ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

  • Like
Reactions: Heelicious
You'll get no argument from me there, that's obvious.

My concern is that Trump overreacted to some bad intel (wouldn't be out of character at all) and that we just killed an extremely important person to an extremely important country in an extremely important region.

Every person with knowledge about Iran has commented that they will retaliate. Was the death worth the retaliation? We'll see.
That concern is legit.
I do believe these Iranian leaders who lead terrorist groups hate the US above all else in this world. (Whether their hatred for US given our presence there is a long argument for a different day). They literally live their lives to kill Americans / westerners.

I believe they are hell-bent on killing as many Americans as they can, whenever they have the opportunity. Meaning - I don't see this recent taking out of a leader, stoking some new dangerous retaliation reaction that otherwise wouldn't have occurred from this "otherwise rational, peaceful group willing to negotiate peace in good faith".

I think the larger concern is the neocon types that are entrenched in the govt-war complex in DC being endlessly in Trump's ear about escalating a war with Iran. Just to keep these neocon's influence, ego, $$ machine going. I do think that Trump is pretty middle-east-war-engagement averse, so I really doubt he'll go along with some big US war escalation there.

It'd cost him the 2020 election for sure, FWIW, and if he takes that into account.
 
Other than Iran, I don't think anyone has a real problem with this. I would be willing to go as far as saying that Iraq helped with intel. They weren't a fan of the Iraq guy that died, so it really helps them out politically. They get a rival taken out and can use us as cover.

We'll see what happens though. If they start kicking us out, then it will show they are actually upset about this. If it's just a statement, then they don't give a shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heelicious
Other than Iran, I don't think anyone has a real problem with this. I would be willing to go as far as saying that Iraq helped with intel. They weren't a fan of the Iraq guy that died, so it really helps them out politically. They get a rival taken out and can use us as cover.

We'll see what happens though. If they start kicking us out, then it will show they are actually upset about this. If it's just a statement, then they don't give a shit.

I think the issue is that we won't know. Even if Iraq was pissed, we're too strong of an ally to kick out. Even if Iran wants to bomb us to the stone age, they can't and would get annihilated in any open conflict. They'll do what they usually do and use their proxies in the ME to attack our interests. But what does this spawn on the smaller scale?

Did many predict in the early 90s that the first Gulf War would incite a rich guy to create a terrorist group that would eventually kill 3,000 people in 9/11? What if this provokes some rich Iranian oil guys to begin plotting attacks on US citizens?

No country on earth would go to war with us. It's the smaller groups that aren't as easily traceable that concern me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Heelicious
I think the issue is that we won't know. Even if Iraq was pissed, we're too strong of an ally to kick out. Even if Iran wants to bomb us to the stone age, they can't and would get annihilated in any open conflict. They'll do what they usually do and use their proxies in the ME to attack our interests. But what does this spawn on the smaller scale?

Did many predict in the early 90s predict that the first Gulf War would incite a rich guy to create a terrorist group that would eventually kill 3,000 people in 9/11? What if this provokes some rich Iranian oil guys to begin plotting attacks on US citizens?

No country on earth would go to war with us. It's the smaller groups that aren't as easily traceable that concern me.
It's going to be hard for the proxy groups to do much though. That article I posted lists the reasons why. I'm guessing something on a smaller scale. Full withdrawal from the nuclear agreement and stirring up trouble in the strait. Maybe doing something in Israel. Not much they can do militarily.

As far as what happens long term, you can't operate out of fear that you might possibly create a terrorist decades from now. If that's a concern, then you'll have to become Sweden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heelicious
As far as what happens long term, you can't operate out of fear that you might possibly create a terrorist decades from now. If that's a concern, then you'll have to become Sweden.

Agreed but you'd hope that the President is thinking about the short and long term consequences for any action and factoring that into his decision, even if he ultimately keeps his decision the same. Sure most of them were incredibly narcissistic even long before Trump, but I think most did think about how this helped/hurt the nation short/long term.

