is that there is almost nothing you could point to as a Trump victory which you would not have gotten from any other Republican candidate. But there are numerous things that only Trump was responsible for. As just one example, the fact that half the country thinks Joe Biden and the democrats stole the election is a Trump and only Trump thing. No other president would have caused that.
There is nothing deranged about understanding this, and our kids and grandkids will definitely understand it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
The entire point of arguing that actions speak louder than words is to discount one’s words so that their actions could be examined instead. That’s common sense, and it means exactly what I just described. And what made this even clearer is the way you continue to duck and dodge when I ask you tell me what you think of Trump cow towing to Putin on the world stage and how you factor that into this discussion. When it comes to his actions you expect me to sort through 52 different links to read up on all of Trump’s policy actions, but you cannot even be bothered to comment on what you think about one specific example that the entire world witnessed in horror.
And no, my answer earlier does not justify this silly TDS allegation. You cannot point to one remarkable action against Russia which Trump took that we wouldn’t have reasonably expected any US President in our lifetimes to take if they faced the same circumstances. But I can point to multiple negative things that no president in our lifetimes would have ever conceivably done but Trump. So to say “any other president but Trump” is not a sign of mental illness, it’s logic 101.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
So the premise of this thread was that America buying Russian oil strongly supports that Biden is Putin’s “ best buddy”. If that is the case than the opposite (Biden banning Russian oil) would strongly support the opposite.
So why do I get the feeling that GP will change nothing about his stance, and probably now use Biden’s ban as an argument against Biden?
Created:
Posted in:
Relying on John Bolton the war monger eh?
Trump did pick him didn’t he?
Still waiting on the admission that I won the debate fair and square
And I already explained to you that I would continue the conversation in the debate comments, not here on a forum about Russia.
You talk about my ego, you’re the one who ignored an entire post about the topic at hand to talk about a debate you won over a year ago all because I expressed my desire to find intelligent people to discuss issues with. Yet with every post you prove my point over and over again. There are few things on a debate site more distasteful than derailing a thread to talk about one of your own debates, but here we are and you don’t even have any awareness of how childish it makes you look.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Because politics and foreign policy can be fully presented, substantiated, analyzed and deconstructed solely via formal logic and self-evident truths by the layperson?
No. My issue is not that you posted a link. It’s that you posted a link in place of an actual argument. Then when I click on the link, it’s essentially a list of 52 other links for me to follow in order to guess what it is you’re actually pointing to. Links are perfectly fine when they supplement your argument, not when they’re making it for you.
Words don’t count? When did I ever say that?
Post #410
“I understand that you believe Trump’s words speak louder than his administration’s actions and policies. We disagree on that prioritization.”
This entire conversation got to the point where it is because you hand waived away every example I gave of Trump telling us and showing us his position towards Russia as ‘just words’. So please make up your mind, they’re either valid criticisms or they’re not.
And if a president is “merely” doing his job, he really shouldn’t be credited for doing it well
No, the question is about how you evaluate whether he is doing his job well. What my example pointed out is that to do this you need to look at the entire picture, not just the good parts. This is logic 101 and anybody who’s ever been in a position to evaluate others knows that.
And BTW, since you are still insistent on this stupid TDS narrative, how about giving me a real direct answer to the Biden hypothetical that you ignored in my last post? Something more than “if Biden did something good, I’d say good job”…I don’t know where you get the idea that I automatically approve of everything Trump said or did.
From all of the ducking and dodging you are doing to avoid acknowledging any of his faults. You jumped into a conversation about whether Trump’s strength against Putin was such that it would have stopped him from deciding to invade Ukraine. There is hardly any single example more relevant to that question than Trump cow towing to Putin the world stage in a manner that will undoubtably go down in history as the most pathetic display of weakness any president has ever presented to the world. Yet, in this conversation, when I ask you what your thoughts are on that specific incident and how you believe that factors into whatever your position is, you accuse me of TDS. As if my recognition of just how sad and pathetic that was, as well as how telling that was when it comes to Trump’s inability to be tough with Putin, is some kind of diagnosable illness.
