Kansas Crimson

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:16 am but does anyone want to argue that he's wrong?

Wrong?

He's infallible!

So of course he was right to insult and belittle the military leaders. It's how you motivate people, he showed us all how that works on his TV show for years. And him telling them they would all go bankrupt if they ran a business.....who better to explain fiscal responsibility to the generals than a super successful TV personality businessman like tiny.

I tell you DC, your ability to stifle your gag reflex as you suckle is most impressive. You have a future as professional toadie, my tax cuts are safe in your soft nimbly servicing hands.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:23 am

seahawk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:20 am

TDub wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:48 am

Lol. This is quite the stretch. You hqve the ability to make everything about race.

You're saying Trump is not vengeful or he's not racist? Have you ever listened to him speak?

He's absolutely vengeful.

He's absolutely very racially insensitive. I won't call him a full on racist, but he's definitely not sensitive with his words when it comes to matters of race (which isn't uncommon for people his age, but he's especially bad at it for someone in the spotlight).

Trump's entire moral code is transaction based. What is "right" to him is whatever results in him personally benefitting, either by getting money, attention or sexual satisfaction

He seems to see black people simply as people less likely to put money in his pocket. His rental policies that were deemed illegal were always purely to maximize the amount of money that went into his pocket because his similarly racist father taught him that renting only to white people was the highest likelihood of the rent getting paid.

That fundamental view of black people has shaped all of his interactions with them since. He doesnt seem to even consider them as capable of being anything more. 99% of his early interactions with black people were with the people he came in contact with as the owner and landlord of various slum buildings in NYC. I can imagine that he got quite an eyeful and if you're taught that this is who they are and you see it over and over I get why he has the absurd view of black people that he seems to have.

However, most people evolve as they mature and experience more people and more life. But unfortunately, Trump doesnt seem to have evolved much and seems to be stuck in eternal toddler mode because his and his family's money has made it possible.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:16 am Trump erupted to revive another frequent complaint: the war in Afghanistan, which was now America’s longest war. He demanded an explanation for why the United States hadn’t won in Afghanistan yet, now 16 years after the nation began fighting there in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Trump unleashed his disdain, calling Afghanistan a “loser war.” That phrase hung in the air and disgusted not only the military leaders at the table but also the men and women in uniform sitting along the back wall behind their principals. They all were sworn to obey their commander in chief’s commands, and here he was calling the war they had been fighting a loser war.

He clearly blamed the wrong people (i.e. the military officials rather than their civilian political masters) but does anyone want to argue that he's wrong?

No one has ever really defined what "winning" in Afghanistan is. Trump doesnt seem to give a shit about what we accomplish in Afghanistan. He views it through his own simpleton transactional moral code and realizes that there is nothing positive that he can personally gain from it. He cant get credit for winning it because there is no winning. There are always more terrorists and more people who want to attack our way of life. Hence a "loser war".

So, is he wrong? Technically, no. Is he wrong to see this purely as a "what can I get from this" situation and ignore the negative impact to those serving there bravely when their Commander In Chief makes these ignorant, self-serving comments? Absolutely yes.

TDub wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:23 am

seahawk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:20 am

TDub wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:48 am

Lol. This is quite the stretch. You hqve the ability to make everything about race.

You're saying Trump is not vengeful or he's not racist? Have you ever listened to him speak?

Im saying that racism and/or dislike of Obama are not the reasons Trump killed Soleimani. It would be outright silly to believe those were the driving factors.

you don’t think trump wanted his own “bin laden”?

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:01 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:23 am

seahawk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:20 am

You're saying Trump is not vengeful or he's not racist? Have you ever listened to him speak?

Im saying that racism and/or dislike of Obama are not the reasons Trump killed Soleimani. It would be outright silly to believe those were the driving factors.

you don’t think trump wanted his own “bin laden”?

It wasn't a coincidence that he made overt efforts to make his murder of QS look like a bigger, more important act than that of UBL.

But I dont think it was driven by racism against Obama, just by a simpleton desire to have his big kill be viewed as "the best". He's been pretty consistent in that he describes every single thing he does as "the best (fill in the blank) ever!"