There has been nothing in Donald Trump's life that would show he's thinking about anything other than short term and personal. How does this help him win in 2020? To me, that is his only thought right now and if he made this decision with that question in mind then I'd argue that's bad for America.

Time will tell if this was a good decision. As I said earlier, I really want to see some of the intel we have on this guy's plans. If what the White House is saying is true about us thwarting an attack this guy was in the late stages of planning, then take his ass out and I agree with the decision. If not...I think there is at least an argument as to whether this was the right move right now.
 
I always try to see both sides to politics and I actually get both sides on this one.

On one end, an awful human being who hated America and was coordinating attacks on America is dead. That's great.

On the other end, Trump apparently went pretty rogue on this one and didn't take into account on how this impacts the rest of the region outside of Iran. Iraq has already condemned us killing an Iranian general on their soil, France has condemned the strike, and right now the market is absolutely tanking because investors are concerned that Iran will once again strike oil fields in retaliation.

My overall feeling is I don't trust Trump at all when it comes to this stuff. I don't trust the people he listens to, when he actually does listen to them. He has zero experience and knows nothing about the extremely complex relationship between the US and the Middle East.

If we go to war, he'd be one of the last people I'd want making decisions or deciding who makes decisions.

1) markets didn’t care at all

2) who cares what France thinks about Iran, especially given how much they trade with Iran

3) please explain how you know from whom Trump takes advice and from whom he doesn’t, and when he does and when he doesn’t and explain how you know this. Anonymous sources are irrelevant here.
 
1) markets didn’t care at all

2) who cares what France thinks about Iran, especially given how much they trade with Iran

3) please explain how you know from whom Trump takes advice and from whom he doesn’t, and when he does and when he doesn’t and explain how you know this. Anonymous sources are irrelevant here.

Don’t get your panties in a bunch because I don’t trust the decision making ability of your idol.

What we do know is he didn’t follow protocol to consult the 8 members of Congress that President’s usually do. Is that a big deal? I don’t think so but I think it’s at least some insight into how many people didn’t know this was happening.

But hey, Lindsey Graham knew so we are obviously fine.

Also - I like Graham, I agree with a lot of his politics, especially his 2015-16 criticism of Trump. I just don’t like the idea of him being seemingly the only one who is admitting to being consulted about this very important move.
 
Last edited:
Don’t get your panties in a bunch because I don’t trust the decision making ability of your idol.

What we do know is he didn’t follow protocol to consult the 8 members of Congress that President’s usually do. Is that a big deal? I don’t think so but I think it’s at least some insight into how many people didn’t know this was happening.

But hey, Lindsey Graham knew so we are obviously fine.

So you don’t have any idea then about Trump taking advice from anyone?

And given the way those people leak, I think Trump should be commended for keeping it quiet so as to not jeopardize the op.
 
no, but I didn’t make judgements based on my perceptions of Trump taking or not taking advice.

If you read what I wrote I said my judgement on this will be based on if we had actual intel that this guy was about to orchestrate an attack. If he was, great decision. If not, gonna have some questions. My comment on him not involving the 8 is just a personal belief that both sides of the aisle should be involved in all major decisions. We are one country, not two political parties.

Unlike you, I don’t just blindly support my party lines. I prefer to decide based on information provided.
 
You said this. Please explain what I don’t understand.


My overall feeling is I don't trust Trump at all when it comes to this stuff. I don't trust the people he listens to, when he actually does listen to them.
 
Trump campaigned in 2016 on his pledge to pull American soldiers out of the "endless wars" in the Middle East. How's that going?

Another promise broken.
 
Trump campaigned in 2016 on pulling American soldiers out of the "endless wars" in the Middle East. How's that going?

Another promise broken.

How many American soldiers were deployed to Iraq to take out the Iranians?

But while we are on the subject, how many Americans are deployed now in the Middle East? And how many were in 2016?
 
Right now 3000 are on their way in, not out. That's addition, not subtraction, math whiz.
 
