NationStates

Gormwood wrote:If engaging voters requires hailing Trump and following his agenda lock step then are those voters worth engaging?

Not even remotely the point or true.

Valrifell wrote:

Fahran wrote:He was almost right about chemicals in the water turning the freakin' frogs gay. Except they're transgender frogs.

Fun fact: the whole study which that is a reference to was made by a quack who was quickly fired after it was revealed his conclusions didn't make sense.

He also threatened people over email.

Are you talking about the study by Dr. David Skelly of Yale?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51006754

Not sure where else to put this but nationalism suffered a big defeat yesterday in Croatia as incumbent President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic was defeated for second term by former Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic. Hopefully this is a harbinger for November that there is a limit to how much nationalism and right wing populism people will tolerate.

Valrifell wrote:

Juristonia wrote:He's a 73 year old man and the president. Next to the fact that the only person making him do anything is himself, and the fact that he's been behaving like this for decades, the reason behind it is irrelevant. It's not normal behaviour.

He's also got remarkably thin skin and a short temper, he doesn't like being called out. He very transparently wishes for adoration and cheers, not to snicker and jeer at the media. Sure, others around him might, but the Donald himself? Definitely not.

Like Soleimani literally got whacked for dragging Trump on Twitter. That's the reason Trump went with that option when presented with the various means of dealing with the issue.

Vassenor wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
He's also got remarkably thin skin and a short temper, he doesn't like being called out. He very transparently wishes for adoration and cheers, not to snicker and jeer at the media. Sure, others around him might, but the Donald himself? Definitely not.

Like Soleimani literally got whacked for dragging Trump on Twitter. That's the reason Trump went with that option when presented with the various means of dealing with the issue.

Extremely based response.

Soleimani got an IRL permaban and fucking #rekt. Trump rage replied IRL to shitpost.

This is the best timeline.

43 percent approve of Trump strike on Soleimani

This compares to 38% that disapprove and 19% unsure. Of course, there's a split along party lines on whether they agree with the strike or not.

43% also believe Trump didn't plan carefully enough before ordering the airstrike compared to 35% that think he did. 57% believe this will lead to a military conflict more likely with Iran down the road.

Then we have a poll on what people thought of the IG Report on the FBI: Majority (61%) say the IG report revealed pattern of misjudgment by FBI

This compares to 39% who say this absolves the FBI. This shouldn't come as a surprise as the report did find mishandling, neglect, misjudgments, and violations.

Zurkerx wrote:43 percent approve of Trump strike on Soleimani

This compares to 38% that disapprove and 19% unsure. Of course, there's a split along party lines on whether they agree with the strike or not.

43% also believe Trump didn't plan carefully enough before ordering the airstrike compared to 35% that think he did. 57% believe this will lead to a military conflict more likely with Iran down the road.

Then we have a poll on what people thought of the IG Report on the FBI: Majority (61%) say the IG report revealed pattern of misjudgment by FBI

This compares to 39% who say this absolves the FBI. This shouldn't come as a surprise as the report did find mishandling, neglect, misjudgments, and violations.

Honestly, I think this is Trump's "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and not lose one vote" moment. I wonder what triggered it, though. I doubt Trump cares about the one civilian contractor killed recently, except as a source of a bloody shirt to wave.

Gormwood wrote:

Fahran wrote:I don't think you're too familiar with the internal politics of the GOP. Beyond that, calling the voters sheep is still a lazy cop-out that absolves candidates who lost to Trump of all responsibility for not engaging voters.

If engaging voters requires hailing Trump and following his agenda lock step then are those voters worth engaging?

And there we have it.

Farnhamia wrote:Honestly, I think this is Trump's "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and not lose one vote" moment. I wonder what triggered it, though. I doubt Trump cares about the one civilian contractor killed recently, except as a source of a bloody shirt to wave.

Allegedly, he came to the decision after watching footage of the attack on the American embassy in Baghdad.

Fahran wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Honestly, I think this is Trump's "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and not lose one vote" moment. I wonder what triggered it, though. I doubt Trump cares about the one civilian contractor killed recently, except as a source of a bloody shirt to wave.

