• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump probably shot at a rally -- Still a jerk

Page 43 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
fskimospy said:
It is sad and bad for future governance that Biden took the hit for the Afghanistan withdrawal. The lesson I would learn as a president is that I should keep doing what Obama and Trump did - pouring money and lives into a losing effort instead of acknowledging reality.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Biden withdrew from Afghanistan in the best possible manner. Any other manner of withdraw would have resulted in more American deaths. Since the withdraw was executed, precisely zero American troops have died in Afghanistan, a wildly successful outcome. The naysayers never tell us how many American troops they were willing to see killed to achieve a different outcome.
 
IronWing said:
Exactly. Biden withdrew from Afghanistan in the best possible manner. Any other manner of withdraw would have resulted in more American deaths. Since the withdraw was executed, precisely zero American troops have died in Afghanistan, a wildly successful outcome. The naysayers never tell us how many American troops they were willing to see killed to achieve a different outcome.
Click to expand...

Could probably quibble over the technicalities of the withdrawal, but the difference in outcomes between the different ways that process could have been managed would be insignificant compared to the difference between staying in indefinitely and finally accepting the reality of the situation.

The opprobrium should be directed at all those (on whichever political team) who supported going in there in the first place.
 
Quite a few things I didn't know, in this article. It's sort-of-indirectly about the subject of this thread, but there are interesting tangents in there.

Didn't know Trump had a connection to Roy Cohn (is that the same guy who was McCarthy's right-hand man?) nor that there exists a movie about that connection.

Nor did I know that the Republican Party platform contains a pledge to create a new federal agency to defend Christian nationalism: “To protect Religious Liberty, Republicans support a new Federal Task Force on Fighting Anti-Christian Bias that will investigate all forms of illegal discrimination, harassment, and persecution against Christians in America.”

Is that Constitutional? Can the state institutionalise the "protection" - by which I suspect they mean "dominance" - of one religion specifically?


www.theguardian.com

To his supporters, Trump is a martyred messiah, resurrected after crucifixion | Sidney Blumenthal

His near assassination transformed Trump’s theology, giving the decidedly earthly ex-president a powerful spiritual sheen
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
pmv said:
Quite a few things I didn't know, in this article. It's sort-of-indirectly about the subject of this thread, but there are interesting tangents in there.

Didn't know Trump had a connection to Roy Cohn (is that the same guy who was McCarthy's right-hand man?) nor that there exists a movie about that connection.
Click to expand...
Same guy! He was also an infamous mob lawyer. Fun fact - he died of AIDS and when he was dying Trump refused to see him. Just like with everyone else, Trump cast him aside when he was no longer useful.
pmv said:
Nor did I know that the Republican Party platform contains a pledge to create a new federal agency to defend Christian nationalism: “To protect Religious Liberty, Republicans support a new Federal Task Force on Fighting Anti-Christian Bias that will investigate all forms of illegal discrimination, harassment, and persecution against Christians in America.”

Is that Constitutional? Can the state institutionalise the "protection" - by which I suspect they mean "dominance" - of one religion specifically?


www.theguardian.com

To his supporters, Trump is a martyred messiah, resurrected after crucifixion | Sidney Blumenthal

His near assassination transformed Trump’s theology, giving the decidedly earthly ex-president a powerful spiritual sheen
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
Would it be unconstitutional for the federal government to establish an agency explicitly designed to advance the interests of a specific religion? Of course!

SCOTUS response:

SameGameTwice.gif
 
pmv said:
Quite a few things I didn't know, in this article. It's sort-of-indirectly about the subject of this thread, but there are interesting tangents in there.

Didn't know Trump had a connection to Roy Cohn (is that the same guy who was McCarthy's right-hand man?) nor that there exists a movie about that connection.

Nor did I know that the Republican Party platform contains a pledge to create a new federal agency to defend Christian nationalism: “To protect Religious Liberty, Republicans support a new Federal Task Force on Fighting Anti-Christian Bias that will investigate all forms of illegal discrimination, harassment, and persecution against Christians in America.”

Is that Constitutional? Can the state institutionalise the "protection" - by which I suspect they mean "dominance" - of one religion specifically?


www.theguardian.com

To his supporters, Trump is a martyred messiah, resurrected after crucifixion | Sidney Blumenthal

His near assassination transformed Trump’s theology, giving the decidedly earthly ex-president a powerful spiritual sheen
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

i have no idea how anyone can be unaware of the Trump/Cohn connection. Cohn was Trump's mentor and the person who taught Trump all the shit he continues to pull off.
 
pmv said:
Quite a few things I didn't know, in this article. It's sort-of-indirectly about the subject of this thread, but there are interesting tangents in there.

Didn't know Trump had a connection to Roy Cohn (is that the same guy who was McCarthy's right-hand man?) nor that there exists a movie about that connection.

Nor did I know that the Republican Party platform contains a pledge to create a new federal agency to defend Christian nationalism: “To protect Religious Liberty, Republicans support a new Federal Task Force on Fighting Anti-Christian Bias that will investigate all forms of illegal discrimination, harassment, and persecution against Christians in America.”

