The Pitifully Flawed, Unreliable Judgment Behind Voting for Trump for "No War"

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So would I. That's why it gets frustrating having to take the government's word.

When has the government ever lied to us to unnecessarily start a war??

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Please read:

Opinion | Trump was right to kill Iranian general Qassem Soleimani

"Soleimani intervened to salvage the Syrian civil war for President Bashar al-Assad, organizing more than 100,000 fighters to prop up the crumbling, corrupt regime and planning the infamous campaign to retake the city of Aleppo from Syrian rebels in 2016. That seige redefined carnage in the modern era, while the civil war overall sent thousands of refugees fleeing to Europe.

Soleimani’s handiwork is also believed to include his decades-long arming of terrorist groups such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Yemen’s Houthis and militants in Gaza. His subordinates are believed to be behind an attempt to kill a Saudi diplomat in Washington in 2011. The 2019 attacks on Saudi oil refineries are widely believed to be the work of Iran; as was the New Year’s Eve attack on America’s embassy in Iraq last week."

<DON'T FORGET TO CLICK ON ALL THE BLUE LINKS, FOR MORE EXPLANATION>

Oh? You trumpettes don't like Assad this week? It's hard to keep track of whether he's a good guy or a bad guy according to you lot. Is there a newsletter or something?

I note none of your links were to evidence of him being a threat to Americans. If he armed Hezbollah or trued to kill Saudis, why did America have to kill him?

 

[Audie]

Those are observations in response to your false claims. Try again.

Ah so, blame is now a observation.

 

[Cooky]

Oh? You trumpettes don't like Assad this week? It's hard to keep track of whether he's a good guy or a bad guy according to you lot. Is there a newsletter or something?

I note none of your links were to evidence of him being a threat to Americans. If he armed Hezbollah or trued to kill Saudis, why did America have to kill him?

The source was NBC, Center-left. I suppose the source, and possibly the military considered him a hindrance to the greater common good of world peace / economies.

 

[oldbadger]

Many Trump voters said they elected him instead of Hillary Clinton because he was "less warlike." Now a war with Iran is basically a reality, almost entirely thanks to Trump's ill-conceived handling of foreign relations and negotiations.

This, in my opinion, is a stark reminder for anyone who knows such Trump voters to thoroughly dismiss and disregard their political judgments in the future as unreliable, irrational, and flawed. We would all be better served by ignoring their input on future matters of considerable political gravitas.

Your low-rent political decision has now resulted in unrest for many of us living thousands of miles and an ocean away. Congratulations on "making America great again."

Well.
Looks like you got that wrong.
President Trump sure did commit some kind of war crime, but it seems as if he has stepped back from the brink.

Presumption and assumption lose you points, imo.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please read:

Opinion | Trump was right to kill Iranian general Qassem Soleimani

"Soleimani intervened to salvage the Syrian civil war for President Bashar al-Assad, organizing more than 100,000 fighters to prop up the crumbling, corrupt regime and planning the infamous campaign to retake the city of Aleppo from Syrian rebels in 2016. That seige redefined carnage in the modern era, while the civil war overall sent thousands of refugees fleeing to Europe.

Soleimani’s handiwork is also believed to include his decades-long arming of terrorist groups such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Yemen’s Houthis and militants in Gaza. His subordinates are believed to be behind an attempt to kill a Saudi diplomat in Washington in 2011. The 2019 attacks on Saudi oil refineries are widely believed to be the work of Iran; as was the New Year’s Eve attack on America’s embassy in Iraq last week."

<DON'T FORGET TO CLICK ON ALL THE BLUE LINKS, FOR MORE EXPLANATION>

Civil wars are never pretty, but that would not be terrorism. The populace was a victim of the war in general. Not all of the blue links "work". Though I do like the Washington Post one has to pay to read it these days. Calling him a terrorist still seems to be a bit of a stretch.

 

[Stevicus]

When has the government ever lied to us to unnecessarily start a war??

I remember the Maine.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I remember the Maine.

OK well apart from that one time...

 

[Stevicus]

OK well apart from that one time...

Gulf of Tonkin Resolution?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Gulf of Tonkin Resolution?

Ok, ok, those two times...

 

[Stevicus]

Ok, ok, those two times...

Well, then there was WMDs in Iraq...

