Biden says he does not regret Afghanistan withdrawal as Taliban take over more towns

[The Rogue Wolf]

Someday you're gonna see it. Once you're far enough removed, you'll understand. You'll look back and think "huh, he was just doing the same crap as all the other presidents, why were we freaking out so much?"

I want you to look at this statement from Trump. Closely.

“First you bring out all of the American citizens. Then you bring out ALL equipment. Then you bomb the bases into smithereens—AND THEN YOU BRING OUT THE MILITARY. You don’t do it in reverse order like Biden and our woke Generals did.”

Can you tell me where any other President thought it would be a great idea to bomb our bases AND THEN evacuate the soldiers? The man is a complete imbecile.

 

[tstorm823]

I want you to look at this statement from Trump. Closely.

“First you bring out all of the American citizens. Then you bring out ALL equipment. Then you bomb the bases into smithereens—AND THEN YOU BRING OUT THE MILITARY. You don’t do it in reverse order like Biden and our woke Generals did.”

Can you tell me where any other President thought it would be a great idea to bomb our bases AND THEN evacuate the soldiers? The man is a complete imbecile.

I want you to look closely at yourself, because you're demonstrating the problem. Do you actually think Trump intended to say to bomb the soldiers? I appreciate he said a thing that sounds dumb, and laughing at a dumb statement is fun, but you have to know he didn't mean it that way. You have to understand he was thinking "we have the troops blow up the bases before they leave", but he said it very poorly.

Had anyone else said something dumb like that, you'd probably say "yeah, he said a dumb thing he didn't intend to". When Joe Biden says a million dumb things, you probably say "yeah, he said a dumb thing he didn't intend to". When Trump says a dumb thing, you think "well obviously if he was president, he would have accidentally bombed US troops, because that's what he said." Yes he said a dumb thing, just like everyone says dumb things, and you're choosing an insane interpretation of the statement because your perspective on the man is grossly warped.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I want you to look closely at yourself, because you're demonstrating the problem. Do you actually think Trump intended to say to bomb the soldiers? I appreciate he said a thing that sounds dumb, and laughing at a dumb statement is fun, but you have to know he didn't mean it that way. You have to understand he was thinking "we have the troops blow up the bases before they leave", but he said it very poorly.

Had anyone else said something dumb like that, you'd probably say "yeah, he said a dumb thing he didn't intend to". When Joe Biden says a million dumb things, you probably say "yeah, he said a dumb thing he didn't intend to". When Trump says a dumb thing, you think "well obviously if he was president, he would have accidentally bombed US troops, because that's what he said." Yes he said a dumb thing, just like everyone says dumb things, and you're choosing an insane interpretation of the statement because your perspective on the man is grossly warped.

That's not the point and clearly you haven't thought it through. Equipment is armored vehicles, bases are cover, Afghanistan is a hostile foreign nation they were expecting fighting in when they started pulling out. Trump was asking the soldiers to stand around in the streets with nowhere to hide or have any defensible positions while they waited, possibly weeks, for extraction.

How I don't know, because planes are equipment too.

 

[Trunkage]

Someday you're gonna see it. Once you're far enough removed, you'll understand. You'll look back and think "huh, he was just doing the same crap as all the other presidents, why were we freaking out so much?"

I mean, I got cranky over Obama deporting tens of thousands over pretty crap, double tap drone strikes, his deal with Mexico over refugees, the Surge, ACA, his clearly biased to the rich response to the GFC and destabilizing the middle east

Presidents are worth freaking out over

 

[Agema]

Someday you're gonna see it. Once you're far enough removed, you'll understand. You'll look back and think "huh, he was just doing the same crap as all the other presidents, why were we freaking out so much?"

Depends what we mean. In a narrow, superficial view, purely as laws and policy enacted, Trump could be characterised as a pretty normal Republican presidency. But to dig deeper, normal only because Trump variously: a) barely had any policy, b) was too incompetent to get some of that policy past Congress or write properly worded executive orders to carry it out, and c) that many checks and balances on misuse of power held. In foreign policy, Trump unquestionably seriously damaged the USA's foreign relations and international reputation.