Is that Constitutional? Can the state institutionalise the "protection" - by which I suspect they mean "dominance" - of one religion specifically?


www.theguardian.com

To his supporters, Trump is a martyred messiah, resurrected after crucifixion | Sidney Blumenthal

His near assassination transformed Trump’s theology, giving the decidedly earthly ex-president a powerful spiritual sheen
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
Much like the Bible, conservatives pick and choose which parts of The Constitution are VERY IMPORTANT and which parts are disposable purely by how useful it is to them in the moment.
 
pmv said:
Quite a few things I didn't know, in this article. It's sort-of-indirectly about the subject of this thread, but there are interesting tangents in there.

Didn't know Trump had a connection to Roy Cohn (is that the same guy who was McCarthy's right-hand man?) nor that there exists a movie about that connection.

Nor did I know that the Republican Party platform contains a pledge to create a new federal agency to defend Christian nationalism: “To protect Religious Liberty, Republicans support a new Federal Task Force on Fighting Anti-Christian Bias that will investigate all forms of illegal discrimination, harassment, and persecution against Christians in America.”

Is that Constitutional? Can the state institutionalise the "protection" - by which I suspect they mean "dominance" - of one religion specifically?


www.theguardian.com

To his supporters, Trump is a martyred messiah, resurrected after crucifixion | Sidney Blumenthal

His near assassination transformed Trump’s theology, giving the decidedly earthly ex-president a powerful spiritual sheen
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
Yep his daddy thought he wasn’t shitty enough so he hired Cohn to teach little Donnie how to be a royal asshole.

In traditional American jurisprudence the answer would be no. With the current Christo fascists on the court? Fuck yeah it’s what the founding fathers wanted! There is a deep historical record that they wanted a de facto state religion.

/s
 
dank69 said:
Additionally, inflation was lower in the US than most (all?) other countries which means Biden (and the Fed) did a better job controlling it than any other world leaders.

The Taliban that immediately rose up during the withdrawal were mostly comprised of the 5000 Taliban Trump released in exchange for nothing.
Click to expand...
Indeed seems like Bidenomics pulled it off no 2nd Great Depression...Which is probably one of his biggest achievements that will get no recognition in the history books. Real politicians dont do it for the fame though.
 
ch33zw1z said:
Yea, but you can't chant it, so half of america is none the wiser.
Click to expand...
I agree, a lot is not under Biden's control. However, he is not completely blame free. The administration waited far to long to counteract inflation, continuing to say it was a "temporary" problem and would go away, as it was steadily rising. As for the border, yes, congressional action is needed, but just a few weeks after he said he could do nothing without congress, he penned an executive order to infact close the border after a certain number of crossings per day. So which is it?

In any case, the Reps are very effectively spreading FUD about these issues, and in perhaps his most critical weakness, which I did not mention, he is frail, a horrible speaker at his best, and even worse now, and has no charisma. These make him very ineffective at countering the Rep bull****. If the Dems had a popular, moderate candidate, I would say they should replace Joe in a heartbeat. As it is though, I really dont know what they should do. Biden is undoubtedly a weak candidate, but any possible replacements except Michelle Obama have polled worse than Biden.
 
ondma said:
I agree, a lot is not under Biden's control. However, he is not completely blame free. The administration waited far to long to counteract inflation, continuing to say it was a "temporary" problem and would go away, as it was steadily rising. As for the border, yes, congressional action is needed, but just a few weeks after he said he could do nothing without congress, he penned an executive order to infact close the border after a certain number of crossings per day. So which is it?

In any case, the Reps are very effectively spreading FUD about these issues, and in perhaps his most critical weakness, which I did not mention, he is frail, a horrible speaker at his best, and even worse now, and has no charisma. These make him very ineffective at countering the Rep bull****. If the Dems had a popular, moderate candidate, I would say they should replace Joe in a heartbeat. As it is though, I really dont know what they should do. Biden is undoubtedly a weak candidate, but any possible replacements except Michelle Obama have polled worse than Biden.
Click to expand...

It’s easy to spread the FUD when you voters just want 3 word sound bytes and someone to hate
 
IronWing said:
Exactly. Biden withdrew from Afghanistan in the best possible manner. Any other manner of withdraw would have resulted in more American deaths. Since the withdraw was executed, precisely zero American troops have died in Afghanistan, a wildly successful outcome. The naysayers never tell us how many American troops they were willing to see killed to achieve a different outcome.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but this is horseshit revisionism that it was done in a "best" fashion. I fully support Biden's decision to finally withdraw. It was the right policy, and his arms were tied by Trump announcing it without having any plan. Didn't DJT want to invite the Taliban to Camp David for a signing ceremony? Around the 9/11 anniversary no less LOL

The problem is that the Biden administration also had an unrealistic plan. It is well chronicled that we just assumed the AF government would stand up as we stood down and left. We closed Bagram Airfield long before the withdrawal date, and just assumed things were stable. That summer there were signs that the Taliban was ready to pounce, but we didn't really react to it. Later when the shit hit the fan, we had to pivot to military evac of tens of thousands. This part went about as well as you could expect under difficult circumstances.

IIRC the week before we burned all the documents at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, the State Dept. was still claiming the embassy was staying open. In hindsight, the withdrawal was always going to be difficult but let's not BS and say it couldn't have gone better. To be clear, I'm not agreeing with GQP talking points on the AF withdrawal because as usual, they are lying sacks of shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top