Allegedly, he came to the decision after watching footage of the attack on the American embassy in Baghdad.

No doubt that, too. Trump does not analyze and plan, he reacts. It's always the most recent incident or the last person who whispered in his ear.

Farnhamia wrote:

Fahran wrote:Allegedly, he came to the decision after watching footage of the attack on the American embassy in Baghdad.

No doubt that, too. Trump does not analyze and plan, he reacts. It's always the most recent incident or the last person who whispered in his ear.

To be fair, killing the guy behind the attack was an acceptable and cathartic if somewhat reckless response to repeated provocation. And it might give us an opportunity to withdraw from Iraq permanently under the shadow of a diplomatic excuse and let Iraqis address Iraqi problems and Iranian meddling on their own.

Bear Stearns wrote:

Gormwood wrote:If engaging voters requires hailing Trump and following his agenda lock step then are those voters worth engaging?

And there we have it.

Okay Lindsey Graham.

Fahran wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:No doubt that, too. Trump does not analyze and plan, he reacts. It's always the most recent incident or the last person who whispered in his ear.

To be fair, killing the guy behind the attack was an acceptable and cathartic if somewhat reckless response to repeated provocation. And it might give us an opportunity to withdraw from Iraq permanently under the shadow of a diplomatic excuse and let Iraqis address Iraqi problems and Iranian meddling on their own.

If it's Trump's intention to withdraw entirely from Iraq, he'd better not just do it. With the assassination he seems to have found a way to provoke the Iraqis into ordering the US out.

Who'd have thought, Iraq standing up for Iran?

Mind you it's not done yet, and the Iraqi parliament wasn't very forceful in their demand. What's needed now is to "accidentally" bomb an Iraqi target.
(Or the threatened "cultural sites" ie Shia monuments)

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:If it's Trump's intention to withdraw entirely from Iraq, he'd better not just do it. With the assassination he seems to have found a way to provoke the Iraqis into ordering the US out.

Who'd have thought, Iraq standing up for Iran?

Elements of the Iraqi government has been sympathetic to Iran since al-Maliki got elected though, notably, Kurdish support didn't materialize behind the nonbinding resolution because the Kurds would not benefit from increased Iranian influence and diminished American influence in the region. Interestingly, if we did withdraw at the behest of the Iranian-backed elements of the government, the Iraqi people might address Iranian hegemonic ambitions themselves. That seems likely given recent protests and the fact that ISIL flared up last time we withdrew.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Mind you it's not done yet, and the Iraqi parliament wasn't very forceful in their demand. What's needed now is to "accidentally" bomb an Iraqi target.

We purposefully bomb Iraqi targets regularly. The Iraqi government just doesn't have an excuse for giving vocal support to those targets and a lot of Iraqis probably aren't keen on the militias anyhow.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Fahran wrote:To be fair, killing the guy behind the attack was an acceptable and cathartic if somewhat reckless response to repeated provocation. And it might give us an opportunity to withdraw from Iraq permanently under the shadow of a diplomatic excuse and let Iraqis address Iraqi problems and Iranian meddling on their own.

If it's Trump's intention to withdraw entirely from Iraq, he'd better not just do it. With the assassination he seems to have found a way to provoke the Iraqis into ordering the US out.

Who'd have thought, Iraq standing up for Iran?

Mind you it's not done yet, and the Iraqi parliament wasn't very forceful in their demand. What's needed now is to "accidentally" bomb an Iraqi target.
(Or the threatened "cultural sites" ie Shia monuments)

Anybody who wasn't a Bush era Neocon stateside saw this coming. It's the Dawa party in charge. Literally funded by Iran. And Bush decided that's a good idea to turn the country over too. I'm not surprised when push comes to shove, the thing people who warned them about came to pass.

The East Marches II wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
If it's Trump's intention to withdraw entirely from Iraq, he'd better not just do it. With the assassination he seems to have found a way to provoke the Iraqis into ordering the US out.

Who'd have thought, Iraq standing up for Iran?

