Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 365709 times)

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1629
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2450 on: March 01, 2017, 09:24:59 AM »
Trump is a master BS artist.  A lot of talk but no details.  Let's see the details and ignore the talk.  Don't be conned!

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2144
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2451 on: March 01, 2017, 09:25:33 AM »
I thought his speech was well done last night... nice to see the markets react this morning.

Would be nicer if absolutely any of his actions actually backed up his words.

What is the most important thing to you that he could do (action) that would make you feel as if he is backing up his words?

He could provide any tiny little inkling of a sketch of his awesome healthcare plan that's going to cover more people for less money with better care.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1460
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2452 on: March 01, 2017, 09:29:12 AM »
The bar is so low that even a hint of competence is enough to make people feel relieved.  Don't worry, he will return to form soon enough. 

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1629
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2453 on: March 01, 2017, 09:33:10 AM »
Wow, he was able to read from a teleprompter for an hour with words he didn't write.  Not impressed.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10892
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2454 on: March 01, 2017, 09:36:54 AM »
I guess we just have to disagree but I do not consider dropping the Atomic bomb a terrorist act.  It is an act of War.  If any of you recall we were losing the war for a while.  Using your definition of a terrorist act you could label almost anything in a time of war as terrorist act.

Al-Qaeda declared a holy war against the United States before the 9/11 attacks.  Since they were at war with the US when the attacks took place, under your definition 9/11 was an act of war, not a terrorist attack.  They were targeting civilians as an act of war, a war that they were losing.


How would you describe what the Japanese did to Koreans and Chinese in the war?  How would you describe how our prisoners were treated or how the Philippines were treated?  How you describe what they did in Pearl Harbor? 

I'd describe the actions of the Japanese to military prisoners during the war as war crimes, and their actions towards civilians as terror.  The attack on Pearl Harbor was a military action targeting the military of a foreign nation.  Is your argument that two wrongs make a right?


we did not start any of these wars but we had to end them.

In World War II, it's true that the US did not start the war.  US policies have certainly been responsible for wars and conflict in Nicaragua, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Panama, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan though.


As for what our Air force is going today, I have one question.  If they do not defeat the Extremists what will be the likely outcome to Israel, to Europe, and then America?

US drone strikes have been going on since 2004.  That's thirteen years, no defeat in sight yet.  When exactly do you anticipate that extremists will be defeated by these strikes?

People become radicalized and extreme in their viewpoints as a reaction to something.  That something might be poor living conditions in their country, it might be in reaction to an injustice perpetrated by another, it might be due to fear.  Bombing the hell out of another country will never address these problems.  You might be able to kill a few extremists, but I don't think you will ever be able to defeat extremism.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2144
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2455 on: March 01, 2017, 09:56:51 AM »
If everyone is going to give credit to Trump for the stock market rising, just remember to blame him when there is a downturn.  I personally don't think anything he has done has increased the overall fundamental value of the companies within the stock market.

So much this.

To be fair though, I generally view the market as divorced from reality on a short- to medium-term basis.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

v8rx7guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 953
  • Location: PNW
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2456 on: March 01, 2017, 09:58:53 AM »
I thought his speech was well done last night... nice to see the markets react this morning.

I watched the speech for 5 minutes and he was in his canned reading a teleprompter voice, similar to when he explained the tasks that each team need to do on an episode of the Apprentice, while the republicans overcheered him every 20 seconds, and the democrats looked disgusted, and the women democrats resembled a Miami Heat white-out playoff game.  I realized this was a complete waste of time and turned it off.

If everyone is going to give credit to Trump for the stock market rising, just remember to blame him when there is a downturn.  I personally don't think anything he has done has increased the overall fundamental value of the companies within the stock market.

No... you get to blame Obama for the downturn.  That's how it goes, right?  That's at least what I've heard we do.

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2707
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2457 on: March 01, 2017, 10:02:43 AM »
If everyone is going to give credit to Trump for the stock market rising, just remember to blame him when there is a downturn.  I personally don't think anything he has done has increased the overall fundamental value of the companies within the stock market.

So much this.

To be fair though, I generally view the market as divorced from reality on a short- to medium-term basis.

Hmmm, show me where I said the Trump Bump on Wall Street is rational. You wont find my words saying that.

And sure, the market will go down. i dont even like it being this ridiculously high,other than for a little temporary giddiness. It feels like 2005 when every week when our friends met for coffee we talked about how much our houses were going up in value, or how much one of them pulled out  of their equity. Fun times that crashed.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 10:06:41 AM by iris lily »

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2144
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2458 on: March 01, 2017, 10:15:22 AM »
Hmmm, show me where I said the Trump Bump on Wall Street is rational. You wont find my words saying that.


What the hell?
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6620
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2459 on: March 01, 2017, 10:19:20 AM »
I totally struck out last night with my trump speech bingo card.  I started out with the "he's orange" free square in the middle and then felt good about my chances when I hit "lies about crime stats" and "mentions the bible" and "promises to take away health-care from millions of Americans", but I needed "insults Rosie O'Donnell", "mocks the disabled" or "pussy" to win it, and he never delivered.

Maybe next week?
sol will be totally offline for most of June 2018.  You cannot reach me.  You will not hear from me.  I am not dead, just away from civilization.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1632
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2460 on: March 01, 2017, 11:01:41 AM »
I've never heard the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings described as being unlawful before.   Anyone have a reference?

I think pretty much everyone was being unlawful in WWII, not that that makes it right.

Japan was using Chinese girls to pleasure its troops, which has to violate some sort of convention

Germany was just gassing civilians by the millions

USA used atomic bombs on civilians

It was a fucked up time.

Working Mama

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2461 on: March 01, 2017, 11:04:24 AM »
"Who knew being president would be so complicated..."
This is hilarious! 



Just want to know how it will impact little people like me.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1632
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2462 on: March 01, 2017, 11:05:44 AM »
There were other acts of terrorism in WWII also.   I think we used flaming bats to set fire indiscriminately to Japanese homes.

