|
Yinlock posted:
And Trump ramped them up a lot. Biden cut back on them almost entirely. https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-donald-trump-drone-strikes-far-exceed-obama-s-numbers quote:The Trump administration has carried out 176 strikes in Yemen in just two years, compared with 154 there during all eight years of Obama’s tenure https://theintercept.com/2021/12/15/drone-strikes-joe-biden-pentagon-kabul/ quote:President Joe Biden did not authorize a single known strike for the first six months of his presidency It's not about Trump's rhetoric being more direct about drone strikes, it's about him actively doing it a lot more and erasing most of the rules for engagement in conflict zones. Yes, Obama and Biden used drones, but we can critique them without resorting to the "both sides" bs. Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Jan 22, 2022 |
#
?
Jan 22, 2022 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:47 |
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:it's not a uniquely trump problem but it's something trump went uniquely out of his way to facilitate and to remove every mitigating factor from that he possibly could VitalSigns posted:Anakin: That war crime was all because of Trump's rhetoric which inspired the special forces to commit war crimes, it wouldn't happen now that a Democrat is in  Your paraphrase is completely different than what is actually being said. This is the kind of quote being referenced: 45th President of the United States of America, Donald John Trump posted:The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families Whether this rhetoric actually translated into uniquely facilitating war crimes is a topic I'm curious about. I honestly don't know. (edit: ^^^^ looks like "yes") But I do know it's a far cry from "it wouldn't happen now that a Democrat is in" DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Jan 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:
This seems like a contradiction. If it was only Trump's rhetoric causing it then it wouldn't have happened if a Democrat was in If it would have happened if a Democrat was in then bringing up Trump's rhetoric is just a deflection because it would have happened anyway
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If it was only Trump's rhetoric causing it then it wouldn't have happened if a Democrat was in Is someone saying only Trump's rhetoric caused it? Because I'm seeing this: Herstory Begins Now posted:it's not a uniquely trump problem and Gumball Gumption posted:Yeah that's fair, I can in no way deny the dude was an extreme example of how lovely we get. [...] But war has always been one of our exports and special task forces going wild has always been one of the ways we clandestinely do the worst poo poo. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Jan 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2022 23:16
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:And Trump ramped them up a lot. Biden cut back on them almost entirely. How many weapons has he sold to Saudi Arabia again? And I’m sorry, it’s not “both sidesing” when Obama did as you said.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Is someone saying only Trump's rhetoric caused it? Yeah that's the contradiction. If Trump's rhetoric didn't cause it then why bring it up as if it's relevant to what happened. That's my point, seems to just be a deflection from American war crimes to "Trump bad" Doing this little I'm not saying but I'm saying routine doesn't really address what I said
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2022 23:19
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Is someone saying only Trump's rhetoric caused it? Did you read the rest of that post or just the first line that you quoted?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2022 23:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah that's the contradiction. I'm saying that you are arguing against a position that nobody is making. Bringing up Trump's rhetoric *and* showing that this difference in rhetoric is reflected in the number of strikes does not mean "Trump's rhetoric caused all the war crimes or drone strikes". People are saying: "there were more drone strikes under Trump than Obama or Biden" doesn't mean that there were zero drone strikes under Democrats, or that the problem was 100% Trump. It's frustrating that you can't bring yourself to actually address the arguments being made, and have to create a straw Democrat to beat. If you can find the post arguing that the problem was all Trump and didn't exist at all, then cite it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Did you read the rest of that post or just the first line that you quoted? I did! I also quoted more of it in the post Vital Signs was replying to. It doesn't say Trump is 100% responsibile for war crimes and that they don't happen under Democrats, which is what Vital Signs is pretending it says.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2022 23:29
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Did you read the rest of that post or just the first line that you quoted? Yeah that's exactly what I'm talking about. It's not a uniquely Trump problem but Trump is uniquely problematic, what Herstory Begins Now posted:it's not a uniquely trump problem but it's something trump went uniquely out of his way to facilitate and to remove every mitigating factor from that he possibly could DeadlyMuffin posted:I'm saying that you are arguing against a position that nobody is making. If you want to play these semantic games why don't you explain in your own words what claim is being made here and how it relates to the war crime being discussed
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2022 23:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah that's exactly what I'm talking about. It's not a uniquely Trump problem but Trump is uniquely problematic, what It isn't a semantic game to ask you to argue against the arguments others are making and not your fever dream of what they are. My read of Herstory's argument (not mine) is that Trump uniquely exacerbated an existing problem. The evidence for this claim is Trump's rhetoric and that the number of strikes were higher under him than either the preceding or following administration. A counterargument would be pointing at other administrations that were worse (GWB?) Or numbers of other types of war crimes that show Trump wasn't uniquely bad. Maybe # of drone strikes is the wrong metric. This argument is explicitly *not* that war crimes only happen under Republicans or Trump and not under Democrats, which is the strawman you have created. I personally think that "uniquely" is a high bar, we've had a lot of lovely presidents, but my objection in all of this is you arguing against a position that is not actually being advocated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2022 23:38
|
|
|
If Trump's rhetoric didn't cause this specific war crime then bringing it up seems like a deflection from the cause, that's my point and nothing you've said disputes it really
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2022 23:51
|
|
|
To be fair I also thought it was a deflection until you know, Herstory and I just discussed it more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2022 23:57
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:And Trump ramped them up a lot. Biden cut back on them almost entirely. Biden did indeed cut back on them, but he still has a civilian body count. The chief difference is that one side actively wants foreigners to die, and the other doesn't care if they're collateral damage. I consider either one of these unacceptable. I'm just commenting on that specifically rather than the incident itself, which I don't know enough about to argue the specifics of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 00:22
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I can't actually find where the Trump White House implemented the policies that let them call in the air strike. Is it in the article or somewhere else? I think the Trump White House often said the quiet parts out loud. And they changed the drone program policies but I don't think that exactly applies here and that program is bipartisan. Even with dropping the number of attacks and reporting more the military under Biden is still "mistakenly" killing civilians. The US is happy to commit war crimes. I don't know about Trump's White House press release / whitehouse.gov policies, but I do know that the Obama Administration updated the term "combatant" to include any male above 13 in a designated combat area, among other expansions and the only official update they did was publish a white paper to whitehouse.gov; which was removed entirely from whitehouse.gov with the transition to Trump. I have been completely unable to find this document, nor even a media article referring to it, after Obama's presidency ended.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 00:46
|
|
|
1st_Panzer_Div. posted:I don't know about Trump's White House press release / whitehouse.gov policies, but I do know that the Obama Administration updated the term "combatant" to include any male above 13 in a designated combat area, among other expansions and the only official update they did was publish a white paper to whitehouse.gov; which was removed entirely from whitehouse.gov with the transition to Trump. I have been completely unable to find this document, nor even a media article referring to it, after Obama's presidency ended. Are you thinking about when they reclassified all military-age males in a strike zone as combatents? I'm unsure what constitutes a military-age in those zones, but it might be 13. Here's the NYT article about it: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html quote:It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. But if you want to compare it to Trump, he revoked Obama's rule to even report on deaths related to drones: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207. So while neither was good, I would say one is definitely worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 01:04
|
|
|
I think you're both confusing a few different things. First, the Obama administration stopped using the term "Enemy Combatant" like Bush did but it was mostly symbolic, we still hold the previously called enemy combatants at Guantanamo. The other thing is what Kalit posted which is that any males 16+ in a strike zone were named combatants. And yes, Trump stopped the reporting. Obama also built the kill list and drone strike program off of Bush policies that built out the drone program. It's war and war crimes are a bipartisan project. And while Biden's slowed things down we've still killed civilians under his administration and things are not looking great for his reforms: https://www.businessinsider.com/why-biden-wont-put-an-end-to-drone-strikes-that-kill-civilians-2022-1 The program most likely isn't going away, we're just going back to Obama style policies which were their own atrocity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 01:15
|
|
|
I've written an effortpost on the idea of withholding care to the unvaccinated, and the broader idea of deliberately stigmatizing people who are antivaxx, over in the COVID thread. It's a bit rough and not as long as I'd planned, but I hope it still provides some ground for discussion of covid. Over there. In the covid thread.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 07:54
|
|
|
Just say yes or no if you think homeless people should be shamed and bullied no one wants to read your condescending screeds (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 14:01
|
|
|
I'm with Vox on this. When you don't like something, just bully people that do it and then it disappears forever. That's why we don't have nerds anymore. Wait. No. Hold on. We bullied all the conservatives and now everyone votes liberal in America. Umm.... Let me check my notes... Maybe you can't use bullying and social pressure to force compliance? All I know is that everyone is going to get covid and that's been the narrative the whole time from CDC and somehow we all got this notion that we weren't going to get it? It's very confusing and I am stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 16:41
|
|
|
Nobody's been bullying conservatives. Quite the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 17:02
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Just say yes or no if you think homeless people should be shamed and bullied no one wants to read your condescending screeds Hi guys, mod here. If you do not wish to read it, then don't. But we don't need you to post this. Either you Debate and Discuss what was written, provide your own content, or lurk. We don't need a running feedback of why you won't read someone's posts. That's what the Report button is for. Enjoy your day
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Nobody's been bullying conservatives. Quite the opposite. What do you mean? Every time someone says "racism exists" or "covid exists" it is a direct attack on conservatives, according to conservatives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
What if you had to provide proof of vaccination to access YouTube and/or the Fox/OANN/Newsmax?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
Yutube would become better, the regressive poo poo would die.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 19:12
|
|
|
Dubar posted:What do you mean? Every time someone says "racism exists" or "covid exists" it is a direct attack on conservatives, according to conservatives. I believe you'll find that there is no one on earth more persecuted and discriminated against than rich Christian white males who support the police, our military and stand for the flag. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 19:24
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Nobody's been bullying conservatives. Quite the opposite. This. The second Conservatives feel threatened, they spring the media into overdrive. Let’s not forget that when they was a viable candidate to do any good in this country, they all coalesced around Biden via dropping out, hit pieces in the news, complaining about cancel culture, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 22:33
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:This. The second Conservatives feel threatened, they spring the media into overdrive. Let’s not forget that when they was a viable candidate to do any good in this country, they all coalesced around Biden via dropping out, hit pieces in the news, complaining about cancel culture, etc. Seems like overkill for Elizabeth Warren
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Seems like overkill for Elizabeth Warren "Elizabeth Warren" and "viable" don't work together in a sentence unless they're separated by "was never", but you knew that already.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 23:55
|
|
|
the_steve posted:"Elizabeth Warren" and "viable" don't work together in a sentence unless they're separated by "was never", but you knew that already. hey now, the nice billionaire who decided to give a last-minute massive cash infusion to her via superpac in the aftermath of Nevada -definitely- was doing so out of the belief she was catching on
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 00:16
|
|
|
the_steve posted:"Elizabeth Warren" and "viable" don't work together in a sentence unless they're separated by "was never", but you knew that already. The real question is what doomed her campaign: The racist ancestry claim, the racist kitsch on her dining room wall, drinking a beer on instagram like an insane weirdo, or slowly lowering her medicare for all position into a trashcan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 01:52
|
|
|
the_steve posted:"Elizabeth Warren" and "viable" don't work together in a sentence unless they're separated by "was never", but you knew that already. I'm mostly with you but Warren was a registered republican for years so that makes her somewhat viable as a Dem candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 02:17
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:The real question is what doomed her campaign: The racist ancestry claim, the racist kitsch on her dining room wall, drinking a beer on instagram like an insane weirdo, or slowly lowering her medicare for all position into a trashcan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 02:19
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:The real question is what doomed her campaign: The racist ancestry claim, the racist kitsch on her dining room wall, drinking a beer on instagram like an insane weirdo, or slowly lowering her medicare for all position into a trashcan. Her campaign was doomed the second it launched. Leaving aside all of her weird and horrible antics, insane claims, the fact she was a republican for decades, etc, what really sank her campaign was that her entire base of support seemed to be about 300 people
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 02:33
|
|
|
I know it's never this easy, but I remember the exit polling out of New Hampshire (I think) where something like 55% of voters thought she was too conservative and 40% thought she was too progressive. Just a perfect triangulation into a nightmare blob of centrist policy that no one liked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 03:36
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:The racist kitsch thing is right wing bullshit that you're repeating. Thank god you're here to protect the thread from dangerous, fascist disinfo campaigns like this. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 03:39
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Her campaign was doomed the second it launched. Leaving aside all of her weird and horrible antics, insane claims, the fact she was a republican for decades, etc, what really sank her campaign was that her entire base of support seemed to be about 300 people Who all work in the media for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 04:24
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1485218271121088514?s=20 When the midterms are over various big money organs inside the Democratic party are going to start choosing to get rid of as much of the Progressives in the House as they can before 2024. The Senate will stand firmly against Biden's agenda moving forward so they're probably square there. There's no way the media narrative doesn't put the loss on the lefties. edit: Personally I don't think any of the Warren anecdotes added up to much, what sunk her was Trump's joke about her husband in their house. Nonsense fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Jan 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 04:27
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Who all work in the media for some reason. She couldn't even get the entirety of the media vote, remember how the NYT had to split their endorsement of her with Amy Klobuchar?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:47 |
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:The racist kitsch thing is right wing bullshit that you're repeating. You can just guess one instead of doing process of elimination
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 04:50
|
|