Just more examples of his toddler brain. He's like my six year old. Every yummy food or cool toy or neat place she has ever experienced has been "the best ever".

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:37 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:16 am Trump erupted to revive another frequent complaint: the war in Afghanistan, which was now America’s longest war. He demanded an explanation for why the United States hadn’t won in Afghanistan yet, now 16 years after the nation began fighting there in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Trump unleashed his disdain, calling Afghanistan a “loser war.” That phrase hung in the air and disgusted not only the military leaders at the table but also the men and women in uniform sitting along the back wall behind their principals. They all were sworn to obey their commander in chief’s commands, and here he was calling the war they had been fighting a loser war.

He clearly blamed the wrong people (i.e. the military officials rather than their civilian political masters) but does anyone want to argue that he's wrong?

No one has ever really defined what "winning" in Afghanistan is. Trump doesnt seem to give a shit about what we accomplish in Afghanistan. He views it through his own simpleton transactional moral code and realizes that there is nothing positive that he can personally gain from it. He cant get credit for winning it because there is no winning. There are always more terrorists and more people who want to attack our way of life. Hence a "loser war".

So, is he wrong? Technically, no. Is he wrong to see this purely as a "what can I get from this" situation and ignore the negative impact to those serving there bravely when their Commander In Chief makes these ignorant, self-serving comments? Absolutely yes.

nah

japhy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:19 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:16 am but does anyone want to argue that he's wrong?

Wrong?

He's infallible!

So of course he was right to insult and belittle the military leaders. It's how you motivate people, he showed us all how that works on his TV show for years. And him telling them they would all go bankrupt if they ran a business.....who better to explain fiscal responsibility to the generals than a super successful TV personality businessman like tiny.

I tell you DC, your ability to stifle your gag reflex as you suckle is most impressive. You have a future as professional toadie, my tax cuts are safe in your soft nimbly servicing hands.

So...wut yer sayin' is you luv war?

Cuz that's wut I'm hearin'.

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:01 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:23 am

seahawk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:20 am

You're saying Trump is not vengeful or he's not racist? Have you ever listened to him speak?

Im saying that racism and/or dislike of Obama are not the reasons Trump killed Soleimani. It would be outright silly to believe those were the driving factors.

you don’t think trump wanted his own “bin laden”?

He's broken so many of you.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:49 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:01 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:23 am

Im saying that racism and/or dislike of Obama are not the reasons Trump killed Soleimani. It would be outright silly to believe those were the driving factors.

you don’t think trump wanted his own “bin laden”?

He's broken so many of you.

But not the intellectually superior DC.

Geezer wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:51 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:49 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:01 pm
you don’t think trump wanted his own “bin laden”?

He's broken so many of you.

But not the intellectually superior DC.

so close...

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:46 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:37 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:16 am Trump erupted to revive another frequent complaint: the war in Afghanistan, which was now America’s longest war. He demanded an explanation for why the United States hadn’t won in Afghanistan yet, now 16 years after the nation began fighting there in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Trump unleashed his disdain, calling Afghanistan a “loser war.” That phrase hung in the air and disgusted not only the military leaders at the table but also the men and women in uniform sitting along the back wall behind their principals. They all were sworn to obey their commander in chief’s commands, and here he was calling the war they had been fighting a loser war.

He clearly blamed the wrong people (i.e. the military officials rather than their civilian political masters) but does anyone want to argue that he's wrong?

No one has ever really defined what "winning" in Afghanistan is. Trump doesnt seem to give a shit about what we accomplish in Afghanistan. He views it through his own simpleton transactional moral code and realizes that there is nothing positive that he can personally gain from it. He cant get credit for winning it because there is no winning. There are always more terrorists and more people who want to attack our way of life. Hence a "loser war".

So, is he wrong? Technically, no. Is he wrong to see this purely as a "what can I get from this" situation and ignore the negative impact to those serving there bravely when their Commander In Chief makes these ignorant, self-serving comments? Absolutely yes.

nah

Nah what? I am the ONLY person on my team who braved the elements and drove in to work today. What's "nah"?