That is not how someone being intellectually honest behaves. So it is predictable that you would instead go with this narrative of “look at what his team has done”, a common right wing defense because there is no other way to defend the man or that which he himself brought to the table. His team has done good things for the country because that is what the federal government does, it will always be staffed with Americans who care about America. If Trump could replace every single career official with a Trump sycophant who only cared about his personal fortunes he would. You know that’s a fact. But he can’t, I don’t credit him for the limitations we place on him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You were asking why Putin waited till now to invade. Here’s a good reason which Trump’s own hand picked National security advisor posits…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
If you really want to continue this dick measuring contest leave a comment in the debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Huh, I was talking about allegations that I vote bombed the debate and didn’t win in my merits.
I didn’t accuse you of vote bombing and it’s not for me to judge who won the debate. I was responding to your chest beating acting as if people who agreed with you and voted on that basis confirms that you “crushed me” or whatever verbiage you used. The only exception was Ragnar who’s vote according to him might have possibly gone a different way if the link I posted actually worked.
Want to have Whiteflame, who is the most objective judge do an informal vote?
No. I’m not the one who brought up a year old debate. If anyone else is interested in reading it and providing feedback I welcome it, but not asking anyone else to get involved in some childish dick measuring contest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Oh, brother. And again I must point you back to the beginning of our discussion to the nonpartisan article I linked in post 343 which provides a great deal of context in contrast to your TDS inspired bloviating. Do you need me to paste the whole timeline here, or should I expect you to (falsely) accuse me of “Gish galloping”?
There is a reason I don’t respond to links, it’s often a monumental waste of time as it was here. But I’ll go ahead and indulge you on this one. In the future if you have an argument, make it yourself.
Your link lists 52 different policy actions to support the notion that Trump was “tough on Russia”. Out of those 52 actions, about half (24) were either a WH Statement, press release, announcement, declaration, or alert. Since rhetoric doesn’t count, neither do any of those.
Out of the remaining actions, there was still a mix. Other actions listed here included multiple indictments issued by the Department of Justice, which the US President is not even supposed to have any involvement in, but most remarkable was that it included sanctions resulting from the Mueller probe which Trump adamantly opposed, rallied against for years, and even tried to stop himself. Yes, your link is giving Trump credit for this.
And then there’s the list of snoozers, including a ban on Kaspersky anti virus software on federal computers, sanctioning a Russian bank because it evaded a US sanction on Venezuela, or an executive order directing federal gov agencies to investigate the 2018 mid term elections for Russian interference. (I mean seriously, they needed to be told this?)
This isn’t to say Trump did nothing good. The toughest action listed here was the strike in Syria, but that hardly qualifies as Trump being tough on Russia. The only reason it made the list is because Russian mercenaries were among the casualties, which hardly qualifies.
The best example on this list of Trump expelling 60 Russian diplomats after the poisoning in Europe. I give him credit for stepping up on that one. But at the same time, this is hardly remarkable given that the US was just one of 18 countries who did the same thing, which brings me to my point… your entire argument that Trump was tough on Russia is that at times, Trump did his job.
If I order a steak medium and the waiter brings me a steak cooked medium, that doesn’t mean the waiter deserves a raise. It doesn’t mean the waiter is the star of my restaurant. And it for damn sure doesn’t excuse all of the times the waiter fucked up someone else’s order.
I could go on here, but let me just go back to where this conversation began… I did not jump into this thread to claim that Trump was so much worse than any other president with regards to Russia, even though that is still my view. I jumped into this thread in response to those claiming that the absence of Trump’s strength against Putin is why Putin decided to invade Ukraine. That’s an absurd claim, and if you want to substantiate it you need to do more than hand waive away everything Trump has done in front of our eyes and instead post a link to “actions” Trump took against Russia.
And BTW, since you are still insistent on this stupid TDS narrative, how about giving me a real direct answer to the Biden hypothetical that you ignored in my last post? Something more than “if Biden did something good, I’d say good job”…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You never answered my questions Mr. Salty
WTF? Are you serious? I wrote this entire post:
No, I’m arguing that(A) We don’t have a full understanding of Putin’s reasons for acting now as opposed to before, and(B) That given all of the facts regarding Trump’s behavior towards Putin the idea that Trump was the thing stopping Putin is blatantly absurd.The problem with this however is that you have to have the bandwidth to be able to look at Trump’s full record on Putin in order to understand the issue beyond:“trump president, putin no invade. biden president, putin invade”
And all you replied with was a response to my comment about who voted in our debate.