Trump is thus really a vindication of modern governmental design to prevent utterly unsuitable leaders screwing the country up. But no president should be considered normal for so vigorously testing those safeguards, especially when so much was almost entirely for personal gain, and often in very petty ways.

As it is, I don't think most presidents waged a war against their own country's democratic process, right up to directly asking officials to declare elections fraudulent on no evidence, culminating in whipping up a mob to attack the legislature. I don't think they tried to pressurise foreign governments to make up dirt on their electoral opponents. I don't think that they appointed so many obviously unsuitable kooks to high office only to have remove them a few months, weeks, or even just days later. I don't think they directed government business to their property empire for easy money, or indeed blurred personal gain and professional duty so much. I don't think they spent day after day ranting and raving from a podium to serve their ego, constantly lying, waging petty personal vendettas, promoting conspiracies and vigorously spreading hate, division and violence.

I am not confident that you will ever look back and revise your view, instead remaining as stubbornly immune to the shitshow that was Trump as you already have been. Because more so than any US conservative on this forum - CM156, Gorfias, Specter, etc. - you have an extreme partisan loyalty to the Republican Party that utterly transcends the ability to question it cleanly. This is precisely why you make up stupid claims like "Trump is a Democrat" and other garbage: an attempt to erase the cognitive dissonance between the actual Republican Party as is and the romanticised Republican Party ideal as you want it to be.

 

[Agema]

I want you to look closely at yourself, because you're demonstrating the problem. Do you actually think Trump intended to say to bomb the soldiers?

No, nobody thinks Trump actively meant to say bomb the soldiers, obviously.

That is merely the humorous response to a statement that is either inarticulate, or indicates that Trump does not really understand the mechanics of a withdrawal. The latter is of course plausible, as he's a ignoramus with a lifetime record of bullshitting and vainly posturing that he knows stuff he doesn't.

The basic tactic of the Trump cult seems to be to ignore the outright nonsense, and then take all the inarticulacy, bullshit and contradictions and polish the best shine they can get out of it. Maybe a little like listening to a song with terrible lyrics: just filter out all the actual words, and appreciate the ambient feeling of the song. Then get very irate and frustrated if anyone points out what a load of crap the lyrics are.

 

[Silvanus]

A race easily won by the United States, considering their placement on the other side of the globe.

Globally, certainly, in the 20th Century.

Less so in Afghanistan prior to the 90s. Its hard to beat actual invasion and occupation.

But it's not as if there's a winner here, or a title, or a crown for the most imperialist wanker. We can denounce the corporatist interventionist twats of the US government alongside the totalitarian interventionist twats of the USSR. And we can denounce both alongside the drug-lords and child traffickers of the Taliban.

SNIP

OK, so why wasn't this an issue when Karzai and Ghani were sitting on the same minerals!?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

OK, so why wasn't this an issue when Karzai and Ghani were sitting on the same minerals!?

Because they were gonna let us have them soon as we got the infrastructure built up.

Problem is, our overseas corporations aren't less corrupt than they were, so any actual infrastructure build up on our end is a joke. Probably would've taken another decade of (relative) stability to reach a point where extraction would've been profitable to the satisfaction of US investors

 

[tstorm823]

As it is, I don't think most presidents waged a war against their own country's democratic process, right up to directly asking officials to declare elections fraudulent on no evidence, culminating in whipping up a mob to attack the legislature. I don't think they tried to pressurise foreign governments to make up dirt on their electoral opponents. I don't think that they appointed so many obviously unsuitable kooks to high office only to have remove them a few months, weeks, or even just days later. I don't think they directed government business to their property empire for easy money, or indeed blurred personal gain and professional duty so much. I don't think they spent day after day ranting and raving from a podium to serve their ego, constantly lying, waging petty personal vendettas, promoting conspiracies and vigorously spreading hate, division and violence.

