OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Come on man. You could literally say that for any military action for any President but you hate Trump so now it's just a "win" that was needed? Was Obama making the call to take out Bin Laden needing a win?
It's also false that at "any time" we could have taken him out and it would be the same. We took him out on an ally's soil, VERY different than if he was in Iran and we took him out.
So there is a theory going around that Iran accidentally shot down the plane that crashed. If true, which is a big if and unverified, then that will mean Iran has killed more Iranians than the US.
It was a Ukranian plane I think. They said they would not turn over the black box.
Don't they have to turn it over to the Ukraine? I know literally nothing about the laws on this stuff.
It has been reported that they have said they will not turn it over. I wouldn't think there is such a law that could be enforced.
Iranian news channels are trying to make their government look better by saying 80+ American troops died.
I can understand your fear when any threat arises. I dont know how old your grandson is, but most likely he enlisted and choose his current job. He would know the risk involved. In my book, he is a true hero for being willing to put his life on the line. Your concern is warranted. It would be hard for me to know at anytime someone close to me could leave at any moment.
112 days playing golf in 3 years. That's quite a lot, and outpacing Obama's 92 days in the same time period. I wonder if he'll make it to 365 days in the 5 years until his presidency is over. It's a tall task, but he seems up to it.
Clearly this is just a stunt to show off his deal making abilities. 112 days of golf for 121 million dollars is practically a steal.
When have we ever had a president who routinely tries to divert national attention when the proverbial shit is hitting the fan? That has become Trump's M.O. and everyone here knows it. You might think prlyles is going out on a limb but apparently Trump's closest advisors don't. They were shocked when the President chose the most extreme measure -- assassination -- to take against Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.
Furthermore, initially the justification was that Soleimani had an American contractor killed. Then it changed to he was a dire, imminent threat based on U.S. intelligence agencies which Trump called "the best in world" after publicly ridiculing them and calling them "corrupt" in the past.
Since then the Administration has backed off the "imminent" part and has yet provided any evidence to back up these assertions. Only fools believe a liar.
Good work, prlyles.
This is what bugs me about you (and other liberals). If Obama did the EXACT same thing you'd praise him for it. You can sit back and go no, well Trump did this bad and it was a diversion and blah blah blah. Bottom line is you hate him so you hate everything he does and you'll spin good things to make them bad.
The other side does this also.
It sucks. Really sucks. Be a freaking human being and judge actions without a political agenda in mind. I was initially against the strike, I read more on it and saw that the consequences were nothing and now I'm applauding it as a good decision. Be a human, you can like something someone you don't like does and you can even change your mind. Sucks that is missing today.
Basically every President since the start of this country. John Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Acts which, by law, stifled freedom of speech. He didn't just divert, he straight up made it illegal to say bad shit about him. Wilson passed the Sedition Act of 1918 which similarly stifled the first amendment.
These are just times it included an actual law. Presidents have used diversion in politics since literally the beginning of the office. Stop saying Trump is doing stuff that's never been done before if you don't know your history.
these dumb asses don't use actual facts or history when dealing with Trump - it's 100% emotion. they've been on the rag for 3 years now and it's going to continue for another 5.
Generally I agree with this. However, context is still relevant. How much confidence do you have in Trump's ability to negotiate a complex situation in the M.E. when he won't even read the briefings? People will be more tolerant of decisions that might lead to war if they're confident that the POTUS actually has the necessary intellectual capacity and temperament, in the event that a war actually happens.
Of course it's also become a tired meme to just claim that people who dislike trump are just acting on blind hatred. There's a never ending list of valid reasons to dislike trump personally and politically. So why assume that any "liberal" who doesn't like him is acting purely on bias? This is no different than saying that people who disliked Obama were just being racist.
"Never trumpers" was a clever talking point. Anytime anyone criticizes him, he calls them never trumpers, and his base follows suit.