Right now 3000 are on their way in, not out. That's addition, not subtraction, math whiz.

Can I assume that you don't know the answer to my question and therefore are once again talking out of your ass?
 
My comment on him not involving the 8 is just a personal belief that both sides of the aisle should be involved in all major decisions. We are one country, not two political parties.
Yeah, not sure about involving politicians in something like this. All eight of those people are going to make political decisions and won't have every piece of intel. You certainly won't get them to agree. Covert ops needs to be limited to intelligence and military personnel. This is one of the few things a president needs to keep quiet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UNC71-00
Yeah, not sure about involving politicians in something like this. All eight of those people are going to make political decisions and won't have every piece of intel. You certainly won't get them to agree. Covert ops needs to be limited to intelligence and military personnel. This is one of the few things a president needs to keep quiet.

Telling 8 people, 8 people who are literally (like, literally) chosen for this exact reason is not going to spoil any surprise of an attack (which I very much feel we lack these days).

I'm not asking for Trump (who you seem to not include when you use the word politician for some reason) to broadcast it on Fox News, I'm asking him to utilize something that is purposely there for this reason.
 
You said this. Please explain what I don’t understand.

I don't trust Trump. Not sure what else I need to explain. He's a debatably successful businessman with no experience in complex issues of the Middle East. He's appointed people who also lack experience. That better?

Now, do you want to comment on what I explained was the basis on how I make my decision on whether or not I agree with this attack?
 
Telling 8 people, 8 people who are literally (like, literally) chosen for this exact reason is not going to spoil any surprise of an attack (which I very much feel we lack these days).

I'm not asking for Trump (who you seem to not include when you use the word politician for some reason) to broadcast it on Fox News, I'm asking him to utilize something that is purposely there for this reason.
Those eight people are going to have eight competing interest. This isn't really the type of thing that needs to be debated on for hours or maybe even days with limited intel. I didn't include Trump in my politician definition because I was talking about the eight people you were talking about.
 
Those eight people are going to have eight competing interest. This isn't really the type of thing that needs to be debated on for hours or maybe even days with limited intel. I didn't include Trump in my politician definition because I was talking about the eight people you were talking about.

We may have conflicting views of these members then. They are actually 8 of Congress' best in my opinion and those who have been most willing to set aside staunch political allegiance...especially in this scenario where the 8 and the President don't leak how each person advised in council. These aren't senate/house votes that everyone can see on CSPAN, it's meetings that are kept private.
 
I don't trust Trump. Not sure what else I need to explain. He's a debatably successful businessman with no experience in complex issues of the Middle East. He's appointed people who also lack experience. That better?

Now, do you want to comment on what I explained was the basis on how I make my decision on whether or not I agree with this attack?

There’s nothing Trump could do that would cause you to trust him. Furthermore, every single thing he does is cause for criticism.

This is the precise example of derangement syndrome and the primary reason that none of you people can understand why he won and will win again.
 
There’s nothing Trump could do that would cause you to trust him. Furthermore, every single thing he does is cause for criticism.

This is the precise example of derangement syndrome and the primary reason that none of you people can understand why he won and will win again.

First, if he does things that illicit trust, I will trust him. Again, I'm not a drone to a party or person.

Second, I know completely why he won and I think he will win again. So who exactly are you lumping me in with? Are you confused?
 
First, if he does things that illicit trust, I will trust him. Again, I'm not a drone to a party or person.

Second, I know completely why he won and I think he will win again. So who exactly are you lumping me in with? Are you confused?

ah I see. I didn’t understand that it was fine for you to lump me in with a group but that you are not to be lumped.

How did the Syria withdrawal work out? And the strike on Bagdahdi?
 
ah I see. I didn’t understand that it was fine for you to lump me in with a group but that you are not to be lumped.

How did the Syria withdrawal work out? And the strike on Bagdahdi?

What group did I incorrectly lump you in with? I said you won't criticize Trump. Show me a post on here where you do that and I'll take it back.
 
