|
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. |
United States43866 Posts
On November 04 2017 11:37 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 11:21 KwarK wrote: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:![[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. 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.
He's certainly no traitor.
The notion that people are punished according to the degree that punishing them benefits society is the foundation of judicial discretion which is a huge part of common law in the Anglosphere. Not only does it have legal basis, it basically is the legal basis. That's what common law is. Maybe you do things differently in your country but in the UK and the US judges have a pretty huge degree of discretion in applying punishments. Mandatory minimums are the exception, not the standard.
|
he's suffered a lot as both a casualty of war/ his own actions - the two are inextricably linked.
it's a dishonorable discharge, so he loses out on all veteran benefits. it's hard to say what kind of life he can have with all this baggage, too. he's paying plenty of penance, either way.
|
On November 04 2017 11:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 11:37 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 04 2017 11:21 KwarK wrote: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. He's certainly no traitor. The notion that people are punished according to the degree that punishing them benefits society is the foundation of judicial discretion which is a huge part of common law in the Anglosphere. Not only does it have legal basis, it basically is the legal basis. That's what common law is. Maybe you do things differently in your country but in the UK and the US judges have a pretty huge degree of discretion in applying punishments. Mandatory minimums are the exception, not the standard.
Yes the anglo system is quite different to ours in that way. There are escentially "2 law systems", one based mostly in precedent (anglosphere) and one based on following the law as strictly as possible ("ours" would be latin america and Spain, dunno about the rest of the world)
That said, I still disagree with you.
Hiphotetical:
A gun colector leaves by mistake a bunch of loaded guns unsecured, his son picks it up and shots himself. Should he not be punished? I think he should, and I could defend him with pretty much every argument you have made here. Except this case is worse, because military law is different and more strict.
This guy's negligence is beyond horrible and he should spend time in jail. Having a previous terrible time because of it doesn't exculpate him.
|
United States43866 Posts
On November 04 2017 11:52 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 11:40 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2017 11:37 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 04 2017 11:21 KwarK wrote: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. He's certainly no traitor. The notion that people are punished according to the degree that punishing them benefits society is the foundation of judicial discretion which is a huge part of common law in the Anglosphere. Not only does it have legal basis, it basically is the legal basis. That's what common law is. Maybe you do things differently in your country but in the UK and the US judges have a pretty huge degree of discretion in applying punishments. Mandatory minimums are the exception, not the standard. Yes the anglo system is quite different to ours in that way. There are escentially "2 law systems", one based mostly in precedent (anglosphere) and one based on following the law as strictly as possible ("ours" would be latin america and Spain, dunno about the rest of the world) That said, I still disagree with you. Hiphotetical: A gun colector leaves by mistake a bunch of loaded guns unsecured, his son picks it up and shots himself. Should he not be punished? I think he should, and I could defend him with pretty much every argument you have made here. Except this case is worse, because military law is different and more strict. This guy's negligence is beyond horrible and he should spend time in jail. Having a terrible because of it doesn't exculpate him.
I'm confused what you're arguing here.
I argued that it benefits absolutely nobody to lock up one of our own casualties.
You argued that judicial absolutism is the basis of law.
I explained to you that actually judicial discretion is the basis of law over here and that absolutism couldn't be further from it.
You accepted that judicial discretion is the basis of law over here.
Aren't we still at "I argued that it benefits absolutely nobody to lock up one of our own casualties"? You seem to be moving past it without addressing it.
|
The military courts take influence from superiors very seriously. The president demanding a specific ruling is a great way to fuck a case.
|
On November 04 2017 11:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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.
i'm agreeing with you
your posts would be more legible if you stuck to one metaphor (unmixed) per sentence
|
On November 04 2017 12:27 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 11:38 Danglars wrote: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. i'm agreeing with you your posts would be more legible if you stuck to one metaphor (unmixed) per sentence
You're probably right.
(And I was agreeing with you and extending the thought)
|
On November 04 2017 10:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 09:31 Doodsmack wrote: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: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. 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 engaged on substance to the extent possible (you “mostly agree” with oBlade, and in your supposed nuanced analysis of Trump, there are real contradictions, because as a partisan you bend too far to justify his election), but the rest is just your opaque writing style.
But as for Trump getting us and Republican Party to the state of dialogue we need...
|
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?
You know the part about 5 people getting killed searching for him isn't true, right?
serialpodcast.org
|
On November 04 2017 13:55 CatharsisUT 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? You know the part about 5 people getting killed searching for him isn't true, right? serialpodcast.org
Lol wow. Evidence. Someone should tell FOX NEWS before they run another smear piece on Bhergdal. I can't wait until Bhergdal comes up again in a few pages and a conservative poster cites the 6 deaths again without irony.
|
On November 04 2017 07:01 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +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
It doesn't mean Trump is a philosopher king so it's not rebutted by "look at this instance of derp." It means he's the force that proved the viability of a coherent ideology besides copying the Democratic platform. So the party has political options besides saying "Romney lost so we'll have to go with amnesty" and it means they have to come up with healthcare and can't just spam "repeal and replace" to get elected and then never follow through because they have the White House now, they'll pay a price for inaction. It's basically about accountability, they have to have principles and do things according to them. Trump didn't invent most of the ideas but he's borne them for a while and had the most success.
|
What an age we live in, when people are crediting Trump with the elected party actually trying to pass bills.
Well, I guess there's a saying about the one-eyed man in the land of the blind?
|
On November 04 2017 14:51 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +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 It doesn't mean Trump is a philosopher king so it's not rebutted by "look at this instance of derp." It means he's the force that proved the viability of a coherent ideology besides copying the Democratic platform. So the party has political options besides saying "Romney lost so we'll have to go with amnesty" and it means they have to come up with healthcare and can't just spam "repeal and replace" to get elected and then never follow through because they have the White House now, they'll pay a price for inaction. It's basically about accountability, they have to have principles and do things according to them. Trump didn't invent most of the ideas but he's borne them for a while and had the most success.
What?
Trump got elected on the back of an even bigger lies then 'repeal and replace'. His health plan plan from day 1 has been utterly impossible.
Cut the mandate and allow pre-existing conditions cannot co-exist in any way. It means that no one buys insurance until they become sick because Insurers cannot reject them. It turns what is supposed to be a zero-sum system (healthy people paying for the sick) into an entirely negative system that has no income and only expenses.
Bringing back factory jobs to the US (are US workers going to work for 5 dollars an hour to compete)? Reviving Coal?
Trump is the proof that if you lie out of your ass but present it in a certain way (there is no denying Trumps charisma to a segment of the population) people will eat it up whole no matter how easily it is disproven by facts.
And the cognitive dissonance in the US has reached such levels from the years of 'us-or them' that his followers will bent reality to prove to themselves they are right. If Trump fails they will just find more excuses and latch on to the next con-man to come along with a good story of lies.
|
Any attempt to make Bergdahl an innocent victim here is pushing it. He knowingly deserted his post in a premeditated or at least unforced manner, needlessly triggering a significant expenditure of resources and manpower. He's guilty and he risked a lot of lives, both directly and indirectly, whether or not anyone actually died. There aren't any mitigating circumstances that change what he did.
At the same time, the dude is a walking wreck and a household villain as a result of what happened. It's not like he needs any further lessons in why what he did was a bad idea. He's pretty much boned for the rest of his life, and is now also without support.
The only reason to punish him further is to deter other soldiers from doing the same thing, and I really don't think there's anyone out there who would look at the whole saga and conclude thst deserting is fine because Bergdahl got away with a discharge.
From my armchair, the decision was pretty reasonable.
|
|
|
Belisarius ha the right of it! Well said!
|
On November 04 2017 11:37 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 11:21 KwarK wrote: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.
Wow creepy. Lets just replace rule of law with hysteria.
|
On November 04 2017 20:26 Belisarius wrote:
Any attempt to make Bergdahl an innocent victim here is pushing it. He knowingly deserted his post in a premeditated or at least unforced manner, needlessly triggering a significant expenditure of resources and manpower. He's guilty and he risked a lot of lives, both directly and indirectly, whether or not anyone actually died. There aren't any mitigating circumstances that change what he did.
At the same time, the dude is a walking wreck and a household villain as a result of what happened. It's not like he needs any further lessons in why what he did was a bad idea. He's pretty much boned for the rest of his life, and is now also without support.
The only reason to punish him further is to deter other soldiers from doing the same thing, and I really don't think there's anyone out there who would look at the whole saga and conclude thst deserting is fine because Bergdahl got away with a discharge.
From my armchair, the decision was pretty reasonable.
Another important question is why he actually deserted his post. Walking into a taliban-infested afghan desert doesn't sound like something a sane person would do.
So i don't find it implausible that maybe, he walked into the desert due to some mental illness. Possibly related to the stress of combat. (Obviously, this is something that needs to be argued in court, which i assume is what happened)
If something like that were the case, justice systems usually deal differently with people who commit crimes due to mental illness when compared to those who do the same thing in a sane state of mind.
Depending on circumstances, it can possibly be argued that the whole episode is just another way of becoming a casualty of war. And i hope that we have evolved from the WW1 situation where people with PTSD get executed as cowardly deserters.
|
On November 04 2017 14:51 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +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 It doesn't mean Trump is a philosopher king so it's not rebutted by "look at this instance of derp." It means he's the force that proved the viability of a coherent ideology besides copying the Democratic platform. So the party has political options besides saying "Romney lost so we'll have to go with amnesty" and it means they have to come up with healthcare and can't just spam "repeal and replace" to get elected and then never follow through because they have the White House now, they'll pay a price for inaction. It's basically about accountability, they have to have principles and do things according to them. Trump didn't invent most of the ideas but he's borne them for a while and had the most success.
I'm not seeing a coherent ideology at all. what is this alleged "coherent ideology"?
|
On November 04 2017 20:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 14:51 oBlade 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 It doesn't mean Trump is a philosopher king so it's not rebutted by "look at this instance of derp." It means he's the force that proved the viability of a coherent ideology besides copying the Democratic platform. So the party has political options besides saying "Romney lost so we'll have to go with amnesty" and it means they have to come up with healthcare and can't just spam "repeal and replace" to get elected and then never follow through because they have the White House now, they'll pay a price for inaction. It's basically about accountability, they have to have principles and do things according to them. Trump didn't invent most of the ideas but he's borne them for a while and had the most success. What? Trump got elected on the back of an even bigger lies then 'repeal and replace'. His health plan plan from day 1 has been utterly impossible. Cut the mandate and allow pre-existing conditions cannot co-exist in any way. It means that no one buys insurance until they become sick because Insurers cannot reject them. It turns what is supposed to be a zero-sum system (healthy people paying for the sick) into an entirely negative system that has no income and only expenses. Bringing back factory jobs to the US (are US workers going to work for 5 dollars an hour to compete)? Reviving Coal? Trump is the proof that if you lie out of your ass but present it in a certain way (there is no denying Trumps charisma to a segment of the population) people will eat it up whole no matter how easily it is disproven by facts. And the cognitive dissonance in the US has reached such levels from the years of 'us-or them' that his followers will bent reality to prove to themselves they are right. If Trump fails they will just find more excuses and latch on to the next con-man to come along with a good story of lies.
Pretty much. Even with his claim that he would make America respected in the world again is hilariously off the mark if you live in South East Asia. They pretty much see America getting severely outplayed by China and China basically taking whatever influence the USA has (that isn't strongman bullshit) outside the window. If your ideology is to do everything to piss off everyone that isn't your base, then sure he's got a coherent ideology I guess.
To answer your question with regards to factory jobs, look at Alabama's automotive industry boom as an example. Since the South doesn't really have unions like the North, they can get away with lower wages and less training requirements.
That unique situation also lets car manufacturers squeeze smaller part suppliers both logistically (I need 20,000 seats the next day or else you get sued) and financially (I only want to pay $10 per seat).
So you end up with workers that earn terrible wages for the work they do, no unions to secure half decent working conditions, insufficient training due to no unions strong-arming cheapass business owners to take the time to train workers adequately, operational health and safety breeches everywhere due to said insufficient care/training and a generally terrible work culture in smaller manufacturing businesses.
The sort of accidents you hear from these Alabama auto factories, like people falling into acid and people getting limbs crushed and trapped in machinery for hours because no one on-site knows how release the machine press, are things you'd never hear from any other first world Western country. Utterly horrifying that it can exist in such a widespread manner in a supposedly first world country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