Your ignorance is not my problem. Some of the things you think Trump did didn't happen. Most of this list of things is relatively routine historically. Like, you know how mundane a mob forcing their way into the capital is compared to, you know, actual assassinations? Attacking the democratic process? Trump said nothing more controversial than Clinton did after losing, though you do get the technicality that she wasn't the sitting president, but literally 2 Democrats ever have lost a general election while sitting as president, and one of those two is the only president to sit nonconsecutive terms, and the biggest factor that drove him to get back in office was that he felt he was cheated out of the previous election and he enacted sweeping voting integrity laws on the second go. I'm sure you'd consider that a win, rather than an attack on the democratic process, because Grover Cleveland isn't named Donald Trump. (The other Democrat to lose their second general election was Jimmy Carter, and he's just a good guy, he wouldn't make a fuss.)

I am not confident that you will ever look back and revise your view, instead remaining as stubbornly immune to the shitshow that was Trump as you already have been. Because more so than any US conservative on this forum - CM156, Gorfias, Specter, etc. - you have an extreme partisan loyalty to the Republican Party that utterly transcends the ability to question it cleanly. This is precisely why you make up stupid claims like "Trump is a Democrat" and other garbage: an attempt to erase the cognitive dissonance between the actual Republican Party as is and the romanticised Republican Party ideal as you want it to be.

This is absolute nonsense. Just pure, unadulterated nonsense. The only topic of conversation that causes you to think this is Donald Trump. Out of most of the last decade+, this is not something you've said about me outside of the context of Donald Trump. It's not me that's different. It's you. "Oh my God, tstorm is comparing Donald Trump to 20th Century Democrats that did basically everything Trump did and worse... obviously that means he's got sick partisan loyalty." No, that's not it. Donald Trump is just really, really comparable to Bill Clinton and Lyndon Johnson. If you're being honest, I know you see the comparisons. You just hate that I treat Trump like any sort of human being to begin with.

And like, please let this open your eyes here. I'm trying to tell you there's exactly one topic where you go haywire, and only when that topic comes up it makes you attack my politics in general as extreme partisan loyalty. You're way off the deep end, and you're doubling down, and its effecting your broader perspective. Get yourself out of there, break free of the insanity. It's just one guy, you can't let your hatred ruin you like this.

 

[Agema]

Your ignorance is not my problem. Some of the things you think Trump did didn't happen.

I'm pretty sure a lot of the big important stuff I don't like happened, because there are a lot of records to show so.

What you're doing here is to say that the media misrepresented a sentence here or there sometimes, therefore people have an unfair view of Trump. Thus trying to conflate the constant drip of trivial with the big stuff. But no, Trump really did try to deputise the State Dept. to his personal lawyer to muck-rake in Ukraine. He really did pursue a massive campaign of fantasy fraud about the election, phone state officials to get them to overturn an election and the Justice Dept. to declare fraud, and he really did set a mob on Congress, really did oversee a dreadful pandemic response with appalling casualties, and he really did piss off all the USA's allies, make excuses for Putin, have US officials and foreign dignatories book into his hotels. Fucking deal with it.

snip

Firstly, there are weird false equivalents here. Secondly, if you need to go back ~130 years and 30 elections to find a previous example to make your point, you should obviously not be using words like "routine".

Trump said nothing more controversial than Clinton did after losing,

This is either just bollocks or stupidly misleading.

This is absolute nonsense. Just pure, unadulterated nonsense. The only topic of conversation that causes you to think this is Donald Trump. Out of most of the last decade+, this is not something you've said about me outside of the context of Donald Trump.

It only became particularly obvious with Donald Trump because the defence got ever more hysterical. In fact, even you were more circumspect about Trump early on before you got sucked in by the bun fight. So let's put it this way. In 50 years time, and they rank US presidents, which quintile do you think Trump will be in, from top (1) to bottom (5)?

I've lived through 4 Republican presidents (technically 5, but the first doesn't really count). Trump is unquestionably the most incompetent and venal of the four, and that list includes GWB and a guy with early stage Alzheimers.

 

[tstorm823]

It only became particularly obvious with Donald Trump because the defence got ever more hysterical. In fact, even you were more circumspect about Trump early on before you got sucked in by the bun fight. So let's put it this way. In 50 years time, and they rank US presidents, which quintile do you think Trump will be in, from top (1) to bottom (5)?

I've lived through 4 Republican presidents (technically 5, but the first doesn't really count). Trump is unquestionably the most incompetent and venal of the four, and that list includes GWB and a guy with early stage Alzheimers.

I'm not any less circumspect about Trump. You simultaneously consider calling Trump a Democrat a defense of Republicans but also think defense of Trump is defense of Republicans. These things can't both be true. That you see "Trump is a Democrat" as an attack on Democrats and defense of Republicans shows that you obviously still understand that I don't think Trump is good. From 1 to 5, Trump is probably down in 4. Had 2020 been a 4th uneventful year, he'd probably be a better 3 and still be in office. Like, Trump is not good, he was never good, but not good isn't abnormal. Those other 3 Republican presidents you lived through are not actually bad presidents, that Trump is unquestionably the worst of the 4.

I don't now nor ever have believed Trump is a good person or statesman. I think the first 3 years of Trump were pretty good years by a mix of circumstance and Trump letting other people tell him what to do. If my positions seem increasingly defensive of Trump, it's because your criticism was increasingly unhinged.

 

[Satinavian]

He is gone. Do we still need to talk about him ?

Everyone has had enough time to make up his mind about them and now that he is no longer relevant, he can't produce anything to change that conclusion.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

He is gone. Do we still need to talk about him ?

Everyone has had enough time to make up his mind about them and now that he is no longer relevant, he can't produce anything to change that conclusion.

Here's the problem: He is still relevant, because he is continually lying to his followers that the election was "stolen" and he is "still the President", and he is not above pushing them into even further violence and insurrection so he can get all that power back. Ignoring him is enabling him.

 

[Bartholomew]

because he is continually lying to his followers that the election was "stolen" and he is "still the President"

Did Trump ever say that he is "still the President"? Is this a direct quote?

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Did Trump ever say that he is "still the President"? Is this a direct quote?

Yes. He refers to himself as the president in all his messages and hasn't stopped since. I would link to his burner Twitter account he uses to avoid the ban, but I know that would be only giving ppl like you another endless flow of bullshit propaganda to obediently lap up.

 

[Bartholomew]

Yes. He refers to himself as the president in all his messages and hasn't stopped since. I would link to his burner Twitter account he uses to avoid the ban, but I know that would be only giving ppl like you another endless flow of bullshit propaganda to obediently lap up.

To avoid linking to his account, can you take a screenshot of where he refers to himself as the President? Or maybe even just a news article from a reputable source that quotes him or contains such an image?

And what do you mean by "people like me"? If I was such a person, wouldn't I already follow Trump's accounts and be reading all of his messages? If I was such a person, I could confirm or deny that he refers to himself as the President, and wouldn't have to ask you or The Rogue Wolf for proof.

 

[Bartholomew]

Because nobody has gotten back to me yet, I went searching and found this:

Spoiler: Trump message

It says both "President Donald J. Trump" and "Donald J. Trump, 45th President"

Neither of these are improper. People still use "Mayor" to refer to former mayors, and "President" to refer to former presidents.
I do not take this as saying that he is "still President", but rather your misunderstanding of the honorific.

For example, The White House, and President Biden himself calls Obama "Mr. President", and the title of this video is titled "A Weekly Conversation: On the Line with President Obama"



So unless anyone has any proof of Trump directly, unambiguously, claiming to be "still the President", I think we can say that this claim is false.

If someone really is such a horrible person, you don't need to spread false claims about them, or else you're no better than the one you criticize.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Less so in Afghanistan prior to the 90s. Its hard to beat actual invasion and occupation.

To root out a foreign-funded insurgency next door?

 

[Piscian]

It just makes me sad there will literally be no lessons learned from this, on any side. We've basically just created Iran twice now and it won't change a thing. Here pretty soon we're going to head to the Baltic states to have another proxy war with Russia and play this game all over again.

 

[Silvanus]

To root out a foreign-funded insurgency next door?

Hah, if that was the purpose of the invasion and 10-year occupation, you might have a point.