CDZ Do We Need a Trump-Bashing Zone?

[jwoodie]

Then all of those who still can't accept the election results can engage in group therapy while the rest of us can rationally debate the new administration's policies and legislation.

What say you?

 

[Staidhup]

You have a very valid and constructive point. Thank you.

 

[bt404]

First, we shouldn't completely neglect what the president "says" i.e his words, as words can, and often do, predict action.

But I'm up to debate actual policies.


As everyone already knows, Trump's already attempted to solidify a ban on immigration from six Muslim countries--Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen-- despite the fact that there hasn't been a single terrorist attack on U.S soil where the perpetrators had actually originated from any of those countries. So this is a useless act that simply gives us the illusion of security whilst making us less secure by engineering racial and religious tension.

Trump plans on raising the military budget by 54 billion dollars despite the fact that the United States already spends more on military than the next four countries combined. Once again, another attempt to give us the illusion of safety and security. His authorized Yemen raid was responsible for 20 innocent civilian deaths, including 10 children, and one U.S Navy Seal. Anyone who criticized Hillary Clinton for endangering our fellow Americans in Benghazi has the minimal integrity to also be outraged in the Yemeni case. Ignoring the injustices of the Yemen raid says a lot. We can expect more of this types of state violence down the line where human costs outweigh any human benefits, if there were indeed any in this specific case...

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Then all of those who still can't accept the election results can engage in group therapy while the rest of us can rationally debate the new administration's policies and legislation.

What say you?

We already have one.

It's called Planet Earth.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[jwoodie]

First, we shouldn't completely neglect what the president "says" i.e his words, as words can, and often do, predict action.

But I'm up to debate actual policies.


As everyone already knows, Trump's already attempted to solidify a ban on immigration from six Muslim countries--Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen-- despite the fact that there hasn't been a single terrorist attack on U.S soil where the perpetrators had actually originated from any of those countries. So this is a useless act that simply gives us the illusion of security whilst making us less secure by engineering racial and religious tension.

Whether it is a "useless act" remains to be seen, and the "recruitment" argument has disproven by the last 8 years of Obama's appeasement policy.

Trump plans on raising the military budget by 54 billion dollars despite the fact that the United States already spends more on military than the next four countries combined. Once again, another attempt to give us the illusion of safety and security.

According to your logic, less military spending = greater security?

His authorized Yemen raid was responsible for 20 innocent civilian deaths, including 10 children, and one U.S Navy Seal. Anyone who criticized Hillary Clinton for endangering our fellow Americans in Benghazi has the minimal integrity to also be outraged in the Yemeni case. Ignoring the injustices of the Yemen raid says a lot. We can expect more of this types of state violence down the line where human costs outweigh any human benefits, if there were indeed any in this specific case...

You do not substantiate a valid comparison. Benghazi involved callous disregard for the safety of American citizens and a subsequent cover up at the highest levels of government. The Yemen raid was a military operation that resulted in higher than anticipated casualties. Do seriously believe that Trump ordered that raid over the objections of its military planners?

 

[Toronado3800]

Then all of those who still can't accept the election results can engage in group therapy while the rest of us can rationally debate the new administration's policies and legislation.
What say you?

I say we are doing fine. There was plenty of random Obama hate back in the 2016 era.

 

[bt404]

First, we shouldn't completely neglect what the president "says" i.e his words, as words can, and often do, predict action.

But I'm up to debate actual policies.


As everyone already knows, Trump's already attempted to solidify a ban on immigration from six Muslim countries--Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen-- despite the fact that there hasn't been a single terrorist attack on U.S soil where the perpetrators had actually originated from any of those countries. So this is a useless act that simply gives us the illusion of security whilst making us less secure by engineering racial and religious tension.

Whether it is a "useless act" remains to be seen, and the "recruitment" argument has disproven by the last 8 years of Obama's appeasement policy.