Working Mama

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2463 on: March 01, 2017, 11:08:50 AM »
Ya, think Sheldon Adelson will re-consider his support for Trump?


former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3181
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2464 on: March 01, 2017, 12:42:23 PM »
I've never heard the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings described as being unlawful before.   Anyone have a reference?

I think pretty much everyone was being unlawful in WWII, not that that makes it right.

Japan was using Chinese girls to pleasure its troops, which has to violate some sort of convention

Germany was just gassing civilians by the millions

USA used atomic bombs on civilians

It was a fucked up time.
Can I ask what alternative strategy you had for ending the war with Japan?

Perhaps the Allies should have just let the USSR invade and occupy instead?
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5307
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2465 on: March 01, 2017, 12:52:56 PM »
If everyone is going to give credit to Trump for the stock market rising, just remember to blame him when there is a downturn.  I personally don't think anything he has done has increased the overall fundamental value of the companies within the stock market.

So much this.

To be fair though, I generally view the market as divorced from reality on a short- to medium-term basis.
Of course he hasn't improved fundamentals; doesn't mean that the market reaction isn't attributable to him.

My favorite part is that he can act crazy, get the market to rise, and when he finally acts normal for a moment, its even better for the markets. Will be fascinating to see how long this trend continues and what, if anything, will reverse it.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1026
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2466 on: March 01, 2017, 12:53:49 PM »
This is my reaction to the speech:

Last week, Srinivas Khuchibhotla was murdered by a man who told him to "get out of my country". 

Last night, Trump promoted his plan to create a new homeland security office focused on immigrants committing crimes.  He also wants DHS to publish a weekly list of immigrants who have committed crimes, despite statistics showing that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the rest of the population, and in fact are disproportionately responsible for starting many of our small businesses in this country.

Over the course of my life, I have known, worked with, lived with, and loved many people who also happen to be immigrants.  They deserve better than this from us.  May more of us be like Ian Grillot than like Adam Purinton and those who incite people like him to commit crimes against our immigrant neighbors, co-workers, family, and loved ones.

v8rx7guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 953
  • Location: PNW
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2467 on: March 01, 2017, 12:59:40 PM »
Last night, Trump promoted his plan to create a new homeland security office focused on immigrants committing crimes.  He also wants DHS to publish a weekly list of immigrants who have committed crimes, despite statistics showing that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the rest of the population, and in fact are disproportionately responsible for starting many of our small businesses in this country.

Where did he say that?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/donald-trump-speech-transcript-full-text/

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1026
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2468 on: March 01, 2017, 01:08:38 PM »
Last night, Trump promoted his plan to create a new homeland security office focused on immigrants committing crimes.  He also wants DHS to publish a weekly list of immigrants who have committed crimes, despite statistics showing that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the rest of the population, and in fact are disproportionately responsible for starting many of our small businesses in this country.

Where did he say that?



http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/donald-trump-speech-transcript-full-text/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/02/28/politics/donald-trump-voice-victim-reporting/index.html

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1629
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2469 on: March 01, 2017, 01:15:06 PM »
Are you tired of winning yet?

v8rx7guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 953
  • Location: PNW
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2470 on: March 01, 2017, 01:23:19 PM »
Last night, Trump promoted his plan to create a new homeland security office focused on immigrants committing crimes.  He also wants DHS to publish a weekly list of immigrants who have committed crimes, despite statistics showing that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the rest of the population, and in fact are disproportionately responsible for starting many of our small businesses in this country.

Where did he say that?



http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/donald-trump-speech-transcript-full-text/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/02/28/politics/donald-trump-voice-victim-reporting/index.html

Exactly... but do you notice the important word left out?  Undocumented,  undocumented, undocmented.  Trump is not going after legal immigrants.  Maybe some day people will catch on to that.  But until they do...

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4549
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2471 on: March 01, 2017, 01:32:28 PM »
Last night, Trump promoted his plan to create a new homeland security office focused on immigrants committing crimes.  He also wants DHS to publish a weekly list of immigrants who have committed crimes, despite statistics showing that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the rest of the population, and in fact are disproportionately responsible for starting many of our small businesses in this country.

Where did he say that?



http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/donald-trump-speech-transcript-full-text/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/02/28/politics/donald-trump-voice-victim-reporting/index.html

Exactly... but do you notice the important word left out?  Undocumented,  undocumented, undocmented.  Trump is not going after legal immigrants.  Maybe some day people will catch on to that.  But until they do...
Except that he already has. 

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1026
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2472 on: March 01, 2017, 01:35:39 PM »
Trump may say he's differentiating, but he's stirring up hate.  The immigrant who was killed in Kansas was here legally. 

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2473 on: March 01, 2017, 01:43:10 PM »
Trump may say he's differentiating, but he's stirring up hate.  The immigrant who was killed in Kansas was here legally.

I don't think Trump or any other sane person is defending that despicable murder.

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1995
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2474 on: March 01, 2017, 01:48:26 PM »
Stuff about how the US military is supposedly engaged in terrorism, such as:

"Al-Qaeda declared a holy war against the United States before the 9/11 attacks.  Since they were at war with the US when the attacks took place, under your definition 9/11 was an act of war, not a terrorist attack.  They were targeting civilians as an act of war, a war that they were losing."


Over the years I've rolled my eyes many times at stuff you've said about all the alleged illegal actions the US is engaged in (according to you), but drawing a moral equivalency between Al Qaeda and the US military as terrorists pretty much takes the cake. It defies credibility. I don't know what to say about conflating non-uniformed men who are not associated with any state or government, high-jacking civilian airliners and flying them into skyscrapers with civilians, with uniformed men during a declared war flying military planes to drop bombs on an enemy city. A war in which we were attacked, unprovoked, I might add, and which had dragged on for years at the cost of tens of thousands of American lives. Dropping bombs on a city during war was hardly novel. The only "novelty" was the payload/destructive power of the atomic weapons.