What group did I incorrectly lump you in with? I said you won't criticize Trump. Show me a post on here where you do that and I'll take it back.

i have been critical of his immigration policies and remain so.

you have lumped me with the party first people.

answer the Syria question
 
answer the Syria question

You're asking for the result of an action that happened like 4 months ago. I have no idea whether that will turn out to be a good long term move. Pulling out troops from Iraq looked great at first then you got ISIS and suddenly it didn't look great. Judging the history of something 120 days after its happened is short-sided. Plus, this doesn't even look all that good short-term, Syria is still a mess.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...r-trump-pulls-us-troops-out-syria/4237528002/

The Pentagon tends to agree with me.


Killing al-Baghdadi was a no brainer. I'll give Trump as much credit there as you I'm sure you gave Obama in 2010. Did you trust Obama because he killed Bin Laden?

What do you not agree with in terms of Trump's immigration policy?
 
You're asking for the result of an action that happened like 4 months ago. I have no idea whether that will turn out to be a good long term move. Pulling out troops from Iraq looked great at first then you got ISIS and suddenly it didn't look great. Judging the history of something 120 days after its happened is short-sided. Plus, this doesn't even look all that good short-term, Syria is still a mess.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...r-trump-pulls-us-troops-out-syria/4237528002/

The Pentagon tends to agree with me.


Killing al-Baghdadi was a no brainer. I'll give Trump as much credit there as you I'm sure you gave Obama in 2010. Did you trust Obama because he killed Bin Laden?

What do you not agree with in terms of Trump's immigration policy?

Has Trump done anything then that could be deemed a success? What has he done that can be called a failure?

I disagree with pretty much all of his immigration policy. I don’t think we should automatically deport an illegal if he/she is apprehended. I think work visas need to be put in place for unskilled laborers. I don’t care one way or the other about a wall. I don’t think immigrants who are already here have to go back before they can apply for a visa or citizenship. That enough for you?
 
Has Trump done anything then that could be deemed a success? What has he done that can be called a failure?

I think his trade deals, so far, have been very positive. Renegotiating NAFTA is something long overdue, though I doubt he can get all he's asking for I do expect it to be an improvement. The China/Korea/EU deals are fine and improvements, albeit minor.

Economically, in general, I agree with his policy. I'm very fiscally conservative so I'll pretty much agree with any Republican financial policy.

In terms of "failure", my main issue with him is that he's seemingly purposely further dividing an already divided country. It sucks that we're so red vs. blue and he's done nothing to bring them together. Are dem leaders guilty also? Hell yes. But you're the President, you are the President of ALL Americans. It's your job to represent the country, not just the people who voted for you. That, to me, is his biggest failure and why I ultimately dislike his Presidency thus far.

I disagree with pretty much all of his immigration policy. I don’t think we should automatically deport an illegal if he/she is apprehended. I think work visas need to be put in place for unskilled laborers. I don’t care one way or the other about a wall. I don’t think immigrants who are already here have to go back before they can apply for a visa or citizenship. That enough for you?

I was curious, you seem to be pretty vocal about being very supportive of Trump so I was wondering what it was you didn't like about his policy. I agree with you on immigration.

Off to watch games. Solid discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UNC71-00
I think his trade deals, so far, have been very positive. Renegotiating NAFTA is something long overdue, though I doubt he can get all he's asking for I do expect it to be an improvement. The China/Korea/EU deals are fine and improvements, albeit minor.

Economically, in general, I agree with his policy. I'm very fiscally conservative so I'll pretty much agree with any Republican financial policy.

In terms of "failure", my main issue with him is that he's seemingly purposely further dividing an already divided country. It sucks that we're so red vs. blue and he's done nothing to bring them together. Are dem leaders guilty also? Hell yes. But you're the President, you are the President of ALL Americans. It's your job to represent the country, not just the people who voted for you. That, to me, is his biggest failure and why I ultimately dislike his Presidency thus far.



