|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 04 2017 08:51 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 08:32 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 04 2017 08:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 04 2017 07:40 ticklishmusic wrote:Well then. WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee struck a deal with Hillary Clinton in 2015 that gave her campaign input on some party hiring and spending decisions, but related only to preparations for the general election, according to a memo obtained by NBC News. It also left the door open for other candidates to make similar arrangements. Don't think anyone should pretend that such an agreement has no influence whatsoever in the primaries. But yes, this part is at least in very clear text: Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary. Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates. But I don't know what this implies: The DNC will provide HFA advance opportunity to review on-line or mass email, communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate. This does not include any communications related to primary debates – which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC. The DNC will alert HFA in advance of mailing any direct mail communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate or his or her signature It looks like Donna found the memo but apparently didn't bother really reading it - or, the less charitable interpretation would be she decided to cherrypick. And now it's clear why she left out the dates in her little book excerpt/ promotion as well. I have a less charitable explanation. Let's say you wanted to sell a book. Would a viral article claiming stuff that you maybe couldn't quite back up, but hints at just what a certain audience wants to hear help generate buzz for your book? The Politico piece was itself a book excerpt. Politico has run pieces that are pretty much advertisements for books before. Show nested quote +
Donna Brazile is the former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee. Excerpted from the book Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House to be published on November 7, 2017 by Hachette Books, a division of Hachette Book Group. Copyright 2017 Donna Brazile.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
as i stated yesterday, i find it incredibly amusing that all of a sudden donna brazile who was considered a lying liar was suddenly taken at her word by some people now that she had unflattering things to say about hillary clinton. never mind the hard evidence from FEC disclosures and the thousands of leaked emails directly contradicted what she hinted at.
also ironic is that the publisher is called hachette book group, which sounds a lot like hatchet, as in a hatchet job.
|
On November 04 2017 08:41 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 07:54 Danglars wrote:On November 04 2017 07:01 Doodsmack wrote:On November 04 2017 06:58 Danglars wrote:On November 04 2017 03:28 oBlade wrote:On November 03 2017 22:25 Twinkle Toes wrote:On November 03 2017 21:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump supporters, why oh why are you supporting him??? He is the only recent force strong enough to cause an ideological shift in the Republican party, specifically one where they return to having an intellectual foundation and not just saying whatever to get flyover states to turn out. That means we get a Republican party that actually believes in things again, instead of just trying to be a worse version of the Democrats, which is not good for the voter and not a viable way to politics anyway except that at the level of individuals in power it's the option with the least risk to ensure their careers. The establishment system that started around the 80s and fused the parties together at the hip through war in the 2000s, that's broken. Before Trump (and maybe even Sanders taking a shot for the nomination) you only had some noisy token outliers on most issues, on either side. Like Rand Paul, who is my favorite, but he goes on MSNBC for a long interview and presents a dissenting case and votes no for whatever it is on the floor but meanwhile nobody else cares and business continues as usual. The better Trump does, the more it forces the Democratic party also to get a hold of itself and present ideas and politics besides identity and being not-Trump and appeal to people again. So in the end I get two parties both revamping themselves to win the votes of people who are now actually engaged as opposed to apathetically going through the charade of rubber-stamping the ruling class. Biggest thing is probably the economy is doing well, stock market is strong, people are investing, people are going to work, unemployment is down, people seeking benefits is down. And all big league. Cutting regulation, and in government also, and gutting bureaucracy and shrinking government spending. Returning education to the states, and it's hard for government to fix universities but changing Title IX guidance is great. I mostly agree with the diagnosis on the Republican party and Trump. I'm a little more bearish for the economy long term. I don't like the fundamentals. If Trump pushes through a decent tax cut, which I think is unlikely, I'll get more optimistic. Immigration is becoming more sane. I don't like jurisdictions subverting federal law, or the executive branch doing the same. So going after sanctuary cities and requiring action on DACA and rearranging priorities with legal immigration. Actually, the judiciary in general, keeping the Supreme Court level and keeping the judiciary from swinging too progressive. Hell, just the conversation on immigration is getting more sane. It's no longer a dialogue about picking which color of amnesty you want. He's highlighted the downsides of mass, unvetted immigration. He will maybe be the first president since Eisenhower to have a serious focus on North Korea, and hopefully the first since the last 3 administrations, whose neglect is most directly responsible for our predicament now. To a mostly unrelated evil, Islamism has had setbacks.
And of course because we all want to see success with tax and healthcare reform and infrastructure (since the Bush/Obama investments into the economy 8 years ago after the crisis yielded so little whether tangible or not). Setting some of that in motion with the healthcare associations executive order is promising. I'm hoping for more good things on North Korea. He's disappointed me more than surprised me, but those surprises were so unexpected. He calls the NFL kneelers out, trashes Iran as the terrorist evil it is while decertifying the deal, follows court orders on illegal ACA funding, and gets out of UNESCO in a week. One week. He's definitely a double-edged sword but holy fuck. This is where we see how people who give nominal criticism to Trump actually hold overall positive views on him and his legacy, including that he has returned the Republican party to "having an intellectual foundation." It's hard to conceive of partisan blinders more extreme than that. I worry for your rationality when I say he's disappointed me more than surprised me and you conclude I have overall positive views. Other parts of that post and other posts of yours contradict the ambiguous statement "disappointed me more than surprised me," which isn't surprising.
As one that usually gets accused of thinking in black and white, you need to stop thinking in black and white. Your critical thinking skills need more exercise if you're coming away thinking it's a contradiction. The Trump hysteria is a pollution on your analysis. You are currently unable to examine both sides with any precision.
|
On November 04 2017 09:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 08:41 Doodsmack wrote:On November 04 2017 07:54 Danglars wrote:On November 04 2017 07:01 Doodsmack wrote:On November 04 2017 06:58 Danglars wrote:On November 04 2017 03:28 oBlade wrote:On November 03 2017 22:25 Twinkle Toes wrote:Trump supporters, why oh why are you supporting him??? He is the only recent force strong enough to cause an ideological shift in the Republican party, specifically one where they return to having an intellectual foundation and not just saying whatever to get flyover states to turn out. That means we get a Republican party that actually believes in things again, instead of just trying to be a worse version of the Democrats, which is not good for the voter and not a viable way to politics anyway except that at the level of individuals in power it's the option with the least risk to ensure their careers. The establishment system that started around the 80s and fused the parties together at the hip through war in the 2000s, that's broken. Before Trump (and maybe even Sanders taking a shot for the nomination) you only had some noisy token outliers on most issues, on either side. Like Rand Paul, who is my favorite, but he goes on MSNBC for a long interview and presents a dissenting case and votes no for whatever it is on the floor but meanwhile nobody else cares and business continues as usual. The better Trump does, the more it forces the Democratic party also to get a hold of itself and present ideas and politics besides identity and being not-Trump and appeal to people again. So in the end I get two parties both revamping themselves to win the votes of people who are now actually engaged as opposed to apathetically going through the charade of rubber-stamping the ruling class. Biggest thing is probably the economy is doing well, stock market is strong, people are investing, people are going to work, unemployment is down, people seeking benefits is down. And all big league. Cutting regulation, and in government also, and gutting bureaucracy and shrinking government spending. Returning education to the states, and it's hard for government to fix universities but changing Title IX guidance is great. I mostly agree with the diagnosis on the Republican party and Trump. I'm a little more bearish for the economy long term. I don't like the fundamentals. If Trump pushes through a decent tax cut, which I think is unlikely, I'll get more optimistic. Immigration is becoming more sane. I don't like jurisdictions subverting federal law, or the executive branch doing the same. So going after sanctuary cities and requiring action on DACA and rearranging priorities with legal immigration. Actually, the judiciary in general, keeping the Supreme Court level and keeping the judiciary from swinging too progressive. Hell, just the conversation on immigration is getting more sane. It's no longer a dialogue about picking which color of amnesty you want. He's highlighted the downsides of mass, unvetted immigration. He will maybe be the first president since Eisenhower to have a serious focus on North Korea, and hopefully the first since the last 3 administrations, whose neglect is most directly responsible for our predicament now. To a mostly unrelated evil, Islamism has had setbacks.
And of course because we all want to see success with tax and healthcare reform and infrastructure (since the Bush/Obama investments into the economy 8 years ago after the crisis yielded so little whether tangible or not). Setting some of that in motion with the healthcare associations executive order is promising. I'm hoping for more good things on North Korea. He's disappointed me more than surprised me, but those surprises were so unexpected. He calls the NFL kneelers out, trashes Iran as the terrorist evil it is while decertifying the deal, follows court orders on illegal ACA funding, and gets out of UNESCO in a week. One week. He's definitely a double-edged sword but holy fuck. This is where we see how people who give nominal criticism to Trump actually hold overall positive views on him and his legacy, including that he has returned the Republican party to "having an intellectual foundation." It's hard to conceive of partisan blinders more extreme than that. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/232572505238433794 I worry for your rationality when I say he's disappointed me more than surprised me and you conclude I have overall positive views. Other parts of that post and other posts of yours contradict the ambiguous statement "disappointed me more than surprised me," which isn't surprising. As one that usually gets accused of thinking in black and white, you need to stop thinking in black and white. Your critical thinking skills need more exercise if you're coming away thinking it's a contradiction. The Trump hysteria is a pollution on your analysis. You are currently unable to examine both sides with any precision.
You have a habit of not engaging with the reasoning and resorting to generalities like "critical thinking," "context," and "reading comprehension." If you "mostly agree" with oBlade's post as regards Trump, that probably contradicts the ambiguous statement "he's disappointed me more than surprised me," considering you've also described Trump as "necessary," among other praise. Then again your writing may just be too ambiguous to draw any precision from.
|
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/8fbb11c7bda69afbac6c91a8e5190834.png)
Crooked Hillary and Crazy Bernie, too good to not share
Edit: Looking to find common points, any of our leftists regulars thinks sergant bowe berghdal should at the very least be imprisoned for manslaughter?
Guy deserted and got 5 american soldiers killed searching for him, and then he was traded back in exchange for 5 captured terrorists. A judge let him free basically because he dislikes Trump, in his own words.
|
Too bad trump doesn't get sued into the ground for slander. so many slanderous lies he uses 
doesn't seem notably share-worthy, being just trump's usual garbage. but it's still a statement by the unfit president, so reasonable enough to post.
huh, no wonder that displayed oddly; you did it as an image rather than a link to the underlying tweet. better to link to the tweet directly imo.
|
On November 04 2017 10:28 zlefin wrote:Too bad trump doesn't get sued into the ground for slander. so many slanderous lies he uses huh, no wonder that displayed oddly; you did it as an image rather than a link to the underlying tweet. better to link to the tweet directly imo.
It's a screencap of facebook I think?
|
On November 04 2017 09:31 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 09:11 Danglars wrote:On November 04 2017 08:41 Doodsmack wrote:On November 04 2017 07:54 Danglars wrote:On November 04 2017 07:01 Doodsmack wrote:On November 04 2017 06:58 Danglars wrote:On November 04 2017 03:28 oBlade wrote:On November 03 2017 22:25 Twinkle Toes wrote:Trump supporters, why oh why are you supporting him??? He is the only recent force strong enough to cause an ideological shift in the Republican party, specifically one where they return to having an intellectual foundation and not just saying whatever to get flyover states to turn out. That means we get a Republican party that actually believes in things again, instead of just trying to be a worse version of the Democrats, which is not good for the voter and not a viable way to politics anyway except that at the level of individuals in power it's the option with the least risk to ensure their careers. The establishment system that started around the 80s and fused the parties together at the hip through war in the 2000s, that's broken. Before Trump (and maybe even Sanders taking a shot for the nomination) you only had some noisy token outliers on most issues, on either side. Like Rand Paul, who is my favorite, but he goes on MSNBC for a long interview and presents a dissenting case and votes no for whatever it is on the floor but meanwhile nobody else cares and business continues as usual. The better Trump does, the more it forces the Democratic party also to get a hold of itself and present ideas and politics besides identity and being not-Trump and appeal to people again. So in the end I get two parties both revamping themselves to win the votes of people who are now actually engaged as opposed to apathetically going through the charade of rubber-stamping the ruling class. Biggest thing is probably the economy is doing well, stock market is strong, people are investing, people are going to work, unemployment is down, people seeking benefits is down. And all big league. Cutting regulation, and in government also, and gutting bureaucracy and shrinking government spending. Returning education to the states, and it's hard for government to fix universities but changing Title IX guidance is great. I mostly agree with the diagnosis on the Republican party and Trump. I'm a little more bearish for the economy long term. I don't like the fundamentals. If Trump pushes through a decent tax cut, which I think is unlikely, I'll get more optimistic. Immigration is becoming more sane. I don't like jurisdictions subverting federal law, or the executive branch doing the same. So going after sanctuary cities and requiring action on DACA and rearranging priorities with legal immigration. Actually, the judiciary in general, keeping the Supreme Court level and keeping the judiciary from swinging too progressive. Hell, just the conversation on immigration is getting more sane. It's no longer a dialogue about picking which color of amnesty you want. He's highlighted the downsides of mass, unvetted immigration. He will maybe be the first president since Eisenhower to have a serious focus on North Korea, and hopefully the first since the last 3 administrations, whose neglect is most directly responsible for our predicament now. To a mostly unrelated evil, Islamism has had setbacks.
And of course because we all want to see success with tax and healthcare reform and infrastructure (since the Bush/Obama investments into the economy 8 years ago after the crisis yielded so little whether tangible or not). Setting some of that in motion with the healthcare associations executive order is promising. I'm hoping for more good things on North Korea. He's disappointed me more than surprised me, but those surprises were so unexpected. He calls the NFL kneelers out, trashes Iran as the terrorist evil it is while decertifying the deal, follows court orders on illegal ACA funding, and gets out of UNESCO in a week. One week. He's definitely a double-edged sword but holy fuck. This is where we see how people who give nominal criticism to Trump actually hold overall positive views on him and his legacy, including that he has returned the Republican party to "having an intellectual foundation." It's hard to conceive of partisan blinders more extreme than that. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/232572505238433794 I worry for your rationality when I say he's disappointed me more than surprised me and you conclude I have overall positive views. Other parts of that post and other posts of yours contradict the ambiguous statement "disappointed me more than surprised me," which isn't surprising. As one that usually gets accused of thinking in black and white, you need to stop thinking in black and white. Your critical thinking skills need more exercise if you're coming away thinking it's a contradiction. The Trump hysteria is a pollution on your analysis. You are currently unable to examine both sides with any precision. You have a habit of not engaging with the reasoning and resorting to generalities like "critical thinking," "context," and "reading comprehension." If you "mostly agree" with oBlade's post as regards Trump, that probably contradicts the ambiguous statement "he's disappointed me more than surprised me," considering you've also described Trump as "necessary," among other praise. Then again your writing may just be too ambiguous to draw any precision from.
Very little reasoning needed when you're mind reading and generalizing. When you want to engage on substance, look me up. If you're gonna keep shitting out your impressions of my posts, you should stop when you're ahead.
Or simply don't reply if that's all you got. It doesn't help anybody if you keep repeating ad nauseum your view that Trump can't be conceived of in a complex manner. This time you can't wrap your head around both positives and negatives.
|
i mean Danglars is indicating that one of the things he's happiest with Trump for doing is taking call-out culture to "the kneelers" in the NFL
why bend the knee when you can flip the bird?
|
United States43866 Posts
On November 04 2017 10:18 GoTuNk! wrote:Crooked Hillary and Crazy Bernie, too good to not share Edit: Looking to find common points, any of our leftists regulars thinks sergant bowe berghdal should at the very least be imprisoned for manslaughter? Guy deserted and got 5 american soldiers killed searching for him, and then he was traded back in exchange for 5 captured terrorists. A judge let him free basically because he dislikes Trump, in his own words.
It's not clear from this post that you're aware of what manslaughter is. As for trading him back, if the American public send American boys out to the mountains of Afghanistan they should do what they can to bring them home. This isn't some random member of the public that decided he wanted to join the Taliban or whatever, this is a guy who signed up to serve his country and got shipped out there. Whatever mental breakdown that led him to wander off base is directly traceable to the decision by the US government to send him to Afghanistan, and his decision to serve his country.
We don't only have a duty to the veterans whose stories we make heroic movies about. They all volunteered, they all served.
|
On November 04 2017 10:18 GoTuNk! wrote:
Edit: Looking to find common points, any of our leftists regulars thinks sergant bowe berghdal should at the very least be imprisoned for manslaughter?
Guy deserted and got 5 american soldiers killed searching for him, and then he was traded back in exchange for 5 captured terrorists. A judge let him free basically because he dislikes Trump, in his own words.
Uh, do you even know what manslaughter is? You have to kill someone. Even being a direct cause of death is not enough if there was no intent to kill (as in accidental), let alone indirect.
|
On November 04 2017 10:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 10:18 GoTuNk! wrote:Crooked Hillary and Crazy Bernie, too good to not share Edit: Looking to find common points, any of our leftists regulars thinks sergant bowe berghdal should at the very least be imprisoned for manslaughter? Guy deserted and got 5 american soldiers killed searching for him, and then he was traded back in exchange for 5 captured terrorists. A judge let him free basically because he dislikes Trump, in his own words. It's not clear from this post that you're aware of what manslaughter is. As for trading him back, if the American public send American boys out to the mountains of Afghanistan they should do what they can to bring them home. This isn't some random member of the public that decided he wanted to join the Taliban or whatever, this is a guy who signed up to serve his country and got shipped out there. Whatever mental breakdown that led him to wander off base is directly traceable to the decision by the US government to send him to Afghanistan, and his decision to serve his country. We don't only have a duty to the veterans whose stories we make heroic movies about. They all volunteered, they all served.
Yeah I got the word wrong, sorry not my native language.
That said, your argument makes no sense, the guy was a soldier that ignored his duties and got his comrades killed as a direct result of this. He is at the very least a dessertor, if not a traitor (apparently he wanted to join the Taliban? wtf)
Taking care of veterans back home is entirely different than giving soldiers free pass to abandon duty.
Whatever mental breakdown that led him to wander off base is directly traceable to the decision by the US government to send him to Afghanistan, and his decision to serve his country. So he has no responsability to behave properly because he was sent to a conflict zone as part of his duty? really?
|
On November 04 2017 10:18 GoTuNk! wrote:Crooked Hillary and Crazy Bernie, too good to not share Edit: Looking to find common points, any of our leftists regulars thinks sergant bowe berghdal should at the very least be imprisoned for manslaughter? Guy deserted and got 5 american soldiers killed searching for him, and then he was traded back in exchange for 5 captured terrorists. A judge let him free basically because he dislikes Trump, in his own words.
I'd have to read more about what we know now, but I'm inclined to think his mind broke, which I also am inclined to think is what could happen to a lot of people placed in a similar situation. The military does what it thinks it can to screen for this type of behavior, but it's as old as armies. Strikes me more as an unfortunate reality. I'd like to think in a "civilized" world we'd want to help someone suffering in such ways rather than cage them like animals.
If I were to go strictly by the norms of society that I disagree with regarding law and punishment, "criminally negligent manslaughter" doesn't seem out of the ordinary though.
Basically what Kwark said too.
|
United States43866 Posts
On November 04 2017 11:03 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 10:56 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2017 10:18 GoTuNk! wrote:Crooked Hillary and Crazy Bernie, too good to not share Edit: Looking to find common points, any of our leftists regulars thinks sergant bowe berghdal should at the very least be imprisoned for manslaughter? Guy deserted and got 5 american soldiers killed searching for him, and then he was traded back in exchange for 5 captured terrorists. A judge let him free basically because he dislikes Trump, in his own words. It's not clear from this post that you're aware of what manslaughter is. As for trading him back, if the American public send American boys out to the mountains of Afghanistan they should do what they can to bring them home. This isn't some random member of the public that decided he wanted to join the Taliban or whatever, this is a guy who signed up to serve his country and got shipped out there. Whatever mental breakdown that led him to wander off base is directly traceable to the decision by the US government to send him to Afghanistan, and his decision to serve his country. We don't only have a duty to the veterans whose stories we make heroic movies about. They all volunteered, they all served. Yeah I got the word wrong, sorry not my native language. That said, your argument makes no sense, the guy was a soldier that ignored his duties and got his comrades killed as a direct result of this. He is at the very least a dessertor, if not a traitor (apparently he wanted to join the Taliban? wtf) Taking care of veterans back home is entirely different than giving soldiers free pass to abandon duty. Whatever mental breakdown that led him to wander off base is directly traceable to the decision by the US government to send him to Afghanistan, and his decision to serve his country. So he has no responsability to behave properly because he was sent to a conflict zone as part of his duty? really?
He absolutely has a duty to follow orders etc, as do all soldiers. But treating him like his action was in any way a result of malice or conspiracy against the United States is crazy, the guy joined because he wanted to serve his country. War does strange shit to people. He's an American veteran and a casualty of the deployment he was sent on. Regardless of whether or not he followed orders.
You don't get to pick and choose which casualties deserve the protection of the US state. You send them out there, you bring them back. It's that simple. If you want to court martial them once you've got them back on US soil then so be it, but don't leave them over there.
If he'd blown his brains out you wouldn't be calling him a deserter, and certainly not a traitor. But wandering alone into the mountains, which is far less crazy than sticking a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger, and suddenly you want to crucify him. It sucks that men died looking for him, and I'm sure plenty of other men have died because of the suicides of their comrades, but that's war for you. He didn't ask to go to a warzone, the American voting public asked it of him when they sent him out there. When it comes to veterans and mental health, you break it, you buy it.
|
On November 04 2017 11:03 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 10:56 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2017 10:18 GoTuNk! wrote:Crooked Hillary and Crazy Bernie, too good to not share Edit: Looking to find common points, any of our leftists regulars thinks sergant bowe berghdal should at the very least be imprisoned for manslaughter? Guy deserted and got 5 american soldiers killed searching for him, and then he was traded back in exchange for 5 captured terrorists. A judge let him free basically because he dislikes Trump, in his own words. It's not clear from this post that you're aware of what manslaughter is. As for trading him back, if the American public send American boys out to the mountains of Afghanistan they should do what they can to bring them home. This isn't some random member of the public that decided he wanted to join the Taliban or whatever, this is a guy who signed up to serve his country and got shipped out there. Whatever mental breakdown that led him to wander off base is directly traceable to the decision by the US government to send him to Afghanistan, and his decision to serve his country. We don't only have a duty to the veterans whose stories we make heroic movies about. They all volunteered, they all served. Yeah I got the word wrong, sorry not my native language. That said, your argument makes no sense, the guy was a soldier that ignored his duties and got his comrades killed as a direct result of this. He is at the very least a dessertor, if not a traitor (apparently he wanted to join the Taliban? wtf) Taking care of veterans back home is entirely different than giving soldiers free pass to abandon duty. Whatever mental breakdown that led him to wander off base is directly traceable to the decision by the US government to send him to Afghanistan, and his decision to serve his country. So he has no responsability to behave properly because he was sent to a conflict zone as part of his duty? really?
it doesn't sound like you've followed the case closely at all. it sounds more like you formed an opinion on what "should" be based on a very limited and highly biased narrative someone was selling. especially seeing how you worded the judge's action.
so why not simply let the judicial process work, and assume that the judge, who's both far more familiar than you with the law and the facts of the case, knows better?
and if you really want, then read the case file (not sure how public those are for military proceedings, but this case is noted enough that there's a good bit of info out there.).
|
On November 04 2017 11:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 11:03 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 04 2017 10:56 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2017 10:18 GoTuNk! wrote:Crooked Hillary and Crazy Bernie, too good to not share Edit: Looking to find common points, any of our leftists regulars thinks sergant bowe berghdal should at the very least be imprisoned for manslaughter? Guy deserted and got 5 american soldiers killed searching for him, and then he was traded back in exchange for 5 captured terrorists. A judge let him free basically because he dislikes Trump, in his own words. It's not clear from this post that you're aware of what manslaughter is. As for trading him back, if the American public send American boys out to the mountains of Afghanistan they should do what they can to bring them home. This isn't some random member of the public that decided he wanted to join the Taliban or whatever, this is a guy who signed up to serve his country and got shipped out there. Whatever mental breakdown that led him to wander off base is directly traceable to the decision by the US government to send him to Afghanistan, and his decision to serve his country. We don't only have a duty to the veterans whose stories we make heroic movies about. They all volunteered, they all served. Yeah I got the word wrong, sorry not my native language. That said, your argument makes no sense, the guy was a soldier that ignored his duties and got his comrades killed as a direct result of this. He is at the very least a dessertor, if not a traitor (apparently he wanted to join the Taliban? wtf) Taking care of veterans back home is entirely different than giving soldiers free pass to abandon duty. Whatever mental breakdown that led him to wander off base is directly traceable to the decision by the US government to send him to Afghanistan, and his decision to serve his country. So he has no responsability to behave properly because he was sent to a conflict zone as part of his duty? really? He absolutely has a duty to follow orders etc, as do all soldiers. But treating him like his action was in any way a result of malice or conspiracy against the United States is crazy, the guy joined because he wanted to serve his country. War does strange shit to people. He's an American veteran and a casualty of the deployment he was sent on. Regardless of whether or not he followed orders. You don't get to pick and choose which casualties deserve the protection of the US state. You send them out there, you bring them back. It's that simple. If you want to court martial them once you've got them back on US soil then so be it, but don't leave them over there. If he'd blown his brains out you wouldn't be calling him a deserter, and certainly not a traitor. But wandering alone into the mountains, which is far less crazy than sticking a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger, and suddenly you want to crucify him.
Oh nono, I'm ok with trading him back. However, he should be held accountable for getting 5 american soldiers killed and 5 terrorists released.
Actions don't have to be done out of malice to warrant criminal responsability and jail time, specially in a warzone and specially if you are in the army.
|
On November 04 2017 11:15 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 11:11 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2017 11:03 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 04 2017 10:56 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2017 10:18 GoTuNk! wrote:Crooked Hillary and Crazy Bernie, too good to not share Edit: Looking to find common points, any of our leftists regulars thinks sergant bowe berghdal should at the very least be imprisoned for manslaughter? Guy deserted and got 5 american soldiers killed searching for him, and then he was traded back in exchange for 5 captured terrorists. A judge let him free basically because he dislikes Trump, in his own words. It's not clear from this post that you're aware of what manslaughter is. As for trading him back, if the American public send American boys out to the mountains of Afghanistan they should do what they can to bring them home. This isn't some random member of the public that decided he wanted to join the Taliban or whatever, this is a guy who signed up to serve his country and got shipped out there. Whatever mental breakdown that led him to wander off base is directly traceable to the decision by the US government to send him to Afghanistan, and his decision to serve his country. We don't only have a duty to the veterans whose stories we make heroic movies about. They all volunteered, they all served. Yeah I got the word wrong, sorry not my native language. That said, your argument makes no sense, the guy was a soldier that ignored his duties and got his comrades killed as a direct result of this. He is at the very least a dessertor, if not a traitor (apparently he wanted to join the Taliban? wtf) Taking care of veterans back home is entirely different than giving soldiers free pass to abandon duty. Whatever mental breakdown that led him to wander off base is directly traceable to the decision by the US government to send him to Afghanistan, and his decision to serve his country. So he has no responsability to behave properly because he was sent to a conflict zone as part of his duty? really? He absolutely has a duty to follow orders etc, as do all soldiers. But treating him like his action was in any way a result of malice or conspiracy against the United States is crazy, the guy joined because he wanted to serve his country. War does strange shit to people. He's an American veteran and a casualty of the deployment he was sent on. Regardless of whether or not he followed orders. You don't get to pick and choose which casualties deserve the protection of the US state. You send them out there, you bring them back. It's that simple. If you want to court martial them once you've got them back on US soil then so be it, but don't leave them over there. If he'd blown his brains out you wouldn't be calling him a deserter, and certainly not a traitor. But wandering alone into the mountains, which is far less crazy than sticking a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger, and suddenly you want to crucify him. Oh nono, I'm ok with trading him back. However, he should be held accountable for getting 5 american soldiers killed and 5 terrorists released. Actions don't have to be done out of malice to warrant criminal responsability and jail time, specially in a warzone and specially if you are in the army.
I think I'll tend toward sympathy over punishment for someone who's already spent 5 years in an inhumane prison.
|
United States43866 Posts
On November 04 2017 11:15 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 11:11 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2017 11:03 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 04 2017 10:56 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2017 10:18 GoTuNk! wrote:Crooked Hillary and Crazy Bernie, too good to not share Edit: Looking to find common points, any of our leftists regulars thinks sergant bowe berghdal should at the very least be imprisoned for manslaughter? Guy deserted and got 5 american soldiers killed searching for him, and then he was traded back in exchange for 5 captured terrorists. A judge let him free basically because he dislikes Trump, in his own words. It's not clear from this post that you're aware of what manslaughter is. As for trading him back, if the American public send American boys out to the mountains of Afghanistan they should do what they can to bring them home. This isn't some random member of the public that decided he wanted to join the Taliban or whatever, this is a guy who signed up to serve his country and got shipped out there. Whatever mental breakdown that led him to wander off base is directly traceable to the decision by the US government to send him to Afghanistan, and his decision to serve his country. We don't only have a duty to the veterans whose stories we make heroic movies about. They all volunteered, they all served. Yeah I got the word wrong, sorry not my native language. That said, your argument makes no sense, the guy was a soldier that ignored his duties and got his comrades killed as a direct result of this. He is at the very least a dessertor, if not a traitor (apparently he wanted to join the Taliban? wtf) Taking care of veterans back home is entirely different than giving soldiers free pass to abandon duty. Whatever mental breakdown that led him to wander off base is directly traceable to the decision by the US government to send him to Afghanistan, and his decision to serve his country. So he has no responsability to behave properly because he was sent to a conflict zone as part of his duty? really? He absolutely has a duty to follow orders etc, as do all soldiers. But treating him like his action was in any way a result of malice or conspiracy against the United States is crazy, the guy joined because he wanted to serve his country. War does strange shit to people. He's an American veteran and a casualty of the deployment he was sent on. Regardless of whether or not he followed orders. You don't get to pick and choose which casualties deserve the protection of the US state. You send them out there, you bring them back. It's that simple. If you want to court martial them once you've got them back on US soil then so be it, but don't leave them over there. If he'd blown his brains out you wouldn't be calling him a deserter, and certainly not a traitor. But wandering alone into the mountains, which is far less crazy than sticking a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger, and suddenly you want to crucify him. Oh nono, I'm ok with trading him back. However, he should be held accountable for getting 5 american soldiers killed and 5 terrorists released. Actions don't have to be done out of malice to warrant criminal responsability and jail time, specially in a warzone and specially if you are in the army.
What profit do you see in punishing a guy for an action that already resulted in him spending years as a prisoner of the Taliban? Who are you interested in doing this for?
Him as a punishment? I doubt American military prisons are worse than what he has already endured.
Him as a prevention, so he won't wander off base again? It's not likely that he'll wander from America back to Afghanistan.
Other soldiers as a deterrent? The sane ones aren't wandering alone into Taliban held mountains, the insane ones aren't going "I'm fine with the risk of being tortured and killed by the Taliban, but I don't know if I could deal with the risk of prison".
Honouring his comrades who died trying to free him by locking him in a box?
It sucks that all this happened but he's a casualty of a war he didn't ask for. Rules need to be enforced to maintain discipline, but common sense also needs to be applied. It profits absolutely noone to punish this guy.
|
United States43866 Posts
It's also pretty distasteful that Trump, who famously joked about his draft dodging, bragged about getting a purple heart the easy way, and called his struggle to not get STDs his own personal Vietnam, is attacking any veteran. He hasn't earned that right.
|
On November 04 2017 11:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 11:15 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 04 2017 11:11 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2017 11:03 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 04 2017 10:56 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2017 10:18 GoTuNk! wrote:Crooked Hillary and Crazy Bernie, too good to not share Edit: Looking to find common points, any of our leftists regulars thinks sergant bowe berghdal should at the very least be imprisoned for manslaughter? Guy deserted and got 5 american soldiers killed searching for him, and then he was traded back in exchange for 5 captured terrorists. A judge let him free basically because he dislikes Trump, in his own words. It's not clear from this post that you're aware of what manslaughter is. As for trading him back, if the American public send American boys out to the mountains of Afghanistan they should do what they can to bring them home. This isn't some random member of the public that decided he wanted to join the Taliban or whatever, this is a guy who signed up to serve his country and got shipped out there. Whatever mental breakdown that led him to wander off base is directly traceable to the decision by the US government to send him to Afghanistan, and his decision to serve his country. We don't only have a duty to the veterans whose stories we make heroic movies about. They all volunteered, they all served. Yeah I got the word wrong, sorry not my native language. That said, your argument makes no sense, the guy was a soldier that ignored his duties and got his comrades killed as a direct result of this. He is at the very least a dessertor, if not a traitor (apparently he wanted to join the Taliban? wtf) Taking care of veterans back home is entirely different than giving soldiers free pass to abandon duty. Whatever mental breakdown that led him to wander off base is directly traceable to the decision by the US government to send him to Afghanistan, and his decision to serve his country. So he has no responsability to behave properly because he was sent to a conflict zone as part of his duty? really? He absolutely has a duty to follow orders etc, as do all soldiers. But treating him like his action was in any way a result of malice or conspiracy against the United States is crazy, the guy joined because he wanted to serve his country. War does strange shit to people. He's an American veteran and a casualty of the deployment he was sent on. Regardless of whether or not he followed orders. You don't get to pick and choose which casualties deserve the protection of the US state. You send them out there, you bring them back. It's that simple. If you want to court martial them once you've got them back on US soil then so be it, but don't leave them over there. If he'd blown his brains out you wouldn't be calling him a deserter, and certainly not a traitor. But wandering alone into the mountains, which is far less crazy than sticking a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger, and suddenly you want to crucify him. Oh nono, I'm ok with trading him back. However, he should be held accountable for getting 5 american soldiers killed and 5 terrorists released. Actions don't have to be done out of malice to warrant criminal responsability and jail time, specially in a warzone and specially if you are in the army. What profit do you see in punishing a guy for an action that already resulted in him spending years as a prisoner of the Taliban? Who are you interested in doing this for? Him as a punishment? I doubt American military prisons are worse than what he has already endured. Him as a prevention, so he won't wander off base again? It's not likely that he'll wander from America back to Afghanistan. Other soldiers as a deterrent? The sane ones aren't wandering alone into Taliban held mountains, the insane ones aren't going "I'm fine with the risk of being tortured and killed by the Taliban, but I don't know if I could deal with the risk of prison". Honouring his comrades who died trying to free him by locking him in a box? It sucks that all this happened but he's a casualty of a war he didn't ask for. Rules need to be enforced to maintain discipline, but common sense also needs to be applied. It profits absolutely noone to punish this guy.
He should be punished for being a desertor and borderline traitor to his nation who got fellow country man killed and might get more fellow country man killed trough the actions of the released terrorists.
The notion that people should only be punished for breaking the law when there is a material benefit to it, is completely ridiculous and has no legal basis.
|
On November 04 2017 10:54 IgnE wrote:
i mean Danglars is indicating that one of the things he's happiest with Trump for doing is taking call-out culture to "the kneelers" in the NFL
why bend the knee when you can flip the bird?
Let's say I want to say Obama demonstrated leadership during his time in office. I point out maybe the three or four reasons why I think that's true. I also say it doesn't mean I don't think he lacks in other ways, as in it doesn't overpower what I find as failing.
He's coming in with a stupid "sounds like you're overall positive, and that makes you a noob for this reason."
You can't even talk mixed bags and orthogonal points of analysis if we're lumping these all in a bucket to come out with bad person or good person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
