Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
He's been running for two years and a President for almost 1.5 years. There is a moment that being new just doesn't cut it anymore. There has been zero improvement in his way of communicating. When he did it on the campaign trail people could still laugh about it, when he does it now he offends allies and causes the stock market to lose millions.

Also I doubt Trump, the man that is pro torture and killing the family members of terrorists would feel bad about dropping a few bombs. Clinton, Bush and Obama, while still killing people, were on entirely different levels of morality at least.

I also doubt Trump feels guilt regarding this topic seeing as how he refuses to accept refugees from Syria into the US, the very people he suddenly pretends to care about. Actions speak louder than empty words. The problem is that Trump just doesn't really seem to care, not that he cares too much.

Okay well, you seem to conclude the man is incapable of emotional thoughts, even though it was the imagine of children dying in the last attacks that brought on the first strikes to begin with. He is not a machine, and no president has even been.

Just because he doesn't want the refugees in the US (and I don't either btw) doesn't mean you still can't be sympathetic to their plight.

Humans are complex creatures who can communicate a wide range of emotions. To think they will always react in a predictable pattern every time is unrealistic.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I don't understand this bizarre fantasy that the republicans are going to want to impeach President Trump. And even if they wanted to, for what crime?

Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. The clauses defining it are intentionally vague. An impeachable offense is then, ultimately, whatever the right number of Congresspeople say it is.

The most likely basis would be obstruction of justice, which is exactly what got Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton into trouble.

FWIW I don't see him being impeached either. It's not impossible but it's sure not likely.

KTG17 wrote:

You cannot look at current event without looking back at previous events to understand how things came to be. I think the groundwork is being laid out for some nasty stuff ahead. Trump and Putin are pretty much like mafia dons, who do not like to be disrespected. And what do mafia dons do when disrespected? They send messages.

Do I think this will lead to all out war? No, but it will get messy.

How have the gas attacks been confirmed, anyway? Not that they happened, but by whom? It just seems awfully convenient that a few days after Trump announces the US is withdrawing from the conflict, Assad would do the one thing to provoke the US into remaining and even escalating the violence...against his own regime. I've read that all combatants in the region have stockpiles of chemical warfare - it seems to me on the surface is that the US is getting played. Didn't a smaller version of this same scenario take place a year ago?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
He's been running for two years and a President for almost 1.5 years. .

I also don't think this is a very long time either. Most politicians work their way up to President by being a city councilman, state senator, congressman, etc etc long before they take a shot a president. Even Obama served 6 years in the senate and people thought that was too short.

KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
He's been running for two years and a President for almost 1.5 years. There is a moment that being new just doesn't cut it anymore. There has been zero improvement in his way of communicating. When he did it on the campaign trail people could still laugh about it, when he does it now he offends allies and causes the stock market to lose millions.

Also I doubt Trump, the man that is pro torture and killing the family members of terrorists would feel bad about dropping a few bombs. Clinton, Bush and Obama, while still killing people, were on entirely different levels of morality at least.

I also doubt Trump feels guilt regarding this topic seeing as how he refuses to accept refugees from Syria into the US, the very people he suddenly pretends to care about. Actions speak louder than empty words. The problem is that Trump just doesn't really seem to care, not that he cares too much.

Okay well, you seem to conclude the man is incapable of emotional thoughts, even though it was the imagine of children dying in the last attacks that brought on the first strikes to begin with. He is not a machine, and no president has even been.

Just because he doesn't want the refugees in the US (and I don't either btw) doesn't mean you still can't be sympathetic to their plight.

Humans are complex creatures who can communicate a wide range of emotions. To think they will always react in a predictable pattern every time is unrealistic.

The issue with Trump is that the unpredictability and is the only predictable thing. The dude is sending strong, direct, and belligerent but fundamentally confused and diametrically opposed signals in both quick rapid succession within minutes of each other and over long periods of time across years through the exact same communications channels.

That's not acceptable from a leader in any organization, much less the leader of a nation. That's not normal human behavior, and we're certainly not seeing anything centered around sympathy for the victims here, anger and being defied perhaps, but that's about it.