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

 

[Revoltingest]

I think I missed this post earlier.
But it resurfaced, so here's a belated response.

I don't see any reason to limit the search to two days only. We're talking about a track record here.

It is one you imagine because you accumulate emotional
impressions, rather than dealing with each post as it's made.

Not that I care much about arguing with you at this point since I haven't seen and expect that I won't see a specific, minimum level of directness, but here are just a few examples of deflection, apologetics, and thinly veiled support:

It is a weak tactic to say you don't want to argue...as you continue
to argue. And then you complain in advance about a response
not yet made. This is a tactic full of mischief.

Oh no, Joe...

The issue raised by the poster was the accusations that Obama
is a Muslim. I've long & often said he isn't, but those who say
he is could've been mislead by Obama's once having referred
to his "Muslim faith". A slip of the tongue had undue influence.
For you to call this evidence of support for Trump is utterly
ridiculous, & misrepresents my view of him.

A Third Woman Alleges She was Sexually Assaulted by Donald Trump

You've linked a post that compares Donald to Hillary.
This is not support for Trump. To portray it as such
is to misrepresent my intent.

Government Sails Along More Smoothly Than Some Think

This post considers Trump's record independent of him as
a person in response to an OP claiming failure of government.
It is not support for him. You haven't indicated that you
disagree with me....you merely cited the post as though
it proves something, & without any commentary at all.
That's lazy & prejudiced.

Trump Wages War Of Oppression Against Gays

In this linked post I was criticizing Trump for
lack of shame for doing wrong. Do you even
read the posts you object to?

The Trump Effect & The New Democrats

Why did you link that one? You don't say,
but it seems that you claim it proves something.

Trump Wages War Of Oppression Against Gays

Are you complaining about Trump trying to end worldwide
oppression of homosexuals? I support the policy, not the man.
I'd wager that you support it too. So your objection seems at
odds with your own values.

Just to sum this whole thing up, I know that you dislike certain economic policies to the point of possibly making them factor into voting (or not) for someone. That's fair, except when said policies include better tax regulations that you clearly oppose for personal reasons and then try to paint that as "the lesser evil."

Now you're trying to make my political views about personal
enrichment. You've no basis for that specious & insulting
ad hominem fallacy.

Good luck. You got your examples (even if only a few out of many others), which I won't be surprised to see you reject or deny as well. Oh well. At least I tried to help you feel better.

Your examples are a disaster.
It's as though you picked them at random.

I ask you, stop misrepresenting my views.
If you disagree with me about any post, then
deal with it then, instead of letting your
misimpressions fester, only to erupt later
when it's more difficult to address them.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Wow. A year-old thread. That's quite the necro.

In this linked post I was criticizing Trump for
lack of shame for doing wrong. Do you even
read the posts you object to?

I don't even recall how I interpreted that one when I quoted it, but I see you're right: I stand corrected on thinking it was a defense of Trump. My apologies.

I don't care to go into the rest given the age of this thread.

Here's a deal: we have a detente where we avoid accusations of "prejudice," "blind partisanship," and other potentially emotionally charged designations without accompanying explanations as to why, but under the condition that you abide by the same. Otherwise it would be an inconsistent agreement.

Deal?

 

[Revoltingest]

Wow. A year-old thread. That's quite the necro.

I've revived older ones.
When one surfaces it surfaces.

I don't even recall how I interpreted that one when I quoted it, but I see you're right: I stand corrected on thinking it was a defense of Trump. My apologies.

I don't care to go into the rest given the age of this thread.

Here's a deal: we have a detente where we avoid accusations of "prejudice," "blind partisanship," and other potentially emotionally charged designations without accompanying explanations as to why, but under the condition that you abide by the same. Otherwise it would be an inconsistent agreement.

Deal?

Although I'd prefer a deal where you & I each stick to
issues, & avoid negative personal commentary entirely.
I always endeavor to honor that....until someone doesn't,
& invites a response in kind.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I've revived older ones.
When one surfaces it surfaces.

Although I'd prefer a deal where you & I each stick to
issues, & avoid negative personal commentary entirely.
I'll honor that so long as you do.

Good. I'll save this post's link for future reference.

 

[Revoltingest]

Good. I'll save this post's link for future reference.

I'm saving the whole thread.