"nah" is a reply used to signify that you have fallen into the habit, so common here, of inventing explanations to fit your predispositions. There's no evidence whatsoever in the cited passage about Trump opposing Afghanistan for "purely transactional" reasons, much less that he insulted anyone other than those in the room with him. Moreover, these comments, which you interpret as purely ignorant and self-serving (but which are likely neither), wouldn't have been heard or even known by "those serving there bravely" if someone else hadn't leaked them.

Your entire response is pure emotive gibberish. There are plenty of reasons to think that Afghanistan has been an enormous failure, and yet you ignore all of them...cUZ TRUMp! That's...well...nah.

POTD.

But only because it's so true...and I'm glad you said it DC, because I'm absolutely guilty of that as well. Not only with politics, but with sports as well (in different ways obviously). Lots to be learned from in there.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:11 pm "nah" is a reply used to signify that you have fallen into the habit, so common here, of inventing explanations to fit your predispositions. There's no evidence whatsoever in the cited passage about Trump opposing Afghanistan for "purely transactional" reasons, much less that he insulted anyone other than those in the room with him. Moreover, these comments, which you interpret as purely ignorant and self-serving (but which are likely neither), wouldn't have been heard or even known by "those serving there bravely" if someone else hadn't leaked them.

Your entire response is pure emotive gibberish. There are plenty of reasons to think that Afghanistan has been an enormous failure, and yet you ignore all of them...cUZ TRUMp! That's...well...nah.

So "nah" isn't the same as "lulz?"

I got my DC decoder ring in the mail a few days ago and, I have to admit, it's kinda confusing.

Sigh

giggle

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:11 pm "nah" is a reply used to signify that you have fallen into the habit, so common here, of inventing explanations to fit your predispositions. There's no evidence whatsoever in the cited passage about Trump opposing Afghanistan for "purely transactional" reasons, much less that he insulted anyone other than those in the room with him. Moreover, these comments, which you interpret as purely ignorant and self-serving (but which are likely neither), wouldn't have been heard or even known by "those serving there bravely" if someone else hadn't leaked them.

Your entire response is pure emotive gibberish. There are plenty of reasons to think that Afghanistan has been an enormous failure, and yet you ignore all of them...cUZ TRUMp! That's...well...nah.

That it didnt even cross Trump's mind that his comments would leave the room when he chose to go off on a looney rant to a room full of Pentagon leaders and administration staff is why you dont put toddler reality tv hosts in the White House.

That had exactly zero chance of not being put into a book. Nearly everyone who gets jobs like those writes fucking books or is quoted as a "source within the administration" after they quit or get fired.

And yes, I am fully aware that there are 10,000 other reasons why Afghanistan "failed". But at the core of it, there isnt even a definition of what "winning" is. How do you win nothing?

My entire response is simply opinion. I am not here attempting to write government policy, law or a reference book on the topic. It's what seems to me to be happening. If what it seems to be to you is entirely different then this is a great forum to share those thoughts.

You seem to be a wealth of knowledge and information on the topic at hand. I am more than happy to learn new information on the topic if you could take a moment away from being a condescending asshat to share it.

Nah. Condescending ass hat is par for the course. You can't be condescending in nearly 75% of your posts and not expect the same to be returned your way.

My advice is don't argue outside your tier. Stick to arguing with dummies from "hicksville" like me and you won't get made to look foolish like DC just did to your post by literally dissecting it down to its' true roots.

Just embrace the rudeness around here. It'll make it easier to enjoy. Most of the libs take it easy on you since you participate in the echo chamber, so it's not that bad for you.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:47 pm

japhy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:19 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:16 am but does anyone want to argue that he's wrong?

Wrong?

He's infallible!

So of course he was right to insult and belittle the military leaders. It's how you motivate people, he showed us all how that works on his TV show for years. And him telling them they would all go bankrupt if they ran a business.....who better to explain fiscal responsibility to the generals than a super successful TV personality businessman like tiny.

I tell you DC, your ability to stifle your gag reflex as you suckle is most impressive. You have a future as professional toadie, my tax cuts are safe in your soft nimbly servicing hands.

So...wut yer sayin' is you luv war?

Cuz that's wut I'm hearin'.

I'm hearing pure emotive gibberish.