Trump plans on raising the military budget by 54 billion dollars despite the fact that the United States already spends more on military than the next four countries combined. Once again, another attempt to give us the illusion of safety and security.

According to your logic, less military spending = greater security?

His authorized Yemen raid was responsible for 20 innocent civilian deaths, including 10 children, and one U.S Navy Seal. Anyone who criticized Hillary Clinton for endangering our fellow Americans in Benghazi has the minimal integrity to also be outraged in the Yemeni case. Ignoring the injustices of the Yemen raid says a lot. We can expect more of this types of state violence down the line where human costs outweigh any human benefits, if there were indeed any in this specific case...

You do not substantiate a valid comparison. Benghazi involved callous disregard for the safety of American citizens and a subsequent cover up at the highest levels of government. The Yemen raid was a military operation that resulted in higher than anticipated casualties. Do seriously believe that Trump ordered that raid over the objections of its military planners?

"Whether it is a "useless act" remains to be seen, and the "recruitment" argument has disproven by the last 8 years of Obama's appeasement policy."

I merely implied that Trump's ban would alienate a good proportion of Muslim moderates (yes there are many...such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz, and the numerous refugee families simply looking to flee their war torn lands. Any family in their dire position would do the same...), and this alienation could provide even more ideological ammunition for radicals to say, "hey see, America really IS at war with Islam", which is false. Again, plenty of moderate Muslims on our side, but they happen to get less media coverage than the extremist apologetics like Rezla Aslan....All in the all, the notion that Islam is the sole reason why people join ISIS is overly simplistic. There are geo-political and economic histories that one needs to thoroughly discuss if one wants to really explore the myriad of reasons for jihadism. Keep in mind, the real victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims...

According to your logic, less military spending = greater security?

We are already secure...again, I revert to the chart above. We spend four times more than the next four countries combined. Who are we even remotely threatened by? Actually though? Even if, for the sake of argument, we say ISIS is actually a threat, it is by no means a threat that requires billions of dollars more in security funding, when, meanwhile, a fifth of our adolescent population live in virtual poverty and our infrastructure is practically crumbling. If we wanted to, our current military capacities could wipe out the entire middle east....the problem with that would be obviously the incomprehensible civilian death toll which I, as an American, wouldn't want on my conscience and neither would you.

Also, we have reached a stage in history where ANY act of war between the major world powers--China, Russia--would result in nuclear apocalypse. If any war is to be fought between China/Russia and the United States, it'll be through third world proxies. All in all, I don't know what "threat" your referring to that requires 50 billion dollars more in spending when we have other problems here at home....

You do not substantiate a valid comparison. Benghazi involved callous disregard for the safety of American citizens and a subsequent cover up at the highest levels of government. The Yemen raid was a military operation that resulted in higher than anticipated casualties. Do seriously believe that Trump ordered that raid over the objections of its military planners?

You said you want to debate actions and not words. By actions I'd say the two incidents are VERY comparable. You believe that Hillary had a "callous" disregard for safety of American citizens. How do you know she was "callous" in it? Incompetent probably. We don't really know how she felt about it so no point in speculating words. As far as actions are concerned i.e actual human consequences, the raid is far more serious.

The Benghazi attack resulted in about 4 American deaths and 7 Libyan. The Yemen raid resulted in 30 innocent Yemen deaths and one American....unless you believe American lives are worth more than Yemeni lives, then you can't possibly say that it's an "invalid" comparison. Did Trump order the raid over objections of military planners? Who knows. We do know that he's someone who's quick with the trigger finger and it wouldn't be surprising if he just said "fuck it, just do it" without any regard for readiness or what the possible consequences would be.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not really a safe topic for the CDZ. Too much potential to get contentious. And it's really a question more for Announcements or the Flame Zone depending on the kind of responses you're looking for ----

 

[Kat]

I say no way. Why should the entire forum be about bashing Trump? How boring. (no disrespect intended). People would never just bash Trump in one place.