I get how reasonable people can come down on one side or the other as to whether dropping atomic weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were justifiable, but calling it "terrorism" the same as ISIS or Al Qaeda or North Korea is really just beyond the fringe.
"Not all quotes on the internet are accurate" -- Abraham Lincoln

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
  • Age: 35
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2475 on: March 01, 2017, 01:51:26 PM »
For the several stock market related comments: I actually think it is rational for stocks to go up thanks to Trump and the Republican congress. If they can actually slash the corporate rate big league/bigly that will have a material impact on earnings, especially for the S&P 500.

Think about the rate going from 35% to 15%. Or having a tax repatriation holiday.... that could be a 20% profit gain for a lot of companies.

Yes, I know the effective rate for a lot of big corporations are low, but even still I think it'll be big.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1026
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2476 on: March 01, 2017, 01:53:34 PM »
Trump may say he's differentiating, but he's stirring up hate.  The immigrant who was killed in Kansas was here legally.

I don't think Trump or any other sane person is defending that despicable murder.

But in the light of these events, do we really think it's a great time to specifically highlight all the immigrants who are committing crimes?  As opposed to, say, white men committing crimes?  This is the same reason I have a problem with churches preaching entire sermons against homosexuality when meanwhile, people are killing gay people for being gay.  It just gives people an excuse.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
  • Age: 35
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2477 on: March 01, 2017, 01:58:03 PM »
Stuff about how the US military is supposedly engaged in terrorism, such as:

"Al-Qaeda declared a holy war against the United States before the 9/11 attacks.  Since they were at war with the US when the attacks took place, under your definition 9/11 was an act of war, not a terrorist attack.  They were targeting civilians as an act of war, a war that they were losing."


Over the years I've rolled my eyes many times at stuff you've said about all the alleged illegal actions the US is engaged in (according to you), but drawing a moral equivalency between Al Qaeda and the US military as terrorists pretty much takes the cake. It defies credibility. I don't know what to say about conflating non-uniformed men who are not associated with any state or government, high-jacking civilian airliners and flying them into skyscrapers with civilians, with uniformed men during a declared war flying military planes to drop bombs on an enemy city. A war in which we were attacked, unprovoked, I might add, and which had dragged on for years at the cost of tens of thousands of American lives. Dropping bombs on a city during war was hardly novel. The only "novelty" was the payload/destructive power of the atomic weapons.

I get how reasonable people can come down on one side or the other as to whether dropping atomic weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were justifiable, but calling it "terrorism" the same as ISIS or Al Qaeda or North Korea is really just beyond the fringe.

I think your cognitive dissonance pretty huge here. Just because you are a state actor (i.e. have uniforms and are in military planes) doesn't make your actions somehow different. Indiscriminate bombing is indiscriminate bombing, is it not? Indiscriminate bombing to accomplish a political objective is by definition terrorism.

With your argument, if ISIS declared a country (which they did) and declared war on the US (which they did) and then have a guy dressed in a uniform blowing up a bus full of schoolchildren to remove the infidels from the holyland, that's not terrorism. But if it was just some dude without a uniform or state sponsorship it is terrorism? What?

If anything the nuclear weapons deployed against the Japanese were much worse than 9/11 or anything the muslim terrorists have done because their actions were temporal and the nuclear fallout affected generations.

Note that nobody as made a claim that there were any easier ways to end the war, or that the nuclear bombing didn't save lives in the long run. None of that matters. The fact is you had a two cities full of people, who had little if anything to do with the war, who were killed, en masse, so the population and government would be so scared they would quit. That's terrorism whether you're in a US military uniform or not.

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2478 on: March 01, 2017, 02:09:34 PM »

Again, you are claiming to know the intent of the US military without any basis for your belief other than propaganda.

You have to consider that their is a chain of command leading up to the president and we generally do have well defined mission goals when we move to bomb a target where we identify potential collateral damage and weigh it against the desire to take out hostile targets. There are certainly many things fucked up about the nature of the targets we are willing to go after depending on where they happen to be located. But just because our methods may be messed up doesn't make them terrorist acts necessarily.

Its true we don't always or even often have full access to all mission reports. But there is some oversight by elected officials for tactical decisions made by our military and we do get access to many reports after the fact. I would admit that our goals probably aren't always purely noble and economic interests and back room deals can cause us to take less than necessary actions.

I have yet to see military reports with express mission goals of executing civilians as a means to demoralize enemy combatants. On the face of it that doesn't even sound like a good tactic, because even if our killings are truly collateral damage and not terrorist acts meant to kill civilians to punish our enemies, as you not the perspective of the side on the receiving end may very well be the same. So intentionally and often going after civilian targets is likely to generate more terrorism not less.

I am not willing to dig up specifics, so its entirely possible there is a flaw in my logic, but I think just based on broad media coverage and our history there is reasonable evidence to suggest that our military and government leaders normally make a good effort to avoid excessive collateral damage and the vast majority of missions have a military target, even if they were botched and resulted in upsetting civilian causalities.

Were as terrorist attacks always state clear goals to harm civilians as retribution or to make a point. I agree the perception for those on the receiving end often wont care to make this distinction. I certainly wouldn't care to understand a countries reasons if there bombs regularly killed kids from my neighborhood. Thats a sad reality of the reaction you will get to collateral damage from those on the receiving end. And we need to take that into consideration when we pursue sustained strikes against targets living among civilian populations. It is much harder to simply excuse when we are not fighting a traditional war.

I kind of had the atomic bombs jump into my mind randomly when I was trying to think of known missions that appeared to have an express goal of killing civilians to demoralize an enemy. That is the only one I could think of but I admit I have a pretty limited historical repository of knowledge. It would be interesting to go back and read why they chose this method as opposed to seeking a military target. I would think it would send a similar message with a slightly less fucked up result. There is no doubt in retrospect that the use of those bombs spared us from a truly brutal ground invasion but its really hard to entirely see it that way when you consider we annihilated two civilian cities in a truly horrific manner.