Mind you it's not done yet, and the Iraqi parliament wasn't very forceful in their demand. What's needed now is to "accidentally" bomb an Iraqi target.
(Or the threatened "cultural sites" ie Shia monuments)

Anybody who wasn't a Bush era Neocon stateside saw this coming. It's the Dawa party in charge. Literally funded by Iran. And Bush decided that's a good idea to turn the country over too. I'm not surprised when push comes to shove, the thing people who warned them about came to pass.

You agree that Iraq giving the US a good reason to withdraw, and the US doing it, would play well in the US ..?

To withdraw completely the US would need to close its embassy and give up the green zone.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Fahran wrote:To be fair, killing the guy behind the attack was an acceptable and cathartic if somewhat reckless response to repeated provocation. And it might give us an opportunity to withdraw from Iraq permanently under the shadow of a diplomatic excuse and let Iraqis address Iraqi problems and Iranian meddling on their own.

If it's Trump's intention to withdraw entirely from Iraq, he'd better not just do it. With the assassination he seems to have found a way to provoke the Iraqis into ordering the US out.

Who'd have thought, Iraq standing up for Iran?

Mind you it's not done yet, and the Iraqi parliament wasn't very forceful in their demand. What's needed now is to "accidentally" bomb an Iraqi target.
(Or the threatened "cultural sites" ie Shia monuments)

While the Baathists certainly were anti-Iran, the current Iraqi government isn't. They're very much on Iran's side of the playing field.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
Anybody who wasn't a Bush era Neocon stateside saw this coming. It's the Dawa party in charge. Literally funded by Iran. And Bush decided that's a good idea to turn the country over too. I'm not surprised when push comes to shove, the thing people who warned them about came to pass.

You agree that Iraq giving the US a good reason to withdraw, and the US doing it, would play well in the US ..?

To withdraw completely the US would need to close its embassy and give up the green zone.

Judging by the attack on the embassy, the green zone isn't as green as thought.

Fahran wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Maybe Mitt Romney but that's it.

I don't think you're too familiar with the internal politics of the GOP. Beyond that, calling the voters sheep is still a lazy cop-out that absolves candidates who lost to Trump of all responsibility for not engaging voters.

But why did trump engage them while the others didn't? The answer to that question involves saying worse things about Republican voters than sheep.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
Anybody who wasn't a Bush era Neocon stateside saw this coming. It's the Dawa party in charge. Literally funded by Iran. And Bush decided that's a good idea to turn the country over too. I'm not surprised when push comes to shove, the thing people who warned them about came to pass.

You agree that Iraq giving the US a good reason to withdraw, and the US doing it, would play well in the US ..?

To withdraw completely the US would need to close its embassy and give up the green zone.

In rereading, it's possible your comment was sarcasm (the bolded). I have been dealing with people unversed in the ME as of late, I possibly misunderstood you. For that I apologize.

Gormwood wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
And there we have it.

Okay Lindsey Graham.

That's mean.

Fahran wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Maybe Mitt Romney but that's it.

I don't think you're too familiar with the internal politics of the GOP. Beyond that, calling the voters sheep is still a lazy cop-out that absolves candidates who lost to Trump of all responsibility for not engaging voters.

Whatever Trump says they believe and that's why the vast majority of Republicans wont convict or speak out against him. All he has to do is endorse they primary challenger and they will lose.

Tobleste wrote:But why did trump engage them while the others didn't? The answer to that question involves saying worse things about Republican voters than sheep.

I'm certain you could summarize those sentiments without calling people racist or sexist if you really tried, but I do believe you have a vested interest in writing off all Trump voters to avoid self-reflection. I'll remind you that my side hasn't been relevant in years largely because we haven't bothered to address those questions.

Bear Stearns wrote:

Gormwood wrote:Okay Lindsey Graham.

That's mean.

Really over the top tbh. Gauth should apologize, that was a bridge too far.

Tobleste wrote:

Fahran wrote:I don't think you're too familiar with the internal politics of the GOP. Beyond that, calling the voters sheep is still a lazy cop-out that absolves candidates who lost to Trump of all responsibility for not engaging voters.

But why did trump engage them while the others didn't? The answer to that question involves saying worse things about Republican voters than sheep.

The perception that the Democrats actually hate people like them did it more than anything. It's one thing if your opponent just disagrees with you. It's another if your opponent hates you and thinks you're evil.