If I were to go back in time eight years, just as Obama was wrapping up his third year in office, only to find that he had already amassed a long track record of corruption, was spending his workdays not so much at his desk in the Oval Office but rather always on his phone, had tallied well over 15,000 documented and verifiable lies to the American people, abused his executive power for personal and political gain and as a result had recently been impeached for it, and topped it all off by having an Iranian general assassinated, then no, I don't believe I would be praising him. I would likely be a little suspicious of him, just as I am of Trump, and I absolutely would be renouncing him as our president and kicking myself for voting for him in the first place. That's how nonpartisan I am.
What I actually said, or rather asked, was when have we had a president who routinely tries to divert national attention when the proverbial shit is hitting the fan? How exactly does John Adams trying to prevent foreign spies from infiltrating our then-fledgling nation, or Woodrow Wilson, right or wrong, doing his best to eliminate interference in the prosecution of his war begin to compare to Donald Trump purposefully and routinely attempting to divert attention away from his latest clusterf*ck du jour? You may know American history but your debating skills could certainly use some honing.
Last edited:
You may have a handle on American history but it appears your knowledge of Middle Eastern history is highly questionable. The assassination was a mere week ago and you've concluded "the consequences were nothing"?
Abu Reiha!!
posts like this almost make me feel bad about taking money from someone who has obviously lost control of his mental faculties, assuming he had them to begin with.
As of right now - yes, they are nothing. As I said earlier, I always look at both the short and long term repercussions on any decision a President has made when judging it. Right now, the luxury of time being time only affords us the ability to view it in the short term. If in the long term this spawns something bad, then guess what, I'm allowed to change my mind! Holy shit the power of free will is amazing when you're not a stooge to a political party.
He thinks typing long poasts = being good at debate.
Fair enough. Hopefully your first hunch is correct and Iran has gotten all this revenge business out of its system, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
I expect Blabbersnot71 to be overwhelmed by messages with double-digit word counts or longer. The guy has the attention span of a sea urchin. But I expect better from you.
If Iran shot down that plane as part of their retaliation then that’s a pretty high price to pay for taking out one guy.
Now trump is trying to get ahead of that by saying Iran could have made a mistake. Because civillian aircroft get shot down on accident all of the time...
Now trump is trying to get ahead of that by saying Iran could have made a mistake. Because civillian aircroft get shot down on accident all of the time...
Not sure I can get behind blaming Trump for Iran shooting down a plane. And I can't imagine it would be anything but a mistake. Probably just someone saw a plane on radar, got nervous thinking it was one of ours and shot it. Horrible thing to do, but I don't think it was done on purpose.
If they shot it down on purpose as a result of being provoked by our drone strike taking out their guy, then you can’t really argue that the two events weren't causally linked. If thats the case then it would be understandable for people to question whether that first strike was worth it or not.
I could see it being intentional. Terrible look for Iran but also a chance to attack citizens from one of our allies without shooting down a US military aircraft.
You actually think Iran's thought process was that they should shoot down a Ukrainian plane full of Canadians and Iranians because the US killed someone?
Really?
I just don't see any reason why they would do it on purpose. There were no Americans on the plane and it already has other countries upset at them. Pretty much every country in the world would sanction them to death if they did that. That's not even taking into account UN rules that allow us to be a part of the investigation. Why would they want to do something that would allow us to investigate them? There's nothing good that could come out of this for them.
Ya seriously. Countries should be held accountable for their own actions. That'd be like if Kim Jong Un said "If you don't let me build nukes I'm going to nuke the shit out of South Korea" and then listening to him on that because, shit, you don't want to see him nuke South Korea, right?
I have no idea what their thought process was. All I was really saying was that if the public decides the events were possibly related then trump will face blowback for it. I made no comment on how logical or not that blowback would be.
Either way this clearly a situation that could cause the tension with Iran to escalate.
So they thought they were firing at a US military aircraft and accidentally shot down a civillian aircraft? That would make sense. But wouldnt it still be safe to assume that is a response to our killing their guy?
I’m not arguing Trump was wrong for taking the guy out. Just questioning the narrative that there was no cost. If they were correct about the target and shot a US pilot out of the sky then what happens?
Similar threads