I would wager that we could put together a coherent argument that a major purpose of those bombings was to protect American soldiers and end a long bloody war succinctly which I believe should be sufficient to distinguish it from terrorism and categorize it as one of many horrible decisions that often are made in war. But taking that position is a privilege of not being on the receiving end of the act. 

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3181
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2479 on: March 01, 2017, 02:11:57 PM »

If anything the nuclear weapons deployed against the Japanese were much worse than 9/11 or anything the muslim terrorists have done because their actions were temporal and the nuclear fallout affected generations.

Do you have evidence for the generational effect?  I thought that the children of survivors are showing no effects, and the two cities bombed are certainly now thriving.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4549
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2480 on: March 01, 2017, 02:14:23 PM »

If anything the nuclear weapons deployed against the Japanese were much worse than 9/11 or anything the muslim terrorists have done because their actions were temporal and the nuclear fallout affected generations.

Do you have evidence for the generational effect?  I thought that the children of survivors are showing no effects, and the two cities bombed are certainly now thriving.
"Seventy thousand new-borns were examined in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Nagasaki, 500-800 babies were examined in their homes. No evidence of genetic injuries were detected at that time. But today, in 2008, new studies done on survivors and their offspring are revealing conclusive DNA genetic changes and malformations. These studies utilize newer modalities to detect DNA injuries. The children of survivors, now adults, are concerned how genetic damage from the bomb may be transmitted to their children through generations."

shenlong55

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2481 on: March 01, 2017, 02:15:52 PM »
I don't know what to say about conflating non-uniformed men who are not associated with any state or government, high-jacking civilian airliners and flying them into skyscrapers with civilians, with uniformed men during a declared war flying military planes to drop bombs on an enemy city. A war in which we were attacked, unprovoked, I might add, and which had dragged on for years at the cost of tens of thousands of American lives. Dropping bombs on a city during war was hardly novel. The only "novelty" was the payload/destructive power of the atomic weapons.

I get how reasonable people can come down on one side or the other as to whether dropping atomic weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were justifiable, but calling it "terrorism" the same as ISIS or Al Qaeda or North Korea is really just beyond the fringe.

Not saying that the nuclear strikes were the wrong choice, but can you explain how the two actions were different without referencing legality or retribution?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2482 on: March 01, 2017, 02:42:42 PM »
Trump may say he's differentiating, but he's stirring up hate.  The immigrant who was killed in Kansas was here legally.

I don't think Trump or any other sane person is defending that despicable murder.

But in the light of these events, do we really think it's a great time to specifically highlight all the immigrants who are committing crimes?  As opposed to, say, white men committing crimes?  This is the same reason I have a problem with churches preaching entire sermons against homosexuality when meanwhile, people are killing gay people for being gay.  It just gives people an excuse.

Is he highlighting the crimes of legal immigrants or just those here illegally?  Those are very different things.  My understanding was the focus was to be on this in the country illegally.

I'm not sure it's necessary, because the data I've seen indicates that those in this country illegally aren't causing a disproportionate amount of crime (or at least violent crime).  Given that data, I don't see the need for another government department.

As it relates to responsibility, the open borders crowd has made a calculated move to ignore the distinction between those here legally and illegally.   I suspect immigrants here legally have vastly more positive economic impact than those in the country illegally.  Ignoring that distinct and obvious difference has, unfortunately, inflamed tensions in this country as well.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 02:47:38 PM by Midwest »

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2483 on: March 01, 2017, 02:53:07 PM »
Also in discussions about how we gather information about the US government, I think accusing most thoughtful people of offering only propaganda, when presenting a somewhat vague opinion based on the general news circulating around our country, is probably overkill.

All governments certainly produce propaganda to argue their reasoning and in that regard the US is no different form any other country. Fortunately in the US we still have generally strong freedom of the press, competing political parties, and freedom to criticize our government without retribution. So I think on average we still can generally cut through pure propaganda and put together at least some semblance of the truth about the the behavior of our government.

Do they obscure inconvenient truths about the actions we take abroad. Almost certainly. Are we as biased as any self interest nations, of course. But to label all of or even most of our drone strikes against terrorist targets as acts of terrorism on par with say 9/11 I think requires the general perception of our governments motives to completely and utterly false, given that all of our combined sources of news on our government put together a narrative that does not carry all the same tones of our leadership acting as a terrorist organization does.

In a country like China or Russia where freedom of the press and political decent is far more suppressed, I think the net effect of propaganda is more potent and obviously dangerously misleading. On that scale a state like North Korea would be an example of pure propaganda to the point of brainwashing its populace.

Western governments like the US rank at least among the group of countries where we are about as good as it gets for being able to be critical of our government. We certainly aren't free from bias by any stretch and can be mislead for certain but generally the information and alternative views are readily available to give you a chance of navigating the bullshit.

Its still possible to spew pure propaganda here especially given the self reinforcing echo chambers that have grown with the help of internet algorithms and general human bias. But generally agree more with the logic  of better informed thinkers than myself like Sam Harris, and I think others like Noam Chomsky are stretching wean the lean towards labeling our actions abroad as terrorism.

I understand I haven't really gathered any formal evidence to back my assertions thus far but I am really just sharing more for the sake of discussion than for a formal debate. Just so there is some context on why I am currently adverse to the notion that our government is regularly engaging in acts of terror.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6620
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2484 on: March 01, 2017, 03:04:57 PM »
Trump's new attacks on immigrants who commit crimes (VOICES) is just more of the same classic trump playbook, taking his own weaknesses and using them to attack his opponents.

It is precisely BECAUSE racist white Americans are murdering brown people in Kansas that trump decided to highlight in his speech the crimes committed by brown people against Americans.  Rather than admit he is stoking racist violence, he claims the targets of his violence are the problem.