I was curious, you seem to be pretty vocal about being very supportive of Trump so I was wondering what it was you didn't like about his policy. I agree with you on immigration.

Off to watch games. Solid discussion.

I will bite. What could Trump be doing differently to bring the country together? Are his actions divisive or is he just reacting to the divisive actions of others?
 
What could Trump be doing differently to bring the country together?
That is a trick question. One would think the obvious answer is a long recitation of retorts such as stop creating chaos and deliberative combativeness inside and outside of the White House, eliminate the hate-filled rhetoric both in person and in his tweets, stop lying to the American people, stop coddling some of our worst enemies abroad, and the list goes on and on.

Listen to or read the works of psychologists across America who by now have weighed in on Trump's behavioral problems and you will see common agreement on the severity of the issue. In a revised and republished study by Brandy Lee, M.D., M. Div., titled The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump - 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Access a President, Lance Dodes, a former assistant professor of psychology at Harvard School of Medicine, writes, "Mr. Trump's sociopathic characteristics are undeniable. They create a profound danger for America's democracy and safety. Over time these characteristics will only become worse."

So as to the correct answer for what can Trump do differently to bring the country together? The answer is nothing. His mental state is growing worse with time, and you don't really need to be a shrink to see it or understand it. Trump is too far gone and incapable of making such drastic changes at this stage in his life. What you see is what you get and we are stuck with it, at least for 382 more days.
 
That is a trick question. One would think the obvious answer is a long recitation of retorts such as stop creating chaos and deliberative combativeness inside and outside of the White House, eliminate the hate-filled rhetoric both in person and in his tweets, stop lying to the American people, stop coddling some of our worst enemies abroad, and the list goes on and on.

Listen to or read the works of psychologists across America who by now have weighed in on Trump's behavioral problems and you will see common agreement on the severity of the issue. In a revised and republished study by Brandy Lee, M.D., M. Div., titled The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump - 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Access a President, Lance Dodes, a former assistant professor of psychology at Harvard School of Medicine, writes, "Mr. Trump's sociopathic characteristics are undeniable. They create a profound danger for America's democracy and safety. Over time these characteristics will only become worse."

So as to the correct answer for what can Trump do differently to bring the country together? The answer is nothing. His mental state is growing worse with time, and you don't really need to be a shrink to see it or understand it. Trump is too far gone and incapable of making such drastic changes at this stage in his life. What you see is what you get and we are stuck with it, at least for 382 more days.
There really should be a thumbs down rating option for posts on this site.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nctransplant
That is a trick question. One would think the obvious answer is a long recitation of retorts such as stop creating chaos and deliberative combativeness inside and outside of the White House, eliminate the hate-filled rhetoric both in person and in his tweets, stop lying to the American people, stop coddling some of our worst enemies abroad, and the list goes on and on.

Listen to or read the works of psychologists across America who by now have weighed in on Trump's behavioral problems and you will see common agreement on the severity of the issue. In a revised and republished study by Brandy Lee, M.D., M. Div., titled The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump - 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Access a President, Lance Dodes, a former assistant professor of psychology at Harvard School of Medicine, writes, "Mr. Trump's sociopathic characteristics are undeniable. They create a profound danger for America's democracy and safety. Over time these characteristics will only become worse."

So as to the correct answer for what can Trump do differently to bring the country together? The answer is nothing. His mental state is growing worse with time, and you don't really need to be a shrink to see it or understand it. Trump is too far gone and incapable of making such drastic changes at this stage in his life. What you see is what you get and we are stuck with it, at least for 382 more days.

giphy.gif
 
It's going to be hard for the proxy groups to do much though. That article I posted lists the reasons why. I'm guessing something on a smaller scale. Full withdrawal from the nuclear agreement and stirring up trouble in the strait. Maybe doing something in Israel. Not much they can do militarily.
So they've announced that they are basically pulling out of the deal. Let's see what's next.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT