What's Trump Done This Time Catch-All

I'd go back to the completely unnecessary invasion that destabilized the region and spawned the group that turned into Isis personally.

If you want to pin it on a lack of response to Syria... you also can't really ignore that the Republican Congress blocked funding for any operations trying to help stabilize Syria because Obama wanted to and they couldn't let him have something he wanted because... reasons.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I suppose there's a case to be made that without Syria, ISIS wouldn't have had the territory and breathing room to self-organize and roll back into Iraq, and that Obama bears some of that blame for flubbing Syria so badly.

Of course actually saying that is lame and boring compared to "HE'S PRESIDENT AND CEO OF ISIS!!!!!"

Not arguing with you, just moving along with this line: this is one of the things I hate about Trump. He is the apex creation of how stupid things have gotten when it comes to criticizing our leaders and our government. No one wants to realize there are nuanced and difficult causes behind a lot of our trouble, and every time this effing guy says some ridiculous, hyperbolic crap, the whole subject is further tainted and removed from any possibility of sane discussion. It's like a lot of things Trump's candidacy represents - things that were there before and we knew it, but not so wildly blatant.

NathanialG wrote:

IMAGE(https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/13880136_10154504459213117_6165250030570630966_n.jpg?oh=ac3940c1d8f3f9b00fb51e033ebf4422&oe=58170EE0)

An unsubtle dogwhistle to the days of arson and bombings of the suffragette movement.

The fact that you make that joke, and we all know it is a joke actually underscores how inappropriate Trump's comment was.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

IMAGE(https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/13880136_10154504459213117_6165250030570630966_n.jpg?oh=ac3940c1d8f3f9b00fb51e033ebf4422&oe=58170EE0)

An unsubtle dogwhistle to the days of arson and bombings of the suffragette movement.

Wow. Was that your actual reaction? Don't get me wrong; it's a fantastic interpretation. I'd just be surprised and a little taken aback if that was your honest first reaction. (As opposed to, say, "Women should get out and vote against him".)

EDIT:

farley3k wrote:

The fact that you make that joke, and we all know it is a joke actually underscores how inappropriate Trump's comment was.

Is it, and do we?

The danger of Trump trying make a nuanced case is that his incompetence comes to the fore. Obama bungled Syria? Trump is an answer in international diplomacy?

He has to be hyperbolic in order to avoid actual discussion. How do we think this will play in the debates? He won't be one of eight clowns fighting for a soundbite, where he excelled. In a two hour debate, he's going to have to actually have something to say. And you know Clinton's team is loading up on bait material, where they can lead him where they want him to go in the debate.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

EDIT:

farley3k wrote:

The fact that you make that joke, and we all know it is a joke actually underscores how inappropriate Trump's comment was.

Is it, and do we?

Yes, and yes

Demosthenes wrote:

If you want to pin it on a lack of response to Syria... you also can't really ignore that the Republican Congress blocked funding for any operations trying to help stabilize Syria because Obama wanted to and they couldn't let him have something he wanted because... reasons.

Too bad Trump isn't running against Obama or ISIS.

However, Trump does seem pretty motivated to destroy any credibility the Republican party or US conservatism has left.

Going back to Syria, does anyone know of any sort of post-mortem examining our recent military intervention in Libya, whether it was a "success" (I assume so, because I haven't heard about how Obama/Clinton f*cked it all up (by which I mean the entire country of Libya, trust me I have heard the Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi complaints)) and if so whether that success of military intervention indicates that more military intervention in Syria may actually have been a desirable thing, or whether even with a few more years under our belt we think that Syria was/is different enough from Libya that Libyan "success" doesn't likely indicate that more military intervention in Syria would have been more successful.

While I've heard criticisms of Obama's handling of Syria, I haven't heard alternatives that really convinced me of their superiority. Either people aren't sure which side they actually want to back (which is in my mind an argument in favor of less military involvement "I don't like either of you, I'll kill both of you single-handedly" worked pretty well when I played KotoR, I'm less convinced of it's viability as the cornerstone of US foreign policy). If they do choose a side (typically "Rebels that are not ISIS") either they seem to handwave the ability of us being able to identify where on the spectrum of "super ISIS" to "totally not ISIS or other groups that have similarly not-ameniable-to-the-US aims individual rebel groups are so that the "right" ones can be given support, and more importantly our ability to ensure that military support to those chosen groups does not immediately or gradually fall into the hands of the other parties involved.

Or they decide to avoid the "geez it seems like our military hardware that we give to people seems to end up in the hands of people that we later decide are enemies an awful lot" by pushing for putting US troops on the ground instead, which has the positive of showing that those people understand you can't just throw rifles and humvees at a problem until you call it solved, but I really, really am not convinced that putting soldiers in Syria is a good idea, and also believe that's nationally a deeply unpopular idea.

Good lord...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politi...

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump said Thursday that he meant exactly what he said when he called President Barack Obama the "founder of ISIS" and objected when a conservative radio show host tried to clarify the GOP nominee's position.

Trump was asked by host Hugh Hewitt about the comments Trump made Wednesday night in Florida, and Hewitt said he understood Trump to mean "that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace."

Trump objected.
"No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS," Trump said. "I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton."

Sneak preview of Trump's next meeting with Priebus:

"What? Last week you told me to focus on attacking Clinton, so I did! What's the problem now?"

His cult members will agree wholeheartedly.

farley3k wrote:

His cult members will agree wholeheartedly.

So you're suggesting that Trump is the leader of the New Cult of ISIS? Do you think he'll build a giant pyramid so that Carson can store grain in it?

The fact that Trump thinks you can have two MVPs speaks a lot about what he means when he says "best".

Obama's MVP of the JV ISIS team, Hillary's varsity.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

IMAGE(https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/13880136_10154504459213117_6165250030570630966_n.jpg?oh=ac3940c1d8f3f9b00fb51e033ebf4422&oe=58170EE0)

An unsubtle dogwhistle to the days of arson and bombings of the suffragette movement.

Wow, I just read that as 'women should vote against Trump'.

Yonder wrote:

Going back to Syria, does anyone know of any sort of post-mortem examining our recent military intervention in Libya, whether it was a "success" (I assume so, because I haven't heard about how Obama/Clinton f*cked it all up (by which I mean the entire country of Libya, trust me I have heard the Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi complaints)) and if so whether that success of military intervention indicates that more military intervention in Syria may actually have been a desirable thing, or whether even with a few more years under our belt we think that Syria was/is different enough from Libya that Libyan "success" doesn't likely indicate that more military intervention in Syria would have been more successful.

US and European military intervention in Libya was a "success" in that Gaddafi was overthrown.

Since Gaddafi's death in late 2011, however, the Libya has basically been continually wracked by factional and sectarian violence as various groups fought over power and resources. In 2014 this fighting expanded and became the second Libyan Civil War, which is still ongoing.

Is that a success? I suppose it depends on how you look at things.

Certainly there are part of Libya that are under Islamist control and that have links to known terrorist organizations. That's not so great. But that has to be weighed against what we know happens when we take active measures--boots on the ground ala Iraq and Afghanistan. The government we prop up fails as soon as we disengage.

That alone would support the argument that it's better to let the new government consolidate power in its own way and on its own time frame than it is to get directly involved.

You'd think after Vietnam we'd have learned the very important lesson that you don't get involved in someone else's civil war. Whatever bullsh*t geopolitical reasons we think we're fighting for pale against the very personal reasons for the people who are actually fighting the war.

Yonder wrote:

While I've heard criticisms of Obama's handling of Syria, I haven't heard alternatives that really convinced me of their superiority. Either people aren't sure which side they actually want to back (which is in my mind an argument in favor of less military involvement "I don't like either of you, I'll kill both of you single-handedly" worked pretty well when I played KotoR, I'm less convinced of it's viability as the cornerstone of US foreign policy). If they do choose a side (typically "Rebels that are not ISIS") either they seem to handwave the ability of us being able to identify where on the spectrum of "super ISIS" to "totally not ISIS or other groups that have similarly not-ameniable-to-the-US aims individual rebel groups are so that the "right" ones can be given support, and more importantly our ability to ensure that military support to those chosen groups does not immediately or gradually fall into the hands of the other parties involved.

Or they decide to avoid the "geez it seems like our military hardware that we give to people seems to end up in the hands of people that we later decide are enemies an awful lot" by pushing for putting US troops on the ground instead, which has the positive of showing that those people understand you can't just throw rifles and humvees at a problem until you call it solved, but I really, really am not convinced that putting soldiers in Syria is a good idea, and also believe that's nationally a deeply unpopular idea.

It's easy for politicians to say that they'd fix Syria and destroy ISIS. But that completely ignores the very real lessons we should have picked up from our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The reality is that we're f*cking idiots if we think more direct intervention would work. We don't know the land. We don't know the culture. We don't know the language. We don't know the history. We don't know nearly enough to pick a winner (let alone the "right" one).

What we did learn in Iraq is that you can't provide safety and security in a country with a weak or non-existent central government unless you flood the country with troops. Of course we also learned that our troops aren't going to be viewed by the locals as having their best interests in mind and there's going to be a lot of people who, rightly, don't want us there.

But there's no way in hell that Americans would support invading Syria, especially with the number of troops we now know is needed to really secure things. Doubly so because doing so would tie America to Syria for years and years, just like we were tied to Iraq. It would become another bottomless sinkhole for tax dollars as we try to shore up the new Syrian government enough to declare victory and get the f*ck out.

Which is why we have what we have with Syria. We bomb the bad guys from a distance and we give certain groups training and weapons (and pray to god that they're not used against us or our allies in the future). It's ineffective and, judging how the mujahadeen in Afghanistan evolved, probably a very f*cking stupid idea that America in the 2020s/2030s will have to deal with.

Norm - I thought your joke was obvious and funny

Also wrt ISIS hasn't the US used airpower to support the Iraqi military, increased the number of trainers in Iraq, and *wink* not *wink* deploy special forces in Syria.

I would hazard a guess based on other reports that Trump's thinking on the matter is that we should have nuked them, which would be both insane and a realpolitik disaster.

JC wrote:

Good lord...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politi...

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump said Thursday that he meant exactly what he said when he called President Barack Obama the "founder of ISIS" and objected when a conservative radio show host tried to clarify the GOP nominee's position.

Trump was asked by host Hugh Hewitt about the comments Trump made Wednesday night in Florida, and Hewitt said he understood Trump to mean "that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace."

Trump objected.
"No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS," Trump said. "I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton."

You know... Trump's habit of doubling down whenever someone pins him down on a topic is a tremendous vulnerability in a debate setting to anyone with a mind to exploit it.

This one's good: Trump gets talking about employer-provided child care. Says it's easy and cheap, you just need one or two people , some blocks, some swings, and some toys. It's so easy that he's got these programs himself, one's called Trump Kids, one's called Trumpeteers!

Except when a reporter looked into it, it turns out that one of those is a kid's program for guests of his hotel, another is a kid's program for members of his golf course. Neither is for children of employees, and an employee says no child care for employees exists.

It's like he lives in a world where he assumes people won't check on the things he says.

I'm morbidly curious what would happen if Hillary was so blatantly lying about things like this. I mean, she's been caught lying a couple times and obfuscating/dodging, but Trump is just flat out lying without any inference or even a kernel of truth in most cases. But he's still the "straight shooter" in the minds of his fans. It's amazing.

Rahmen wrote:

Norm - I thought your joke was obvious and funny

Rahmen wrote:

Norm - I thought your joke was obvious and funny

Most of them are which is why I am constantly confused by all the handwringing that follows them.

Chaz wrote:

This one's good: Trump gets talking about employer-provided child care. Says it's easy and cheap, you just need one or two people , some blocks, some swings, and some toys. It's so easy that he's got these programs himself, one's called Trump Kids, one's called Trumpeteers!

Except when a reporter looked into it, it turns out that one of those is a kid's program for guests of his hotel, another is a kid's program for members of his golf course. Neither is for children of employees, and an employee says no child care for employees exists.

It's like he lives in a world where he assumes people won't check on the things he says.

Ivanka takes after her daddy.

Ivanka Trump had the chutzpah to speak the last day of the RNC about how companies should have policies that allow women with children to thrive.

It turns out that the company that designs and distributes the clothing line she hawked at the convention only provides the legal minimum for maternity leave: 12 weeks unpaid leave.

OG_slinger wrote:

Of course we also learned that our troops aren't going to be viewed by the locals as having their best interests in mind

I suspect we'd have done a lot better on that front if our troops had actually had their best interests in mind. It certainly didn't seem that the Bush administration cared about that in the slightest.

farley3k wrote:

Billy West Reads Donald Trump Quotes In The Voice Of Zapp Brannigan From ‘Futurama’

Voiceover actor Billy West has gifted the internet with Donald Trump quotes spoken in the voice of one of his “Futurama” characters: Zapp Brannigan. That’s the cluelessly inept ― yet incredibly pompous ― captain of the Nimbus on the show “Futurama.”

Putting Trump quotes on images of Zapp has become one of the online community’s newest hobbies.

Hard to embed tweets but it is worth visiting the page.

He's starting to post more.

I didn't find this particularly surprising:

Trump: 'Fine' with trying US citizens in military courts