He did the same thing when the media questioned the nomination of a 70 year old fat man photographed eating fried chicken, he promptly attacked Clinton's health and stamina.

He did the same thing when we learned he was a five time draft dodger, he promptly called for massive new military spending.

He did the same thing when we learned he built his casinos and hotels with Chinese steel, he immediately claimed all US companies should only use US steel.

He did the same thing when we learned his resorts employed a bunch of illegal immigrants, he started in with "build the wall".

He did the same thing when his foundation was fined for tax fraud, he called the Clinton foundation a criminal enterprise.

His marital infidelity, his criminal convictions, his business failures, his silver spoon, every single weakness becomes an attack line for use against his opponents.

Wake up, folks.  This is classic "freedom is slavery" spin from a master con man.  I predict that within the year, he will balloon the deficit and promptly blame democrats for their fiscal irresponsibility.

Using the murder of an immigrant to call for investigations into crimes committed by immigrants is disgusting, but no longer surprising.

« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 03:12:47 PM by sol »
sol will be totally offline for most of June 2018.  You cannot reach me.  You will not hear from me.  I am not dead, just away from civilization.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1632
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2485 on: March 01, 2017, 03:09:18 PM »
Trump.s new attacks on immigrants who commit crimes (VOICES) is just more of the same classic trump playbook, taking his own weaknesses and using them to attack his opponents.

It is precisely BECAUSE racist white Americans are murdering brown people in Kansas that trump decided to highlight in his speech the crimes committed by brown people against Americans.  Rather than admit he is stoking racist violence, he claims the targets of his violence are the problem.

He did the same thing when the media questioned the nomination of a 70 year old fat man photographed eating fried chicken, he promptly attacked Clinton's health and stamina.

He did the same thing when we learned be was a five time draft dodger, he promptly called for massive new military spending.

He did the same thing when we learned be built his casinos and hotels with Chinese steel, he immediately claimed all US companies should only use US steel.

He did the same thing when we learned his resorts employed a bunch of illegal immigrants, he started in with "build the wall".

He did the same thing when his foundation was fined for tax fraud, he called the Clinton foundation a criminal enterprise.

His marital infidelity, his criminal convictions, his business failures, his silver spoon, every single weakness becomes an attack line for use against his opponents.

Wake up, folks.  This is classic "freedom is slavery" spin from a master con man.  I predict that within the year, he will balloon the deficit and promptly blame democrats for their fiscal irresponsibility.

Using the murder of an immigrant to call for investigations into crimes committed by immigrants is disgusting, but no longer surprising.

 See also: "gaslighting"
And yes, it is disgusting. All of it.
No, really. I spend a lot of time thinking about rocks.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3181
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2486 on: March 01, 2017, 03:43:52 PM »

If anything the nuclear weapons deployed against the Japanese were much worse than 9/11 or anything the muslim terrorists have done because their actions were temporal and the nuclear fallout affected generations.

Do you have evidence for the generational effect?  I thought that the children of survivors are showing no effects, and the two cities bombed are certainly now thriving.
"Seventy thousand new-borns were examined in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Nagasaki, 500-800 babies were examined in their homes. No evidence of genetic injuries were detected at that time. But today, in 2008, new studies done on survivors and their offspring are revealing conclusive DNA genetic changes and malformations. These studies utilize newer modalities to detect DNA injuries. The children of survivors, now adults, are concerned how genetic damage from the bomb may be transmitted to their children through generations."
reference?
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2487 on: March 01, 2017, 04:21:10 PM »
Trump's new attacks on immigrants who commit crimes (VOICES) is just more of the same classic trump playbook, taking his own weaknesses and using them to attack his opponents.

It is precisely BECAUSE racist white Americans are murdering brown people in Kansas that trump decided to highlight in his speech the crimes committed by brown people against Americans.  Rather than admit he is stoking racist violence, he claims the targets of his violence are the problem.

Using the murder of an immigrant to call for investigations into crimes committed by immigrants is disgusting, but no longer surprising.

Couldn't the motivation for the new VOICE's program just as easily be in support of Trump's immigration policy (which is  unrelated to the Kansas racist)?  Also, while I don't see a necessarily see a need for the program, it targets crimes by illegal/undocumented immigrants, not legal immigrants.

Finally, is there more than on murder or murderer in Kansas that you are referring to?  My understanding this crime committed against the Garmin employees was perpetrated by a singular drunken racist.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5307
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2488 on: March 01, 2017, 07:40:50 PM »
Trump's new attacks on immigrants who commit crimes (VOICES) is just more of the same classic trump playbook, taking his own weaknesses and using them to attack his opponents.

It is precisely BECAUSE racist white Americans are murdering brown people in Kansas that trump decided to highlight in his speech the crimes committed by brown people against Americans.  Rather than admit he is stoking racist violence, he claims the targets of his violence are the problem.

Using the murder of an immigrant to call for investigations into crimes committed by immigrants is disgusting, but no longer surprising.

Couldn't the motivation for the new VOICE's program just as easily be in support of Trump's immigration policy (which is  unrelated to the Kansas racist)?  Also, while I don't see a necessarily see a need for the program, it targets crimes by illegal/undocumented immigrants, not legal immigrants.

Finally, is there more than on murder or murderer in Kansas that you are referring to?  My understanding this crime committed against the Garmin employees was perpetrated by a singular drunken racist.
Yes. Just like the guy who murdered Katie Stienle was an illegal immigrant with 5 prior felony convictions who was released by a sanctuary city police force - there are issues on all sides that need to be addressed, and most rational people can say that addressing one side does not mean that the other isn't also still a problem.

Some people will generalize from one incident to attack broad groups of people, but hopefully more reasonable voices will prevail over time.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1682
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2489 on: March 01, 2017, 10:31:09 PM »
Trump's new attacks on immigrants who commit crimes (VOICES) is just more of the same classic trump playbook, taking his own weaknesses and using them to attack his opponents.

It is precisely BECAUSE racist white Americans are murdering brown people in Kansas that trump decided to highlight in his speech the crimes committed by brown people against Americans.  Rather than admit he is stoking racist violence, he claims the targets of his violence are the problem.

Using the murder of an immigrant to call for investigations into crimes committed by immigrants is disgusting, but no longer surprising.

Couldn't the motivation for the new VOICE's program just as easily be in support of Trump's immigration policy (which is  unrelated to the Kansas racist)?  Also, while I don't see a necessarily see a need for the program, it targets crimes by illegal/undocumented immigrants, not legal immigrants.

Finally, is there more than on murder or murderer in Kansas that you are referring to?  My understanding this crime committed against the Garmin employees was perpetrated by a singular drunken racist.
Yes. Just like the guy who murdered Katie Stienle was an illegal immigrant with 5 prior felony convictions who was released by a sanctuary city police force - there are issues on all sides that need to be addressed, and most rational people can say that addressing one side does not mean that the other isn't also still a problem.

Some people will generalize from one incident to attack broad groups of people, but hopefully more reasonable voices will prevail over time.

I took the 'successful' parts of his address as curated anecdotes that are typically worthless on the internet.  Maybe they still have some value  in a focused Presidential address (the one girl saved by a modern miracle cure, the one soldier that made the difference, etc.), but to me it only brought the power of the internet vs. powerlessness of individuals into clearer contrast.  We don't live in the 50's anymore, fact checking and generalized truth eventually matters more than citing some select  incident to prove your point. 

But kudos to Trump for not doing more of the same and smacking his face in to real politicians that aren't going to mindlessly chant 'USA' and 'Build the Wall'.  It was refreshing to see him pivot to a new toolkit of empty tactics that, unfortunately, still works in this day and age.  I'm still wondering where the administration goes from here, now that it has shown that it can read from a script and has been burned by the sunlight of reality.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 10:33:31 PM by EscapeVelocity2020 »
Transitioning to FIRE'd albeit somewhat cautiously...

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1995
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2490 on: March 02, 2017, 06:16:27 AM »
I don't know what to say about conflating non-uniformed men who are not associated with any state or government, high-jacking civilian airliners and flying them into skyscrapers with civilians, with uniformed men during a declared war flying military planes to drop bombs on an enemy city. A war in which we were attacked, unprovoked, I might add, and which had dragged on for years at the cost of tens of thousands of American lives. Dropping bombs on a city during war was hardly novel. The only "novelty" was the payload/destructive power of the atomic weapons.

I get how reasonable people can come down on one side or the other as to whether dropping atomic weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were justifiable, but calling it "terrorism" the same as ISIS or Al Qaeda or North Korea is really just beyond the fringe.

Not saying that the nuclear strikes were the wrong choice, but can you explain how the two actions were different without referencing legality or retribution?

Yes I can, and it's all about context. Now, there's a helluva lot of context regarding WWII and terrorist attacks by ISIL, so I'll use an analogy instead:

Scenario 1: Man walks up to another man, puts a gun to his head and pulls the trigger, killing him instantly
Scenario 2: Man walks up to another man, puts a gun to his head and pulls the trigger, killing him instantly

These two statements are identical, and so someone might naively (and disingenuously) say, "See, these two things are the same, one is no better than the other. They were both designed to blow the guy's head off in a violent way." They could name all kinds of things like has been done above comparing the two acts to try to make them appear morally equivalent, but it's still disingenuous ("they're both designed to create terror," "both claimed they were in a war", "both involved innocent casualties", "both used violent weapons", etc.).

But here are three different contexts as examples:

Case 1: Habitual criminal with multiple prior violent felony crime convictions walks up to a father of four at a restaurant with his family, and shoots him in the head indiscriminately, or because he's a Muslim, or a Christian, or because he has a family which the criminal resents. Almost all people would describe this homicide as completely unjustified and evil.

Case 2: A counterterrorism agent shoots an ISIL person in the head who is one second or less away from pulling the trigger on a detonator that, when activated, will blow up a dirty bomb that will kill or maim thousands of civilians in a children's amusement park. Almost all would describe this homicide as completely justified and necessary, and some might even describe it as "good" since it saved thousands of innocent lives.

Case 3: A man in the throes of grief/temporary insanity shoots in the head another man who has just minutes prior murdered his family and raped his small children and burned their house down with the bodies in it, but who has surrendered himself and no longer poses an imminent threat to anyone. This case is in a grey area that makes lots of us uncomfortable. Plenty would describe it as unjustified, plenty would say it's justified. Some would say it's unjustified but understandable/forgivable, and lots of other variations.

I suggest the atomic bombings during WWII were a lot like Case 2 (justifiable) with a fair amount of Case 3 thrown in (some murky, grey areas). ISIL and Al Qaeda attacks are 100% Case 1.
"Not all quotes on the internet are accurate" -- Abraham Lincoln

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10892
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2491 on: March 02, 2017, 06:43:24 AM »
Stuff about how the US military is supposedly engaged in terrorism, such as:

"Al-Qaeda declared a holy war against the United States before the 9/11 attacks.  Since they were at war with the US when the attacks took place, under your definition 9/11 was an act of war, not a terrorist attack.  They were targeting civilians as an act of war, a war that they were losing."


Over the years I've rolled my eyes many times at stuff you've said about all the alleged illegal actions the US is engaged in (according to you), but drawing a moral equivalency between Al Qaeda and the US military as terrorists pretty much takes the cake. It defies credibility. I don't know what to say about conflating non-uniformed men who are not associated with any state or government, high-jacking civilian airliners and flying them into skyscrapers with civilians, with uniformed men during a declared war flying military planes to drop bombs on an enemy city. A war in which we were attacked, unprovoked, I might add, and which had dragged on for years at the cost of tens of thousands of American lives. Dropping bombs on a city during war was hardly novel. The only "novelty" was the payload/destructive power of the atomic weapons.

I get how reasonable people can come down on one side or the other as to whether dropping atomic weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were justifiable, but calling it "terrorism" the same as ISIS or Al Qaeda or North Korea is really just beyond the fringe.

Declaring a war does not give you carte blanche to attack civilians.  I don't think that it applies to ISIS or Al-Qaeda, and I don't think that it applies to any country.  My comment was in response to someone who said that he believes that declaring a war makes acts of terror acceptable.

I define acts as terrorism.  When you target civilians to try to terrorize a group of people into doing what you want, you're acting like a terrorist.  How you manage to kill the civilians to cause the terror doesn't really matter (pipe bomb, guerrilla attack, direct attack, carpet bombing, drone strike).  The clothes that the people doing the killing are wearing don't really matter (a perahan tunban, black balaclava, or starched US military uniform).  Whatever justification or excuse the people doing the killing have told themselves to make it feel better doesn't really matter (Jihad, We got attacked first, They might attack us in the future).  The act is still an act of terror, and it shouldn't be condoned.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10892
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2492 on: March 02, 2017, 06:50:27 AM »
I don't know what to say about conflating non-uniformed men who are not associated with any state or government, high-jacking civilian airliners and flying them into skyscrapers with civilians, with uniformed men during a declared war flying military planes to drop bombs on an enemy city. A war in which we were attacked, unprovoked, I might add, and which had dragged on for years at the cost of tens of thousands of American lives. Dropping bombs on a city during war was hardly novel. The only "novelty" was the payload/destructive power of the atomic weapons.

I get how reasonable people can come down on one side or the other as to whether dropping atomic weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were justifiable, but calling it "terrorism" the same as ISIS or Al Qaeda or North Korea is really just beyond the fringe.

Not saying that the nuclear strikes were the wrong choice, but can you explain how the two actions were different without referencing legality or retribution?

Yes I can, and it's all about context. Now, there's a helluva lot of context regarding WWII and terrorist attacks by ISIL, so I'll use an analogy instead:

Scenario 1: Man walks up to another man, puts a gun to his head and pulls the trigger, killing him instantly
Scenario 2: Man walks up to another man, puts a gun to his head and pulls the trigger, killing him instantly

These two statements are identical, and so someone might naively (and disingenuously) say, "See, these two things are the same, one is no better than the other. They were both designed to blow the guy's head off in a violent way." They could name all kinds of things like has been done above comparing the two acts to try to make them appear morally equivalent, but it's still disingenuous ("they're both designed to create terror," "both claimed they were in a war", "both involved innocent casualties", "both used violent weapons", etc.).

But here are three different contexts as examples:

Case 1: Habitual criminal with multiple prior violent felony crime convictions walks up to a father of four at a restaurant with his family, and shoots him in the head indiscriminately, or because he's a Muslim, or a Christian, or because he has a family which the criminal resents. Almost all people would describe this homicide as completely unjustified and evil.

Case 2: A counterterrorism agent shoots an ISIL person in the head who is one second or less away from pulling the trigger on a detonator that, when activated, will blow up a dirty bomb that will kill or maim thousands of civilians in a children's amusement park. Almost all would describe this homicide as completely justified and necessary, and some might even describe it as "good" since it saved thousands of innocent lives.

Case 3: A man in the throes of grief/temporary insanity shoots in the head another man who has just minutes prior murdered his family and raped his small children and burned their house down with the bodies in it, but who has surrendered himself and no longer poses an imminent threat to anyone. This case is in a grey area that makes lots of us uncomfortable. Plenty would describe it as unjustified, plenty would say it's justified. Some would say it's unjustified but understandable/forgivable, and lots of other variations.

I suggest the atomic bombings during WWII were a lot like Case 2 (justifiable) with a fair amount of Case 3 thrown in (some murky, grey areas). ISIL and Al Qaeda attacks are 100% Case 1.

You would have an argument if the people bombed were soldiers.

The civilians of Japan were not about to pull a trigger on a detonator.  They were eating supper, working at their jobs, sitting in school, cleaning the house, etc.

I'd suggest it was a lot more like:

Case 4:
A police officer is chasing a person who has just committed murder.  The suspect enters his house and the officer follows.  Once inside the house, the officer shoots the first person he sees.  Then he shoots the next person he sees.  Then he says "I'm going to keep shooting until my murder suspect gives himself up."  The murderer then sees the death of his family members and gives himself up.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1401
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2493 on: March 02, 2017, 07:59:17 AM »
I suggest the atomic bombings during WWII were a lot like Case 2 (justifiable) with a fair amount of Case 3 thrown in (some murky, grey areas). ISIL and Al Qaeda attacks are 100% Case 1.

There really is no murky or grey area. Over 200,000 CIVILIANS were killed instantly when the atomic bombs were dropped. And untold amounts died later. Those civilians did not have their finger on any bombs ready to detonate. It's not like case 2 at all in any scope, no matter how you spin it. There is no plausible scenario where murdering this many civilians going about their day, as you and I are today, is justifiable.

It was terrorism, point blank. Stop trying to justify it as something else. 

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1682
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2494 on: March 02, 2017, 08:16:15 AM »
It's interesting to see how young Americans view history.  Some oldsters would probably call this discussion 'armchair commentary'.  However, just like the present is for us today, I believe the powers that be made the best decisions they could given their circumstances, and I honor the fact that it was a reluctant and difficult choice agreed upon by consensus.  As far as anyone knew, the emperor of Japan was willing to fight until utter obliteration because of their culture (which was very much foreign and undecipherable to the West at that time).  Was a  nuclear attack warranted to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of solidiers on both sides?  We'll never know for sure, which is another quirk of revisiting history.

http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/   
Transitioning to FIRE'd albeit somewhat cautiously...

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2495 on: March 02, 2017, 08:17:03 AM »
I suggest the atomic bombings during WWII were a lot like Case 2 (justifiable) with a fair amount of Case 3 thrown in (some murky, grey areas). ISIL and Al Qaeda attacks are 100% Case 1.

There really is no murky or grey area. Over 200,000 CIVILIANS were killed instantly when the atomic bombs were dropped. And untold amounts died later. Those civilians did not have their finger on any bombs ready to detonate. It's not like case 2 at all in any scope, no matter how you spin it. There is no plausible scenario where murdering this many civilians going about their day, as you and I are today, is justifiable.

It was terrorism, point blank. Stop trying to justify it as something else.

If you believe those bombs were necessary to end the war, then it is quite plausible they saved untold lives (both US and Japanese).  Whether you support the decision or not, killing 200,000 people is an awful thing.  Killing millions (US and Japanese) is even worse.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5307
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2496 on: March 02, 2017, 08:35:07 AM »
I suggest the atomic bombings during WWII were a lot like Case 2 (justifiable) with a fair amount of Case 3 thrown in (some murky, grey areas). ISIL and Al Qaeda attacks are 100% Case 1.

There really is no murky or grey area. Over 200,000 CIVILIANS were killed instantly when the atomic bombs were dropped. And untold amounts died later. Those civilians did not have their finger on any bombs ready to detonate. It's not like case 2 at all in any scope, no matter how you spin it. There is no plausible scenario where murdering this many civilians going about their day, as you and I are today, is justifiable.

It was terrorism, point blank. Stop trying to justify it as something else.

If you believe those bombs were necessary to end the war, then it is quite plausible they saved untold lives (both US and Japanese).  Whether you support the decision or not, killing 200,000 people is an awful thing.  Killing millions (US and Japanese) is even worse.
Great point. While the bombings were terrible, it was considered that they would save lives (both soliders and civilians) on both sides of the conflict overall. A great evil to prevent a greater evil.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10892
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2497 on: March 02, 2017, 08:40:34 AM »
I suggest the atomic bombings during WWII were a lot like Case 2 (justifiable) with a fair amount of Case 3 thrown in (some murky, grey areas). ISIL and Al Qaeda attacks are 100% Case 1.

There really is no murky or grey area. Over 200,000 CIVILIANS were killed instantly when the atomic bombs were dropped. And untold amounts died later. Those civilians did not have their finger on any bombs ready to detonate. It's not like case 2 at all in any scope, no matter how you spin it. There is no plausible scenario where murdering this many civilians going about their day, as you and I are today, is justifiable.

It was terrorism, point blank. Stop trying to justify it as something else.

If you believe those bombs were necessary to end the war, then it is quite plausible they saved untold lives (both US and Japanese).  Whether you support the decision or not, killing 200,000 people is an awful thing.  Killing millions (US and Japanese) is even worse.

There's certainly an argument to be made that the nuclear bombing of civilians in Japan saved net lives.  I don't disagree that this is possible but we don't know.  Maybe Japan would have realized that their navy was completely crippled at this point, their manufacturing was screwed due to the loss of nearly all sources of raw materials, and their forces were completely ineffective and surrendered.  Maybe they would have fought on to the last man (Japan fully embraced war in a cultural way).  There are legitimate arguments to support both sides that can be made.

None of this changes the fact that it was an act of terrorism.

Modern drone strikes are perpetrated against a group of people that the military thinks (using demonstrably unreliable intelligence) might be terrorists, who might (or might not) plan to attack the US in the future.  The US executes these people and sizable numbers of civilians who live in the surrounding area.  This is an act of terror.

What it boils down to is that both of these acts of terror are implemented based upon the argument that the ends justify the means.  Are you really OK with that reasoning?  Because it can be used to justify anything.  It's certainly the argument suicide bombers the world over use to justify their actions.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2498 on: March 02, 2017, 08:41:13 AM »
I suggest the atomic bombings during WWII were a lot like Case 2 (justifiable) with a fair amount of Case 3 thrown in (some murky, grey areas). ISIL and Al Qaeda attacks are 100% Case 1.

There really is no murky or grey area. Over 200,000 CIVILIANS were killed instantly when the atomic bombs were dropped. And untold amounts died later. Those civilians did not have their finger on any bombs ready to detonate. It's not like case 2 at all in any scope, no matter how you spin it. There is no plausible scenario where murdering this many civilians going about their day, as you and I are today, is justifiable.

It was terrorism, point blank. Stop trying to justify it as something else.

If you believe those bombs were necessary to end the war, then it is quite plausible they saved untold lives (both US and Japanese).  Whether you support the decision or not, killing 200,000 people is an awful thing.  Killing millions (US and Japanese) is even worse.
Great point. While the bombings were terrible, it was considered that they would save lives (both soliders and civilians) on both sides of the conflict overall. A great evil to prevent a greater evil.

I would also argue that the use of two relatively small atomic weapons prevented the use of much larger and more advanced weapons later.  In Korea and Vietnam the use of nuclear weapons was raised but after we saw what the effect of the weapons were, both uses wee discarded.  If we had a weapon like that and never used it before, there would likely be a greater willingness to "try it out".  Better to try it out with a bomb in the low kilotons then one in the megaton range.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6620
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2499 on: March 02, 2017, 08:53:10 AM »
Great point. While the bombings were terrible, it was considered that they would save lives (both soliders and civilians) on both sides of the conflict overall. A great evil to prevent a greater evil.

You don't really believe this.  If you did, you would support ISIS beheading tourists.  What's one life, if it helps end the war?  All those crazy knife-wielding dudes in black masks ascribe to this philosophy, because they are deranged murderers.  They tell themselves their horrible acts are for the greater good.

And let's be honest about this, the decision to nuke Japan's civilian population centers wasn't about minimizing the loss of life on all sides, it was about minimizing the loss of American lives by maximizing the loss of Japanese lives. 

Even more specifically, it was about saving American soldiers by murdering Japanese civilians. 

« Last Edit: March 02, 2017, 09:34:01 AM by sol »
sol will be totally offline for most of June 2018.  You cannot reach me.  You will not hear from me.  I am not dead, just away from civilization.