Hate to quote the dailymail here, but they do make nice visuals from time to time:



Of course not shown are the subs.

Would really hate to be on the receiving end of all that.

And we have nine of these groups worldwide. . .

KTG17 wrote:
Well, regardless of what he is, he is still an emotional guy who is still new to politics.

Trump is not new to politics, not one bit. You can say he is new to the responsibility of being a public official with life-and-death authority, and that he treats that authority with an unprecedented level of flippancy, but he is not new to politics.

Ok well, new to ordering air strikes and dealing with the consequences of that, that part, yes.

He’s been runnning for president for two decades.

KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
He's been running for two years and a President for almost 1.5 years. .

I also don't think this is a very long time either. Most politicians work their way up to President by being a city councilman, state senator, congressman, etc etc long before they take a shot a president. Even Obama served 6 years in the senate and people thought that was too short.

Obama only served 3.5 years as a Senator, and a year and a half of that was actively campaigning to be President.

 cuda1179 wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
He's been running for two years and a President for almost 1.5 years. .

I also don't think this is a very long time either. Most politicians work their way up to President by being a city councilman, state senator, congressman, etc etc long before they take a shot a president. Even Obama served 6 years in the senate and people thought that was too short.

Obama only served 3.5 years as a Senator, and a year and a half of that was actively campaigning to be President.

7 years as State Senator as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KTG17 wrote:
Ok well, new to ordering air strikes and dealing with the consequences of that, that part, yes.

Being new is part of the reason Presidents have advisors for this stuff, even in year 8 of a presidency.

But it doesn’t help if you keep on firing them, running them off, or making major policy decisions on Twitter without talking to any of them.

The sad truth is that anything released with a White House letterhead really isn’t trustworthy anymore, and that the only true policy comes in small Twitter bursts.

KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
He's been running for two years and a President for almost 1.5 years. There is a moment that being new just doesn't cut it anymore. There has been zero improvement in his way of communicating. When he did it on the campaign trail people could still laugh about it, when he does it now he offends allies and causes the stock market to lose millions.

Also I doubt Trump, the man that is pro torture and killing the family members of terrorists would feel bad about dropping a few bombs. Clinton, Bush and Obama, while still killing people, were on entirely different levels of morality at least.

I also doubt Trump feels guilt regarding this topic seeing as how he refuses to accept refugees from Syria into the US, the very people he suddenly pretends to care about. Actions speak louder than empty words. The problem is that Trump just doesn't really seem to care, not that he cares too much.

Okay well, you seem to conclude the man is incapable of emotional thoughts, even though it was the imagine of children dying in the last attacks that brought on the first strikes to begin with. He is not a machine, and no president has even been.

Just because he doesn't want the refugees in the US (and I don't either btw) doesn't mean you still can't be sympathetic to their plight.

Humans are complex creatures who can communicate a wide range of emotions. To think they will always react in a predictable pattern every time is unrealistic.

I'm just saying, I seriously doubt the capacity of a man to care if he says he ordered strikes over images of dead children when he also says they should kill the children of terrorists. It doesn't really sound like he cares about children when you have those two contradictory statements together.

As for the refugee part. He cares enough about them getting killed (so he says), but not enough to get them out of there and bring them to the US where it is safe?

The problem isn't that they should always act in a predictable pattern, the problem is that he reacts without the restraint a position like his calls for.

Okay guys, you win.

So I guess in conclusion, we all agree that Trump has lots of experience in politics, at least plenty enough to be president by now, should know better than be emotional and second guess his decisions, And while having all of this experience and insight, is obviously mentally imbalanced because he chooses not to act in that predictable path. He is also incapable of sympathizing with those in need, and is just out to make a mess out of the world at any cost while making himself richer in the process. Did I leave anything out? I feel like this is where we are going.

Its not so much that we don't try to understand the points other people make as a whole, but what opportunities we can take advantage of by trying to take apart each other's points. Like, if I can find a way to invalidate one part of the argument, then all of it is invalidated.

Its no wonder this thread gets locked down from time to time.

I am not even a Trump supporter either. I am not even a republican or democrat. I think there are clowns and criminals in both parties. But I can still look at things independently and give the benefit of the doubt.

But I am okay with concluding that he is the third anti-christ to keep the convo simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
As for the refugee part. He cares enough about them getting killed (so he says), but not enough to get them out of there and bring them to the US where it is safe?

I don't want to see them killed. And I do not want them brought to the US. So yes, I can accept he feels the same.

 cuda1179 wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
He's been running for two years and a President for almost 1.5 years. .

I also don't think this is a very long time either. Most politicians work their way up to President by being a city councilman, state senator, congressman, etc etc long before they take a shot a president. Even Obama served 6 years in the senate and people thought that was too short.

Obama only served 3.5 years as a Senator, and a year and a half of that was actively campaigning to be President.

The point isn't the amount of time needed to be President. The point is that you can't keep behaving like you aren't. If he is still President in 6 years lets say, we can't still keep saying "well that's not long in politics". You expect some kind of change in behaviour that befits the position. Being 'new' to it only excuses things so far.

Okay but this is the same guy who said 'grab them by the pussy' too. So he had a lower bar to start from.

Will Trump ever be Presidential? Who knows. That's not the point. The point is that he is an emotional guy and that is why you see him saying and doing what he's doing. I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong. Just trying to get in his head.

KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
As for the refugee part. He cares enough about them getting killed (so he says), but not enough to get them out of there and bring them to the US where it is safe?

I don't want to see them killed. And I do not want them brought to the US. So yes, I can accept he feels the same.

It doesn't really work that way though. Imagine if no country would accept refugees. Then Syrians would be stuck in their own country dying. So then we have people claiming they care about Syrians dying, but actively preventing them from escaping their cause of death.

That level of care only works because other countries actually put in some effort beyond what could be termed as "thoughts and prayers".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KTG17 wrote:
Okay but this is the same guy who said 'grab them by the pussy' too. So he had a lower bar to start from.

Will Trump ever be Presidential? Who knows. That's not the point. The point is that he is an emotional guy and that is why you see him saying and doing what he's doing. I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong. Just trying to get in his head.

I agree, I only fall on the side that its wrong because I believe that Trump should realize he carries a far greater responsibility than the average private citizen with a twitter profile. That he does not want to give up twitter or tone it down just shows his priorities to me.

I think Obama was emotional when he talked about clinging to guns and religion, so that’s okay too.

And remember when everybody talked about how emotional he was around children from school shootings and how that’s understandable?

What a refreshing change of having an emotional President, after having someone who was not emotional at all...

KTG17 wrote:
Okay but this is the same guy who said 'grab them by the pussy' too. So he had a lower bar to start from.

Will Trump ever be Presidential? Who knows. That's not the point. The point is that he is an emotional guy and that is why you see him saying and doing what he's doing. I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong. Just trying to get in his head.

Guess maniacy is emotional. But he has zero sympathy for others. He's in for money and others can go to hell. He has shown that for years. Not even particularly subtle about it. About as subtle as elephanth in building.

So, Paul Ryan is leaving. What's the current number of prominent, established Republicans who have decided to retire?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
As for the refugee part. He cares enough about them getting killed (so he says), but not enough to get them out of there and bring them to the US where it is safe?

I don't want to see them killed. And I do not want them brought to the US. So yes, I can accept he feels the same.

It doesn't really work that way though. Imagine if no country would accept refugees. Then Syrians would be stuck in their own country dying. So then we have people claiming they care about Syrians dying, but actively preventing them from escaping their cause of death.

That level of care only works because other countries actually put in some effort beyond what could be termed as

Yeah well other countries have got used to us invading with trumped up charges, making mess and then abandoning it. What more can be expected from most dangerous country.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
That level of care only works because other countries actually put in some effort beyond what could be termed as "thoughts and prayers".

Okay, send them all to the refugees to the Netherlands.

You could I guess (1) evacuate all Syrian children elsewhere but that is certainly impossible, or (2) try to end their suffering to some degree. I don't see anyone else moving to stop the nerve gas attacks. Leave it up to the UN and nothing will get done. All I see are people offering sympathy and not doing anything. And no fault to those who do not want a million Syrians brought into their country, which will cause the economic system to buckle and possibly create social issues for decades to come. It isn't like these refugees are going to go back to Syria any time soon. So these refugees will have kids. And they may integrate into society but they may also segregate themselves and no doubt deal with discrimination. We'll all meet back here in 20 years and see how Germany is doing after Merkle opened the floodgates. I am guess there will be social issues.

Allowing some refugees in, not an issue, allowing unchecked numbers is going to cause problems. You cannot just inject numbers like that into another society and not expect a whole host of issues.

And everyone knows that. The bleeding hearts hope for the best and the conservatives stand their ground.

And if you think this is something, wait till global warming renders much of the middle east unlivable. Wait till that mass migration takes place. We are some years off from that happening, but we will see it in our lifetime. Syria is a walk in the park.

So I do sympathize with them. It has to suck. I don't think I am offering much support. I just see it how it is. Being from Miami, I have seen first hand what unchecked migration has done. Most of Miami no longer speaks English. Many of you don't have a problem with that. But along with the language difference also comes cultural differences. I just don't have anything in common with my hometown anymore, nor any desire to return. Nor do my family or most of my friends from there. So I have seen first hand what opening up your borders to refugees can do. And the same will happen to Europe one day.

Someone will probably chime in here and call me racist, but I am not. I might be biased against some cultures but I certainly wont apologize for that. I just think you cannot integrate a huge number of different people from one culture into another without a natural segregation occurring. I see it happening from both sides, so its not all the refugees fault.

And a lot of people in Europe feel this way too. And if Europe was migrating to the middle east, there would be problems too.

Humanity just sucks.

KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
That level of care only works because other countries actually put in some effort beyond what could be termed as "thoughts and prayers".

Okay, send them all to the refugees to the Netherlands.

The Netherlands, a country of 17 million people has 65.000 Syrian refugees. The US, a country vastly bigger and with a pop of 300 million only has about 18.000, mainly due to Obama...

The US has let in 80 times less Syrians than the Netherlands.

Europe's borders have been open since the 60's and 70's to large groups of Muslim immigrants. Its not nearly as bad as the doomsayers would have us believe.

And to add, Europe and the Middle East also take care of vastly larger groups of Iraqi refugees than the US. The US made the mess and leaves the rest of us to pick up the pieces.

KTG17 wrote:
And if Europe was migrating to the middle east, there would be problems too.

The unspoken thing here though is "and there isn't anything anyone could or should do about it". Certainly, large amounts of refugees pose certain problems. Where to house them, how to feed them, how to treat traumas, just generally a lot of administration.

However, these questions are not unsolvable conundrums of philosophy that require decades of strict training to even begin to grasp what the articulation of them means in the first place. These are matters of logistics. This is the smokescreen that racists throw up every time the topic of how to handle refugees and immigration comes up. They pretend that every question is unsolvable when the true reason for them claiming that we can't accept others is "because I don't think they're fully human". That said, it's certainly the case that a lot of people don't care to face these logistical matters honestly because they're scared that we may have to change the priorities of society or otherwise confront the question of why there are refugees in the first place.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

bring them to the US where it is safe?

Poor ''refugees'' trying to come in the wealthiest countries in the world, instead of going to the nearest peaceful and welcoming country , for more safety !
They could just cross the border, stay in turkia, and be safe. I'm not buying that. Not even one of them has any right to come in the West. If they are looking for peace and safety, there are countries in the middle east that are at peace.

 amanita wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

You cannot look at current event without looking back at previous events to understand how things came to be. I think the groundwork is being laid out for some nasty stuff ahead. Trump and Putin are pretty much like mafia dons, who do not like to be disrespected. And what do mafia dons do when disrespected? They send messages.

Do I think this will lead to all out war? No, but it will get messy.

How have the gas attacks been confirmed, anyway? Not that they happened, but by whom? It just seems awfully convenient that a few days after Trump announces the US is withdrawing from the conflict, Assad would do the one thing to provoke the US into remaining and even escalating the violence...against his own regime. I've read that all combatants in the region have stockpiles of chemical warfare - it seems to me on the surface is that the US is getting played. Didn't a smaller version of this same scenario take place a year ago?

At last ! Someone who can think rationaly and sensibly.

Rosebuddy wrote:

However, these questions are not unsolvable conundrums of philosophy that require decades of strict training to even begin to grasp what the articulation of them means in the first place. These are matters of logistics. This is the smokescreen that racists throw up every time the topic of how to handle refugees and immigration comes up. They pretend that every question is unsolvable when the true reason for them claiming that we can't accept others is "because I don't think they're fully human". That said, it's certainly the case that a lot of people don't care to face these logistical matters honestly because they're scared that we may have to change the priorities of society or otherwise confront the question of why there are refugees in the first place.

Some of that may be, on the other hand, it could very well be that some feel we have enough issues here on our own and don't want to take on more problems.

And again, I am from Miami, I have see Miami change. You can't make me feel otherwise about that. That's not racist, its simply reality.

 godardc wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

bring them to the US where it is safe?

Poor ''refugees'' trying to come in the wealthiest countries in the world, instead of going to the nearest peaceful and welcoming country , for more safety !
They could just cross the fronteer, stay in turkia, and be safe. I'm not buying that. Not even one of them has any right to come in the West. If they are looking for peace and safety, there are countries in the middle east that are at peace.

Omfg, that tired old gak? 90% of the refugees are being taken care of in the region itself. God forbid those that try to cross into Europe try to dream of a life beyond one spend in a refugee camp amiright?

They have the right by international law to request asylum in the West.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 godardc wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

bring them to the US where it is safe?

Poor ''refugees'' trying to come in the wealthiest countries in the world, instead of going to the nearest peaceful and welcoming country , for more safety !
They could just cross the fronteer, stay in turkia, and be safe. I'm not buying that. Not even one of them has any right to come in the West. If they are looking for peace and safety, there are countries in the middle east that are at peace.

Omfg, that tired old gak? 90% of the refugees are being taken care of in the region itself. God forbid those that try to cross into Europe try to dream of a life beyond one spend in a refugee camp amiright?

They have the right by international law to request asylum in the West.

Do bear in mind that godardc's idea of how to deal with the refugee wave during 2015 was to "let them drown in the Aegean". You're not discussing the topic with a moderate person.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 godardc wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

bring them to the US where it is safe?

Poor ''refugees'' trying to come in the wealthiest countries in the world, instead of going to the nearest peaceful and welcoming country , for more safety !
They could just cross the fronteer, stay in turkia, and be safe. I'm not buying that. Not even one of them has any right to come in the West. If they are looking for peace and safety, there are countries in the middle east that are at peace.

Omfg, that tired old gak? 90% of the refugees are being taken care of in the region itself. God forbid those that try to cross into Europe try to dream of a life beyond one spend in a refugee camp amiright?

They have the right by international law to request asylum in the West.

Do bear in mind that godardc's idea of how to deal with the refugee wave during 2015 was to "let them drown in the Aegean". You're not discussing the topic with a moderate person.

Yup, I was there for the gem too. But I'm doing it more for the other people reading, its important to keep pointing out that the idea they all want to come 'here' is false.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

They have the right by international law to request asylum in the West.

International law? lol come on man. No country is going to put International law before their own self-interest.

And I am curious... how many Syrians have settled in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE. . .

I am guessing not very many. I am guessing they are not really welcome either.

KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

They have the right by international law to request asylum in the West.

International law? lol come on man. No country is going to put International law before their own self-interest.

And I am curious... how many Syrians have settled in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE. . .

I am guessing not very many. I am guessing they are not really welcome either.

And Trump is going to strike Syria because it just violated international law. I guess being a hypocrit doesn't really matter to Trump

Again, 90% of Syrians are housed in the immediate region.
Damn it even has its own wikipedia article
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War
some figures are two years out of date, but its serves as a generalized overview.