Go on, tell me all about the questions of yours that I ignored. Can’t wait to hear this…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I assume you’re familiar with “the buck stops here.” A president is ultimately responsible for what occurs on his watch.
Your response to my question is a complete embrace of the correlation/causation fallacy as an epistemological foundation.
The entire point of analyzing questions like this and determining responsibility is to better understand what qualities and behaviors are likely to lead to what results. It’s about giving us a road map for the future so that we can put ourselves in the best possible position to get the best outcomes. Your approach throws all this out the window in favor of “owning the libs”.
You’re literally trying to rationalize how a president who was adamantly opposed to sanctions and did everything in his power to stop them, gets to be treated as if he was responsible for them and thus given the credit. If that isn’ta logic pretzel I don’t know what is. And if this is how half the country thinks we should be analyzing the relationship between our actions and the likely result of them I can see why were so fucked.
Of course the problem is that I don’t think you believe this for a second. After all if the Buck stops with the president please point me to your posts blaming Trump for all of the liberal cities being burned to the ground. After all that occurred during his watch so the Buck stops with him right?
I get it— loud and clear— if Trump did something right, it was minor; if it was wrong, it was major. I can simply assume this as axiomatic with Trump detractors.
I gave you multiple examples of Trump’s interactions and handling of Russia and/or Putin. Your one example of Trump being tough on Russia was him complaining about an oil deal Germany did with them. Please tell me with a straight face that this example is comparable to the examples I listed.
Again, this is you acting as if I haven’t responded already. This compels me to quote myself:“If Biden were to achieve good results, I’d nod in approval because I am open-minded like that. But I would also be very surprised— just as I was when Trump did better than I ever expected.”
I didn’t ask you what you would think if Biden did something good. I asked you what you would think if Biden were guilty of the examples I listed of Trump’s actions. You never addressed that question.
Let’s try this again:
Russia launches a successful cyber attack against the the RNC right before a US election in an attempt to get Biden elected. All of US intelligence comes together and unanimously concludes Russia was in fact behind it. Biden then meets with Putin one on one, and in unprecedented fashion kicking all Americans out of the room except one translator who’s notes Biden would confiscate after swearing the translator to secrecy.
In a press conference after the meeting, Biden is asked what he said to Putin about the attack and Biden’s response is to take Putin’s word over that of US intelligence and talk about how he’ll be looking into Putin’s offer to investigate who launched the cyber attack.
The question is: How would you react to this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
Do you like my profile pic?I love it lol
Awwe you two are so adorable
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No, my obsession is with the phenomenon where otherwise intelligent people suddenly lose all sense of reality to pretend that this man and everything he has brought to the table is not batshit crazy.There are literally zero people on this site that believe everything Trump did was good. You are having a virtual battle with yourself and tilting at windmills like Don Quixote.
My god dude, learn to read. Or at least try to understand someone’s point before going off on a rant to criticize it.
In the statement “this man and everything they bring to the table” I’m clearly using the phrase “everything” as in “the total package”. It does not mean that literally every single thing Trump said and did was crazy.
This is evident not only in the phrasing itself, but is also just common sense within any honest rational dialog. Almost nothing in life is absolute, so anytime you engage in a conversation about something nuanced and the words everything and/or nothing are used the default should always be to assume it is meant colloquially. If you’re trying to understand what they’re actually saying that is.
But that’s the problem. You’re not interested in understanding, only finding your trigger word to attack.
That is what true TDS is. Beliefs reduced to mindless absolutism.
Agreed on TDS, you just don’t seem to realize which one of us is actually suffering from it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I understand that you believe Trump’s words speak louder than his administration’s actions and policies. We disagree on that prioritization.
I’ve already explained what I believe and it’s not complicated, unless you want to be.
Again, the president is not a dictator. There are other bodies within the federal government that can take actions and the president does not get credit for the actions of those bodies, especially when the president was against them the entire time.
Why is this so difficult? No, seriously, why?
This is like when members of Congress vote against legislation, but then show up to the ribbon cutting ceremonies to take credit for the projects they voted against funding.
You keep telling me what I have to say is nothing new, well here’s a crazy thought… respond to it. Please explain the logic of “Trump might have been against it but I still give him credit because it happened while he was in office”. I’d really love to hear it.
Again, I judge leaders more by actions and results rather than their poorly chosen words. If Trump uses buddy buddy rhetoric with Putin while exhorting a major NATO member not to be so resource dependent on Russia, guess which takes precedence for me?
So you’re all about results not rhetoric, but your example is Trump whining and complaining about an oil deal Germany made with Russia? Is this supposed to be what refutes everything I’ve said here?
If Biden were to do what Trump did, I would shake my head at the hypocrisy of doing the very things one formerly criticized adamantly.
This is such a nonsense cop out. You’re essentially arguing that Trump lowered the bar so low that if another president did it, your only complaint would be in regards to what they said while Trump was lowering it.
Not only is this just plain silly, it misses the entire point. The question is, what would you have thought if it were Biden doing these things instead of Trump?
We both know the answer. We both know you would have lost your mind and grabbed your torch and pitchfork along with the rest of the GOP demanding Biden be impeached for being a traitor to the US. But you know… TDS.
You stick to a few of the MSM favorite complaints and…
I was just curious to ask you about this… why does the fact that the MSM reported on these things matter to the point that you act as if they have some kind of monopoly of ownership on this? Why when for example, a US President stands in front of the world and takes his adversary’s word over the unanimous conclusions of his own intelligence agencies, does my pointing out that this was bad somehow make me a purveyor of “MSM talking points”? I’d really love an answer to this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You’re implying that Putin purposely chose not to invade Ukraine under Donald Trump even though you think the Russians had leverage on him. The two things don’t align.
No, I’m arguing that
(A) We don’t have a full understanding of Putin’s reasons for acting now as opposed to before, and
(B) That given all of the facts regarding Trump’s behavior towards Putin the idea that Trump was the thing stopping Putin is blatantly absurd.
The problem with this however is that you have to have the bandwidth to be able to look at Trump’s full record on Putin in order to understand the issue beyond:
“trump president, putin no invade. biden president, putin invade”
The one time school was out, I destroyed you in our debate. Be careful what you wish for :)
LMAO!
I would comment on how childish you are, but you have Trump as your avatar so…
Go on and beat your chest because all your friends who already agreed with you voted for you for reasons that had nothing to do with the debate if that makes you feel smart…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
In other words, ignore what his administration actually DID; listen to the things this buffoon SAID!
I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but the US is not a dictatorship. Trump does not have the right or authority to override the law, so when Congress passes sanctions with a veto proof majority, it’s not up to Trump to decide whether they get imposed. Coupling this with the fact that he made his position against the sanctions clear, publicly and privately, it is beyond absurd to credit his administration for them.
The same goes for the military aid to Ukraine. Trump tried to hold it back until he got caught, then he released it. Why then? Because he understood the political implications of it, which of course turned into his first impeachment.
Do you understand how this works?
So, you fault Trump for being “pressured” into making a good decision? It’s a pity that our current president wasn’t so pressured on some of his decisions…
The decision he was pressured into was following the law. The fact that he has to be pressured into that decision in the first place should make you think, but it won’t.
And when he said the proper things, those instances were allegedly few and should be discounted entirely, just as the MSM did. Also, when Trump’s Secretary of State says or does the proper thing, those instances somehow don’t count, either.This is you simply batting away facts that don’t fit the narrative.
This is where logic and basic critical thinking comes in. If someone tells you you’re wonderful to your face, and says you’re an asshole behind your back, which one do you believe?
Now apply the same logic to Trump.
The only times we ever heard Trump talk tough against Russia was when he was in front of a teleprompter. Every example of him speaking off the cuff showed us what he really thought, as well as every report from every first hand witness who was there to hear him speak first hand. Trump was playing both sides of the fence, so giving him credit for the publicly acceptable position when he’d turn around a day later and say the opposite is ridiculous. Remember when Obama said he’d have more flexibility after the election? Of course you do, because you understand the point I’m making even if you pretend not to.
So we don’t need to bat away any of the facts, just lay them all out and the picture is beyond obvious. And if you still can’t figure it out ask John Bolton, you know, Trump’s hand picked National security advisor who is saying all of the same stuff I am.
Yes, he certainly has an unorthodox style, no doubt. I might call his foreign policy “The Capone Doctrine.” That is: “I keep my friends close… but I keep my enemies even closer!”
I don’t think The Capone Doctrine was to advocate for everything your adversaries want.
And if it were Biden doing all of these things you would not be calling it “unorthodox”. Because you know… TDS. Or something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
If you really need the name of a politician in order to have a conversation about this then insert Biden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Glad we agree that Russian collusion was a hoax and Putin has nothing on Trump lol
So you’re not even going to pretend you’re here to have serious conversation. Got it.
I can’t wait till schools have time off and I can finally find some serious intelligent people on this site to go back and forth with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
No, it is not a red herring, as the topic is “Russia and Ukraine,” not, as you seem to believe, “Russia and Trump.”I was actually looking for context on what you consider good US foreign policy regarding Russia so as to have some point of reference.
The topic is whatever the individuals already engaged in conversation are talking about, and if you actually read the conversations you decided to chime in on you would know that I did not jump into a conversation about Ukraine and Russia to talk about Trump. I jumped in to respond to people arguing that Putin invaded Ukraine because Biden is weak, or because strongman Trump wasn’t there to stop him. That’s a remarkably stupid claim which deserves a response and this is a debate site so I did. Threads often stray from the topic, I don’t see you jumping into every other conversation on this site to act as if that’s “telling”.
Your question is in fact a red herring. No rational person needs to know what I consider to be tough on Russia in order to recognize that a US President standing on the world stage and taking Russia’s word over that of US intelligence is definitely not it.
Instead you want me to offer up a name of another politician so you can nit pick their record and find something about them to attack, then pretend that the thing you found to attack is the thing I support in order to take the conversation away from the blatantly obvious issues with Trump’s handling of Russia.
If US intelligence unanimously concluded that Russia attacked the RNC and Biden’s brilliant idea was to partner with Russia to let them investigate the attack, you wouldn’t need me to explain to you what’s wrong with that.
If Russia had annexed Crimea while Trump was in office and Biden’s response was to blame Trump (not Putin) for letting it happen while opposing any action against Russia to hold them accountable for it, you would not need me to tell you what’s wrong with that.
If Biden’s campaign was giving their internal polling data to the Russians while Russia was attacking the RNC, taking meetings with lawyers representing themselves as acting “on behalf of Russia and its government’s support for Biden”, and had numerous undisclosed contacts with Russians while all this was happening you would not need me to tell you what is wrong with that.
Some on this site have said I have an obsession with Trump. No, my obsession is with the phenomenon where otherwise intelligent people suddenly lose all sense of reality to pretend that this man and everything he has brought to the table is not batshit crazy. To pretend that if it were anyone else, you would not be just as up in arms as the rest of us.
TDS is definitely a real thing, it just doesn’t mean what you think it does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
There’s a saying: “Trump supporters take Trump seriously but not literally. Trump detractors take Trump literally but not seriously.”Which US politician do you uphold as having been tough on Russia, then?
Pretty much every one except Trump, and many of this class of MAGA cult members.
That question is of course a red herring. I’m not running around claiming other presidents and politicians were tough on Russia, I’m responding to those who claim Trump was, or more absurdly, that Trump is what stopped Putin from invading Ukraine as if Putin was afraid of the guy who bent over backwards for 4 years to get on his good graces.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Your entire post just said Trump was a Russian agent. If he was a Russian agent, it would make sense to invade under him, no? What part am I missing here
The part where I wrote actual words.
I never said nor implied that he was a Russian agent, you made that up entirely.
Your argument is nothing more than an argument from ignorance used as an excuse to ignore the facts I just laid out. The question of why Putin decided to invade is an unknown. “I don’t know why Putin made this choice” does not equal “Putin invaded because Trump is gone”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Oh, I thought the entire Bolton (blech!) interview would be featured. Alas, it’s just another “Here’s someone prominent saying things we like” sort of article…
John Bolton is irrelevant, his central point however is.
Listing things that happened during the Trump administration is not the same thing as listing things that happened because of Trump. In almost every case, the actions taken by the administration were taken over Trump’s (often public) disapproval.
The sanctions were passed with a veto proof majority and were not even imposed until he was pressured after it was revealed that he hadn’t yet moved on them. The military aid to Ukraine was passed by congress and withheld by Trump until he could get dirt on Biden, which he had to abandon after it was about to go public. Time after time Trump was the obstacle to the US being tough on Russia, not the reason.
And then there are all of the other examples of Trump inexplicably taking Putin’s side on issues no US President would have ever taken; allowing Russia back into the G8, working with Russia to “investigate” interference in the 2016 election, pulling the US out of NATO, blaming the former US President for Russia’s decision to invade and annex Crimea, etc.
To claim Trump was tough on Russia is just not serious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
3. Action speak louder than words. The dude literally bombed a Russian ally, sent Ukraine javelins that are becoming crucial on the war front, and sanctioned Russia several times. That’s not puppet behavior. Point blank. No amount of trying to be friendly leading up to a summit with a world leader will change that.Trump is a Russian agent, but the Russians didn’t invade when Trump was President. Biden isn’t a Russian agent, so Putin invaded. #Logic
I wrote a whole post responding to those comments. Instead of only replying to those you agree with, feel free to attempt an actual productive conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
We weren’t “promoting democracy” in Ukraine, they already are a democracy. What they need help with is not maintaining their Democratic system, they need help from being destroyed by a military superpower who decided to destroy them just because.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
First off, no one factoid about Trump's positions (that just happen to line up with Putin's interests) makes him a puppet. It's the pattern that establishes this, which you conveniently ignore by acting like each example should be exammined in isolation.
Second, the way to evaluate Trump's attitude towards Russia is not by listing things that happened while he was president, it's by looking at how his actions and decisions influenced those outcomes.
The javelins that were sent to Ukraine were sent despite him not because of him. Does the phrase "I need you to do is a favor though..." ring a bell?
The sanctions on Russia were again imposed despite him not because of him, and it's actually one of the most egregious examples of Trump acting on Putin's behalf we've seen. They were passed by a bitterly divided Congress with a veto proof majority, so it didn't matter what Trump thought about them, even though he made clear that he was against them from the start. Then, after it became law the administration did not impose them until months after they should have been and were only imposed once members of Congress realized it and it threatened to blow up. So no, he didn't saction them, he was dragged kicking and screaming to do it. That doesn't support your point, it shows the opposite.
And "Trump Russia collusion" is not a conspiracy theory, it's the most reasonable explanation for all of the behaviors we saw prior to the election. The political right paints it as a conspiracy theory by strawmanning it and then demanding that anything short of video footage of Putin and Trump explicitly laying out and agreeing to the plan fails to establish it.
The Trump campaign chairman giving their internal polling data to the Russians *alone* is evidence of collusion.
The Trump campaign taking a meeting with Russian lawyers representing themselves as working "on behalf of Russia and it's government's support for Mr. Trump" *alone* is evidence of collusion.
The Trump campaign's reliance and apparent foreknowledge of WikiLeaks information that came from Russia *alone* is evidence of collusion.
The stunning number of undisclosed Russian contacts by members of the Trump campaign *alone* is evidence of collusion.
There's more but you get the point. To claim the is no evidence is absurd, given the vast amount of evidence there is it is equally absurd to pretend it's an unreasonable conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The Ukrainian government is a legitimate democracy that could stand on its own two feet until Russia decided to destroy it because it was inconvenient to them.
Afghanistan was never a legitimate democracy, we spent 20 years trying to prop it up in our image because what they had was inconvenient to us.
Why do I need to explain this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
We're not defending Ukraine, we're defending democracy and sovereignty. Why is that so difficult?We tried that in Afghanistan. Look where it put us.
These two examples are not remotely the same, but you already know that.
Created: