WHAT ABOUT THIS? WHAT ABOUT THAT? DONALD TRUMP SAW A YELLOW CAT.

The Juggler

This article is a few years old but it is as pertinent as ever.

Whataboutism or bothsidesing things are out of control these days. Everyone is guilty of it from time to time but it seems to be the option of choice among those on the right to fuel their disingenuous arguments that quite often seem to be (and please correct me if I am wrong) made in bad faith. I think it is one of the things that is dividing us further and contributing to the downfall of our democracy and I don't know how we can dig ourselves out of this hole.

So I just wanted to start a discussion. Post examples you come across in your day to day lives as well as in the media. Maybe we can have a discussion about how to improve our dialogue so we can try to have more meaningful discussions?  



https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/whataboutism-what-about-it/2017/08/17/4d05ed36-82b4-11e7-b359-15a3617c767b_story.html

Whataboutism: The Cold War tactic, thawed by Putin, is brandished by Donald Trump

By Dan Zak

August 18, 2017

What about antifa? What about free speech? What about the guy who shot Steve Scalise? What about the mosque in Minnesota that got bombed? What about North Korea? What about murders in Chicago? What about Ivanka at the G-20? What about Vince Foster? If white pride is bad, then what about gay pride? What about the stock market? What about those 33,000 deleted emails? What about Hitler? What about the Crusades? What about the asteroid that may one day kill us all? What about Benghazi?

What about what about what about.

We’ve gotten very good at what-abouting.

The president has led the way.

His campaign may or may not have conspired with Moscow, but President Trump has routinely employed a durable old Soviet propaganda tactic. Tuesday’s bonkers news conference in New York was Trump’s latest act of “whataboutism,” the practice of short-circuiting an argument by asserting moral equivalency between two things that aren’t necessarily comparable. In this case, the president wondered whether the removal of a statue of Confederate leader Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville — where white supremacists clashed this weekend with counterprotesters — would lead to the teardown of others.

Donald Trump’s news conference on Tuesday offered a crash course in whataboutism. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

Robert E. Lee? What about George Washington?

“George Washington was a slave owner,” Trump said to journalists in the lobby of his corporate headquarters. “Are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson?”

Using the literal “what about” construction, Trump then went on to blame “both sides” for the violence in Charlottesville.

“What about the ‘alt-left’ that came charging at the, as you say, the ‘alt-right’?” the president said. “Do they have any semblance of guilt?”

For a nanosecond, especially to an uncritical listener, this stab at logic might seem interesting, even thought-provoking, and that’s why it’s a useful political tool. Whataboutism appears to broaden context, to offer a counterpoint, when really it’s diverting blame, muddying the waters and confusing the hell out of rational listeners.

“Not only does it help to deflect your original argument but it also throws you off balance,” says Alexey Kovalev, an independent Russian journalist, on the phone from Moscow. “You’re expecting to be in a civilized argument that doesn’t use cheap tricks like that. You are playing chess and your opponent — while making a lousy move — he just punches you on the nose.”

[‘There are no fine people marching with Nazis’: Seth Meyers on Trump’s Charlottesville response]

Vladi­mir Putin has made a national sport of what-abouting. In 2014, when a journalist challenged him on his annexation of Crimea, Putin brought up the U.S. annexation of Texas. The American invasion of Iraq is constantly what-abouted on state television, to excuse all kinds of Russian behavior.

In Edward Snowden, “Russia has found the ultimate whataboutism mascot,” the Atlantic’s Olga Khazan wrote in 2013. “By granting him asylum, Russia casts itself, even if momentarily, as a defender of human rights, and the U.S. as the oppressor.”

The term was first coined as “whataboutery” and “the whatabouts,” in stories about the Irish Republican Army in the 1970s, according to linguist Ben Zimmer. But the practice goes back to the chilly depths of the Cold War.

“An old joke 50 years ago was that if you went to a Stalinist and criticized the Soviet slave-labor camps, the Stalinist would say, ‘Well what about the lynchings in the American South?’” philosopher Noam Chomsky once said.

In 1970, as the Soviet Union made headlines for imprisoning dissidents, Ukrainian artist Viktor Koretsky created a propaganda lithograph titled “American Politics at home and abroad.” It depicted U.S. police beating a black man and a U.S. soldier standing over a dead body, presumably in Vietnam.

In May 1985 the U.S. State Department funded a conference at the Madison Hotel on the fallacy of “moral equivalence,” a philosophical cousin of whataboutism. The goal was to tamp down comparisons of the 1983 U.S. invasion of Grenada with the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, among other instances. The actions may be comparable, the State Department implied, but the intentions were not.

“If it is no longer possible to distinguish between freedom and despotism,” said Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to the United Nations, then “the erosion of the foundation of a distinctively Western, democratic civilization is already far advanced and the situation serious indeed.”

[‘Clinically insane,’ ‘7th circle of hell’: Late-night hosts process Trump’s news conference]

Flash forward 30 years. President Trump’s Twitter feed has been a whataboutism showcase, with Hillary Clinton as the usual target.

April 3: “Did Hillary Clinton ever apologize for receiving the answers to the debate? Just asking!”

June 26: “The real story is that President Obama did NOTHING after being informed in August about Russian meddling.”

July 22: “. . . What about all of the Clinton ties to Russia . . .”

Googling of “Whataboutism” began to climb sharply in November of last year; this week, with Charlottesville, it reached an all-time high. “You look at both sides,” Trump said Tuesday, after saying “what about” three times. “I think there is blame on both sides . . . and nobody wants to say that.”

Some people saw this as brave truth-telling, and as exposing double standards in the media.

“Trump-haters on both sides of the aisle simply cry ‘whataboutism,’ as if it were a magic spell to ward off rational thought,” wrote Joel B. Pollak on the right-wing site Breitbart.com, in an article headlined “The attack on ‘whataboutism’ is a defense of hypocrisy.”

Trump’s most flagrant what-about, though, was used not in defense of himself, but in defense of Russia.

“Putin’s a killer,” Bill O’Reilly said to Trump in a February interview.

“There are a lot of killers,” Trump whatabouted. “We’ve got a lot of killers. What do you think — our country’s so innocent?”

“That’s exactly the kind of argument that Russian propagandists have used for years to justify some of Putin’s most brutal policies,” wrote Michael McFaul, former ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration.

“Moral relativism — ‘whataboutism’ — has always been a favorite weapon of illiberal regimes,” Russian chessmaster and activist Garry Kasparov told the Columbia Journalism Review in March. “For a U.S. president to employ it against his own country is tragic.”

The Juggler

Another article from a few years ago....

https://www.npr.org/2017/03/17/520435073/trump-embraces-one-of-russias-favorite-propaganda-tactics-whataboutism

Trump Embraces One Of Russia's Favorite Propaganda Tactics — Whataboutism

• 
  

DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN

Twitter

An employee at a Moscow gift shop polishes traditional Russian wooden nesting dolls depicting Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Alexander Nemenov/AFP/Getty Images

President Trump has developed a consistent tactic when he's criticized: say that someone else is worse.

This week, when the Congressional Budget Office estimated that Republicans' health care plan would leave 24 million additional people uninsured in 2026, Trump's first move wasn't a direct response. Instead, he took to Twitter to blast the Affordable Care Act (commonly referred to as Obamacare), criticizing how much was spent on promoting it and asking people to tweet their own criticisms.

Prior to that, when the floodlights were on communications between then-Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions and the Russian ambassador, Trump's tweets were all about Democrats' contact with the Russians:

Famously, he even did a reverse version of this — defending not the U.S., but Russia — when he told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly about his "respect" for Russian President Vladimir Putin, as former Hillary Clinton State Department and campaign adviser Jake Sullivan noted in Foreign Policy in February.

When O'Reilly countered that "Putin is a killer," Trump responded, "There are a lot of killers. You got a lot of killers. What, you think our country is so innocent?"

Article continues after sponsor message

This particular brand of changing the subject is called "whataboutism" — a simple rhetorical tactic heavily used by the Soviet Union and, later, Russia. And its use in Russia helps illustrate how it could be such a useful tool now, in America. As Russian political experts told NPR, it's an attractive tactic for populists in particular, allowing them to be vague but appear straight-talking at the same time.

A schoolyard taunt, brought to a global level

The idea behind whataboutism is simple: Party A accuses Party B of doing something bad. Party B responds by changing the subject and pointing out one of Party A's faults — "Yeah? Well what about that bad thing you did?" (Hence the name.)

It's not exactly a complicated tactic — any grade-schooler can master the "yeah-well-you-suck-too-so-there" defense. But it came to be associated with the USSR because of the Soviet Union's heavy reliance upon whataboutism throughout the Cold War and afterward, as Russia.

Whataboutism — particularly directed toward the U.S. — was so pervasive in the USSR that it became a joke among Soviets, often in a subversive genre called "Armenian Radio" jokes, explains one Russia analyst.

now, but you [in America] lynch Negroes,'" said Vadim Nikitin, a Russia analyst and freelance writer. Eventually, that punchline came to be synonymous with the whole phenomenon of whataboutism, Nikitin said.

But whataboutism extends beyond rhetoric, said Dmitry Dubrovsky, a professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs.

"It's not only a narrative practice; it's real policy," he said. "For example, the Russians installed a special institute to cover the violation of human rights in the United States."

Dubrovsky is referring to a branch of the organization called the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation, which is widely considered pro-Kremlin. In fact, IDC shuttered its New York office in 2015 because it said it had achieved its goals, Buzzfeed reported: "The human-rights situation has improved in the United States," IDC Director Andranik Migranyan told Gazeta.ru.

One big reason whataboutism is so attractive: it's a simple way to shrug off criticism or even responsibility for any wrongdoings.

"You're saying that in the negotiations we have, that no one is perfect, and no one can claim to be, and as such, what this does is let you off the hook," Nikitin said.

So when Trump denigrated Obamacare amid heavy criticism of the GOP's health care plan, he seemed to be saying that whatever the GOP plan's flaws, at least it isn't the worst they could do (the worst, in his eyes, being Obamacare). Instead of giving a reasoned defense, he went for blunt offense, which is a hallmark of whataboutism.

Trump and Putin's common weapon

Whataboutism has been common in Putin's Russia. The Atlantic cited one such example in 2014, noting that when the Kremlin faced criticisms of its treatment of protesters, government officials responded, "What about the United Kingdom? Breaking the law during public gatherings there could lead to a fine of 5,800 pounds sterling there or even prison."

One reason that Trump and Putin might both find whataboutism useful, said one expert in Russian politics, is that they have common political impulses.

"[Putin and Trump] are both populist leaders. They always try to be as uncertain as possible. And for a populist that's important," Dubrovsky said. "Whataboutism is a very substantial part of populism rhetoric."

The idea, Dubrovsky posited, is that a populist leader wants to keep his masses of supporters on his side. Getting too specific on a policy or a position risks creating rifts within that base of support. Pointing to a common enemy, on the other hand, is a great way to unify a group.

In addition, there can be an implicit toughness to whataboutism, in that it openly acknowledges that nobody is perfect.

"I think what the Russian discourse is [is] that it's, in fact, very difficult to cleave perfectly to [a set of morals]," Nikitin said. "And anyone that claims to the contrary can be unmasked as, in fact, being just as flawed as anyone else is."

Whataboutism flattens moral nuances into a black-and-white worldview. But in this worldview, it's very difficult to be the good guy; idealism is the ultimate naïveté, and anyone who dares to criticize another can be "unmasked" as a hypocrite. This creates a useful moral equivalency, as Nikitin added: if nobody is perfect, there's license to do all sorts of imperfect things.

The idea, he said, is that "you've got to be practical and kind of bloody-minded and get your hands dirty. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying."

That closely mirrors what Trump told O'Reilly: "What, and we're so innocent?"

It might come off as brash truth-telling, but it's nevertheless a defense of a world leader who has been accused of killing his critics.

At least one Russian foresaw the Trump-Putin rhetorical parallels, even in the early days of the administration. In late January, Russian journalist Alexey Kovalev warned American journalists that Trump might take on some Putinesque media tactics:

"The thing is that when you think it's your mission to make him [Putin] admit a lie, or an inconsistency in his previous statements [because he tends to make U-turns in his statements on policies], when you try to point out those inconsistencies or catch him red-handed lying, there's no point because he'll evade your question, he knows that he can just drown you in meaningless factoids or false moral equivalencies or by using what is called 'whataboutism.'"

Kovalev was right on many counts: Trump has indeed proved to be inconsistent, make political "U-turns," repeatedly state falsehoods, and, of course, engage in whataboutism. And while Kovalev (and perhaps others) may have foreseen it, it's no less striking that while Putin's Russia is causing the Trump administration so much trouble, Trump nevertheless often sounds an awful lot like Putin.

Halifax2TheMax

The Juggler said:

This article is a few years old but it is as pertinent as ever.

Whataboutism or bothsidesing things are out of control these days. Everyone is guilty of it from time to time but it seems to be the option of choice among those on the right to fuel their disingenuous arguments that quite often seem to be (and please correct me if I am wrong) made in bad faith. I think it is one of the things that is dividing us further and contributing to the downfall of our democracy and I don't know how we can dig ourselves out of this hole.

So I just wanted to start a discussion. Post examples you come across in your day to day lives as well as in the media. Maybe we can have a discussion about how to improve our dialogue so we can try to have more meaningful discussions?  



https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/whataboutism-what-about-it/2017/08/17/4d05ed36-82b4-11e7-b359-15a3617c767b_story.html

Whataboutism: The Cold War tactic, thawed by Putin, is brandished by Donald Trump

By Dan Zak

August 18, 2017

What about antifa? What about free speech? What about the guy who shot Steve Scalise? What about the mosque in Minnesota that got bombed? What about North Korea? What about murders in Chicago? What about Ivanka at the G-20? What about Vince Foster? If white pride is bad, then what about gay pride? What about the stock market? What about those 33,000 deleted emails? What about Hitler? What about the Crusades? What about the asteroid that may one day kill us all? What about Benghazi?

What about what about what about.

We’ve gotten very good at what-abouting.

The president has led the way.

His campaign may or may not have conspired with Moscow, but President Trump has routinely employed a durable old Soviet propaganda tactic. Tuesday’s bonkers news conference in New York was Trump’s latest act of “whataboutism,” the practice of short-circuiting an argument by asserting moral equivalency between two things that aren’t necessarily comparable. In this case, the president wondered whether the removal of a statue of Confederate leader Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville — where white supremacists clashed this weekend with counterprotesters — would lead to the teardown of others.

Donald Trump’s news conference on Tuesday offered a crash course in whataboutism. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

Robert E. Lee? What about George Washington?

“George Washington was a slave owner,” Trump said to journalists in the lobby of his corporate headquarters. “Are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson?”

Using the literal “what about” construction, Trump then went on to blame “both sides” for the violence in Charlottesville.

“What about the ‘alt-left’ that came charging at the, as you say, the ‘alt-right’?” the president said. “Do they have any semblance of guilt?”

For a nanosecond, especially to an uncritical listener, this stab at logic might seem interesting, even thought-provoking, and that’s why it’s a useful political tool. Whataboutism appears to broaden context, to offer a counterpoint, when really it’s diverting blame, muddying the waters and confusing the hell out of rational listeners.

“Not only does it help to deflect your original argument but it also throws you off balance,” says Alexey Kovalev, an independent Russian journalist, on the phone from Moscow. “You’re expecting to be in a civilized argument that doesn’t use cheap tricks like that. You are playing chess and your opponent — while making a lousy move — he just punches you on the nose.”

[‘There are no fine people marching with Nazis’: Seth Meyers on Trump’s Charlottesville response]

Vladi­mir Putin has made a national sport of what-abouting. In 2014, when a journalist challenged him on his annexation of Crimea, Putin brought up the U.S. annexation of Texas. The American invasion of Iraq is constantly what-abouted on state television, to excuse all kinds of Russian behavior.

In Edward Snowden, “Russia has found the ultimate whataboutism mascot,” the Atlantic’s Olga Khazan wrote in 2013. “By granting him asylum, Russia casts itself, even if momentarily, as a defender of human rights, and the U.S. as the oppressor.”

The term was first coined as “whataboutery” and “the whatabouts,” in stories about the Irish Republican Army in the 1970s, according to linguist Ben Zimmer. But the practice goes back to the chilly depths of the Cold War.

“An old joke 50 years ago was that if you went to a Stalinist and criticized the Soviet slave-labor camps, the Stalinist would say, ‘Well what about the lynchings in the American South?’” philosopher Noam Chomsky once said.

In 1970, as the Soviet Union made headlines for imprisoning dissidents, Ukrainian artist Viktor Koretsky created a propaganda lithograph titled “American Politics at home and abroad.” It depicted U.S. police beating a black man and a U.S. soldier standing over a dead body, presumably in Vietnam.

In May 1985 the U.S. State Department funded a conference at the Madison Hotel on the fallacy of “moral equivalence,” a philosophical cousin of whataboutism. The goal was to tamp down comparisons of the 1983 U.S. invasion of Grenada with the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, among other instances. The actions may be comparable, the State Department implied, but the intentions were not.

“If it is no longer possible to distinguish between freedom and despotism,” said Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to the United Nations, then “the erosion of the foundation of a distinctively Western, democratic civilization is already far advanced and the situation serious indeed.”

[‘Clinically insane,’ ‘7th circle of hell’: Late-night hosts process Trump’s news conference]

Flash forward 30 years. President Trump’s Twitter feed has been a whataboutism showcase, with Hillary Clinton as the usual target.

April 3: “Did Hillary Clinton ever apologize for receiving the answers to the debate? Just asking!”

June 26: “The real story is that President Obama did NOTHING after being informed in August about Russian meddling.”

July 22: “. . . What about all of the Clinton ties to Russia . . .”

Googling of “Whataboutism” began to climb sharply in November of last year; this week, with Charlottesville, it reached an all-time high. “You look at both sides,” Trump said Tuesday, after saying “what about” three times. “I think there is blame on both sides . . . and nobody wants to say that.”

Some people saw this as brave truth-telling, and as exposing double standards in the media.

“Trump-haters on both sides of the aisle simply cry ‘whataboutism,’ as if it were a magic spell to ward off rational thought,” wrote Joel B. Pollak on the right-wing site Breitbart.com, in an article headlined “The attack on ‘whataboutism’ is a defense of hypocrisy.”

Trump’s most flagrant what-about, though, was used not in defense of himself, but in defense of Russia.

“Putin’s a killer,” Bill O’Reilly said to Trump in a February interview.

“There are a lot of killers,” Trump whatabouted. “We’ve got a lot of killers. What do you think — our country’s so innocent?”

“That’s exactly the kind of argument that Russian propagandists have used for years to justify some of Putin’s most brutal policies,” wrote Michael McFaul, former ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration.

“Moral relativism — ‘whataboutism’ — has always been a favorite weapon of illiberal regimes,” Russian chessmaster and activist Garry Kasparov told the Columbia Journalism Review in March. “For a U.S. president to employ it against his own country is tragic.”

Whatabout the PTAPE?

gimmesometruth27

that is all he can do. what about this? what about that? much easier to do than have to answer a direct question.

brianlux

I tried to think of an example of whataboutism and couldn't off hand.  I do think we can do much better at, as you suggested Juggler, "improve our dialogue so we can try to have more meaningful discussions."   The key to that, I would say, is not so much to back down on our opinions or beliefs but, rather, to be better listeners even when we disagree with another view point, and respond in a more diplomatic, thoughtful, polite even manner.  That doesn't mean watering down our stance.  Let me give an example of what I mean:

Less useful response:  "If you think Joe Blow would be a good choice for the senate, you are full of shit and don't know your ass from a hole the ground.  That guy is a fucking dick."

More useful response:  "With all due respect, I know you sincerely believe Joe Blow would be a good choice for the senate, but have you considered how his ban on Pearl Jam concerts would affect your enjoyment of music, not to mention that fact that he has proven himself to be misogynistic and you are a woman?"

And I got to thinking about the basic notion of how divided we are and that gets a bit more tricky for me.  I am far more "liberal" than "conservative" (I hate labels), and more aligned (now more than ever) with Democrats than I am with Republicans, but I am not afraid to criticize some actions and beliefs of Democrats/ liberals when I don't agree with them.  For example, I think liberals are often hypocritical when it comes to environment.  Saying "I'm green" doesn't necessarily make you more green than someone else.
But now here's the catch:  The way so very many Republicans have latched on to the Trump version of Republican policy and thinking and behaving, rather than the more thoughtful approach of the Lincoln Project folks, I cannot help but see a great imbalance here.  I could try all day to look for ways to give Trump Republicans more credit for having good ideas but I cannot possibly do that.  Not when I look at January 6th, 2021.  Not when I think about how much money has been wasted on that "wall" that is doing no good and a lot of harm by disrupting wildlife migration patterns.  Not when Trump blames California for wildfires on federal lands and not doing enough "raking".  Not when Trump, Larry Elder, and the like prove themselves to hate women and make looking and sounding stupid popular or encouraging others to act that way.  I just can't do it.  I can try to be more polite to my right wing adversaries, but I cannot see them as having equally good ideas and objectives to most of what Democrats want to accomplish.   I would be lying if I tried so hard to be diplomatic if I said, "Yeah, Republicans and Democrats are about equal in their good points and bad points."  Can't do it.

And so the gap increases.  I'll try to be more considerate of my adversaries.  If there is more I can do than that, please tell me.

hedonist

It’s good to question things. Hopefully there isn’t an agenda attached, but if asked with sincerity, I would respond in kind.

Hell, on this site alone I was recently and “subtly” told to leave a thread because I dared to offer a different view.

Treat people the way you would want to be treated. If someone’s talking shit from the gutter, why join them?

dankind

Actually, I’m seeing it more from democrats now, who almost seem giddy that their democracy was brought to the brink of destruction by a megalomaniac who just so happened to run as a republican. 

Almost any criticism I see of the current administration is met with, but Trump ______.

I mean, sure, if that’s who you want to measure up to, then good for you team blue. You win the twit Olympics. Way to jump over those matchsticks. 

The other thing you could do is actively listen to the policy aspects that are being criticized and see if we can improve upon them as a nation. But I guess until we’re far enough removed from 45, they’ll continue being lazy and the nation will continue to divide and suffer. 

HughFreakingDillon

dankind said:

Actually, I’m seeing it more from democrats now, who almost seem giddy that their democracy was brought to the brink of destruction by a megalomaniac who just so happened to run as a republican. 

Almost any criticism I see of the current administration is met with, but Trump ______.

I mean, sure, if that’s who you want to measure up to, then good for you team blue. You win the twit Olympics. Way to jump over those matchsticks. 

The other thing you could do is actively listen to the policy aspects that are being criticized and see if we can improve upon them as a nation. But I guess until we’re far enough removed from 45, they’ll continue being lazy and the nation will continue to divide and suffer. 

this is a hill I'm constantly climbing around here. he's the bar now. and unless you reach it, there is no criticism allowed. 

it's unfortunate. 

sometimes it's warranted, when pointing out obvious hypocrisy of trumpsters, otherwise.....

Halifax2TheMax

HughFreakingDillon said:

dankind said:

Actually, I’m seeing it more from democrats now, who almost seem giddy that their democracy was brought to the brink of destruction by a megalomaniac who just so happened to run as a republican. 

Almost any criticism I see of the current administration is met with, but Trump ______.

I mean, sure, if that’s who you want to measure up to, then good for you team blue. You win the twit Olympics. Way to jump over those matchsticks. 

The other thing you could do is actively listen to the policy aspects that are being criticized and see if we can improve upon them as a nation. But I guess until we’re far enough removed from 45, they’ll continue being lazy and the nation will continue to divide and suffer. 

this is a hill I'm constantly climbing around here. he's the bar now. and unless you reach it, there is no criticism allowed. 

it's unfortunate. 

sometimes it's warranted, when pointing out obvious hypocrisy of trumpsters, otherwise.....

Criticism without offering alternative policy proposals or solutions from the other side is what irks me. Crisis on the border, what solutions do you propose other than building a wall? Now we get “Biden doesn’t like black people now.” Way to advance the immigration debate.

Can anyone name or point me to policy proposals or a policy speech from repubs on any of the following (and I’ll start with health care because it’s been 11 years).

healthcare
global climate change
immigration
gun violence 
police reform
racial and financial inequality 
costs of higher ed
alternative energy development & investment 
etc., etc., etc.

I have a lot more to say on this thread and it’s topic but I don’t have time right now, need more time to formulate my thoughts and I’m not sure anyone gives a shit anyway so why bother.

Its been at least 13 years, maybe longer, since the repubs have had any serious policy proposals to address this nation’s most pressing issues.

Halifax2TheMax

Here’s the Lincoln Project’s take, of which I agree to some degree but those disaffected repubs need to move left. I’m done moving right. We see where and what that’s gotten us.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CT-Uvmslwwc/?utm_medium=copy_link

HughFreakingDillon

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dankind said:

Actually, I’m seeing it more from democrats now, who almost seem giddy that their democracy was brought to the brink of destruction by a megalomaniac who just so happened to run as a republican. 

Almost any criticism I see of the current administration is met with, but Trump ______.

I mean, sure, if that’s who you want to measure up to, then good for you team blue. You win the twit Olympics. Way to jump over those matchsticks. 

The other thing you could do is actively listen to the policy aspects that are being criticized and see if we can improve upon them as a nation. But I guess until we’re far enough removed from 45, they’ll continue being lazy and the nation will continue to divide and suffer. 

this is a hill I'm constantly climbing around here. he's the bar now. and unless you reach it, there is no criticism allowed. 

it's unfortunate. 

sometimes it's warranted, when pointing out obvious hypocrisy of trumpsters, otherwise.....

Criticism without offering alternative policy proposals or solutions from the other side is what irks me. Crisis on the border, what solutions do you propose other than building a wall? Now we get “Biden doesn’t like black people now.” Way to advance the immigration debate.

Can anyone name or point me to policy proposals or a policy speech from repubs on any of the following (and I’ll start with health care because it’s been 11 years).

healthcare
global climate change
immigration
gun violence 
police reform
racial and financial inequality 
costs of higher ed
alternative energy development & investment 
etc., etc., etc.

I have a lot more to say on this thread and it’s topic but I don’t have time right now, need more time to formulate my thoughts and I’m not sure anyone gives a shit anyway so why bother.

Its been at least 13 years, maybe longer, since the repubs have had any serious policy proposals to address this nation’s most pressing issues.

some of those issues they actually do have policy, you just don't agree with them. the others they don't see as policy issues at all. 

Halifax2TheMax

HughFreakingDillon said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dankind said:

Actually, I’m seeing it more from democrats now, who almost seem giddy that their democracy was brought to the brink of destruction by a megalomaniac who just so happened to run as a republican. 

Almost any criticism I see of the current administration is met with, but Trump ______.

I mean, sure, if that’s who you want to measure up to, then good for you team blue. You win the twit Olympics. Way to jump over those matchsticks. 

The other thing you could do is actively listen to the policy aspects that are being criticized and see if we can improve upon them as a nation. But I guess until we’re far enough removed from 45, they’ll continue being lazy and the nation will continue to divide and suffer. 

this is a hill I'm constantly climbing around here. he's the bar now. and unless you reach it, there is no criticism allowed. 

it's unfortunate. 

sometimes it's warranted, when pointing out obvious hypocrisy of trumpsters, otherwise.....

Criticism without offering alternative policy proposals or solutions from the other side is what irks me. Crisis on the border, what solutions do you propose other than building a wall? Now we get “Biden doesn’t like black people now.” Way to advance the immigration debate.

Can anyone name or point me to policy proposals or a policy speech from repubs on any of the following (and I’ll start with health care because it’s been 11 years).

healthcare
global climate change
immigration
gun violence 
police reform
racial and financial inequality 
costs of higher ed
alternative energy development & investment 
etc., etc., etc.

I have a lot more to say on this thread and it’s topic but I don’t have time right now, need more time to formulate my thoughts and I’m not sure anyone gives a shit anyway so why bother.

Its been at least 13 years, maybe longer, since the repubs have had any serious policy proposals to address this nation’s most pressing issues.

some of those issues they actually do have policy, you just don't agree with them. the others they don't see as policy issues at all. 

Please, point me to them. What specifically have repubs proposed as solutions to any of those aforementioned issues? I may not agree with them but I can’t even find them. Surely, you can link them or tell me where I can read up on them seeing how they exist and you seem pretty confident in that? Which ones do “they not see as policy issues at all?”

The Juggler

dankind said:

Actually, I’m seeing it more from democrats now, who almost seem giddy that their democracy was brought to the brink of destruction by a megalomaniac who just so happened to run as a republican. 

Almost any criticism I see of the current administration is met with, but Trump ______.

I mean, sure, if that’s who you want to measure up to, then good for you team blue. You win the twit Olympics. Way to jump over those matchsticks. 

The other thing you could do is actively listen to the policy aspects that are being criticized and see if we can improve upon them as a nation. But I guess until we’re far enough removed from 45, they’ll continue being lazy and the nation will continue to divide and suffer. 

This is a good point. I did say we all do it from time to time.

However it should be fair game to draw comparisons between the previous administration, no matter how god awful that admin was. I guess the question is how to make the distinction between making a comparison and making a whataboutism....

hedonist

The Juggler said:

dankind said:

Actually, I’m seeing it more from democrats now, who almost seem giddy that their democracy was brought to the brink of destruction by a megalomaniac who just so happened to run as a republican. 

Almost any criticism I see of the current administration is met with, but Trump ______.

I mean, sure, if that’s who you want to measure up to, then good for you team blue. You win the twit Olympics. Way to jump over those matchsticks. 

The other thing you could do is actively listen to the policy aspects that are being criticized and see if we can improve upon them as a nation. But I guess until we’re far enough removed from 45, they’ll continue being lazy and the nation will continue to divide and suffer. 

This is a good point. I did say we all do it from time to time.

However it should be fair game to draw comparisons between the previous administration, no matter how god awful that admin was. I guess the question is how to make the distinction between making a comparison and making a whataboutism....

Your last sentence…that’s what it’s about. And if it needs to be backed up, then back it up. 

mickeyrat

you can never dig yourself out of a hole. you've dug yourself into one. the solution is to stop fucking digging.

brianlux

mickeyrat said:

you can never dig yourself out of a hole. you've dug yourself into one. the solution is to stop fucking digging.

Except moles.  They just keep popping up everywhere! 

Lerxst1992

dankind said:

Actually, I’m seeing it more from democrats now, who almost seem giddy that their democracy was brought to the brink of destruction by a megalomaniac who just so happened to run as a republican. 

Almost any criticism I see of the current administration is met with, but Trump ______.

I mean, sure, if that’s who you want to measure up to, then good for you team blue. You win the twit Olympics. Way to jump over those matchsticks. 

The other thing you could do is actively listen to the policy aspects that are being criticized and see if we can improve upon them as a nation. But I guess until we’re far enough removed from 45, they’ll continue being lazy and the nation will continue to divide and suffer. 

The dems I interact with are far from giddy about Trumps assault on democracy. Not sure if you are assuming that assault is over, but when one party is changing laws to give the power to certify elections to gerrymandered state legislatures (and not an official elected by the entire state evenly), that assault is far from over. Thats closer to apartheid than democracy. 

Also assuming this is only a trump problem on the R side is not the best estimate. Consider that the MTGs, Boeberts, DeSantis, Gaetz and their ilk are the stars of their party, while credible conservatives like Gonzalez,  Kinsinger and Cheney are getting run out of the party, its safe to assume the trump disease has infected their party in a profound manner. Trump didn't "happen" to run as a republican.  He made a calculated decision that their base was ripe for manipulation. 

How Independents don't pick up on this is confusing. 

benjs

dankind said:

Actually, I’m seeing it more from democrats now, who almost seem giddy that their democracy was brought to the brink of destruction by a megalomaniac who just so happened to run as a republican. 

Almost any criticism I see of the current administration is met with, but Trump ______.

I mean, sure, if that’s who you want to measure up to, then good for you team blue. You win the twit Olympics. Way to jump over those matchsticks. 

The other thing you could do is actively listen to the policy aspects that are being criticized and see if we can improve upon them as a nation. But I guess until we’re far enough removed from 45, they’ll continue being lazy and the nation will continue to divide and suffer. 

"But Trump" should be used if Trump actively did something which perpetuated or worsened a situation left for Biden (particularly if these were actions which offered the country no alternative gain whatsoever). That said, while the "but Trump" is justified, it only serves to form context, and doesn't absolve Biden of blame (especially for actions performed poorly under Biden's administration with ample time to prepare - i.e. the Afghanistan withdrawal, whose end date was known to Biden since taking office). 

If given the opportunity, Trump could bungle anything. Despite Biden's request to "compare him to the alternative, not the almighty", if the alternative is incompetent, he has to be held to higher standards.

Halifax2TheMax

One would think that one could find the dem policy on the DNC website and the repub policy on the RNC website, right? Take healthcare. See the links below and let me know when you find the repub policy on healthcare. It’s only been 11 years. Good luck and turtle speed.

https://democrats.org/who-we-are/

https://www.gop.com/

And the gop platform is still up. From 2016. 

Lerxst1992

benjs said:

dankind said:

Actually, I’m seeing it more from democrats now, who almost seem giddy that their democracy was brought to the brink of destruction by a megalomaniac who just so happened to run as a republican. 

Almost any criticism I see of the current administration is met with, but Trump ______.

I mean, sure, if that’s who you want to measure up to, then good for you team blue. You win the twit Olympics. Way to jump over those matchsticks. 

The other thing you could do is actively listen to the policy aspects that are being criticized and see if we can improve upon them as a nation. But I guess until we’re far enough removed from 45, they’ll continue being lazy and the nation will continue to divide and suffer. 

"But Trump" should be used if Trump actively did something which perpetuated or worsened a situation left for Biden (particularly if these were actions which offered the country no alternative gain whatsoever). That said, while the "but Trump" is justified, it only serves to form context, and doesn't absolve Biden of blame (especially for actions performed poorly under Biden's administration with ample time to prepare - i.e. the Afghanistan withdrawal, whose end date was known to Biden since taking office). 

If given the opportunity, Trump could bungle anything. Despite Biden's request to "compare him to the alternative, not the almighty", if the alternative is incompetent, he has to be held to higher standards.

The GOP started the war, negotiated the withdrawal, slow walked the emigration of our translators and other afghan allies and left Biden with a unsustainable minimal troop level if he needed to keep the taliban subdued. Biden would have needed to deploy more troops to keep the country safe from the taliban if he repeatedly extended the withdrawal date. 

All of these factors are hugely significant in the withdrawal, but the media’s analysis is Biden is nearly 100% to blame for a terrorist attack in a terrorist nation, that was completely overrun by the most dangerous terrorist organization on earth in days. No one in the military told Biden this was a likelihood. 

When the gop is in the White House during an terrorist attack we are ordered to come together for unity. When a democratic president is in office, he gets blamed. How independents don’t see this is stunning.

War is messy, including the withdrawal from war. Blame should be assigned to those responsible for it. Not the one leader with the courage to end it.

people repeatedly mock trump as a political neophyte. But he had the genius to realize withdrawing from Afghanistan would me messy even though he wanted out. He did the political calculation and passed on withdrawal, yet Biden had the political courage to announce the end within half a year of his presidency.

how independents do not grasp this is stunning

dankind

Lerxst1992 said:

How Independents don't pick up on this is confusing. 

Lerxst1992 said:

How independents don’t see this is stunning.

how independents do not grasp this is stunning

What’s it like being so much more in tune than than all those head-in-the-sand independents?

benjs

Lerxst1992 said:

benjs said:

dankind said:

Actually, I’m seeing it more from democrats now, who almost seem giddy that their democracy was brought to the brink of destruction by a megalomaniac who just so happened to run as a republican. 

Almost any criticism I see of the current administration is met with, but Trump ______.

I mean, sure, if that’s who you want to measure up to, then good for you team blue. You win the twit Olympics. Way to jump over those matchsticks. 

The other thing you could do is actively listen to the policy aspects that are being criticized and see if we can improve upon them as a nation. But I guess until we’re far enough removed from 45, they’ll continue being lazy and the nation will continue to divide and suffer. 

"But Trump" should be used if Trump actively did something which perpetuated or worsened a situation left for Biden (particularly if these were actions which offered the country no alternative gain whatsoever). That said, while the "but Trump" is justified, it only serves to form context, and doesn't absolve Biden of blame (especially for actions performed poorly under Biden's administration with ample time to prepare - i.e. the Afghanistan withdrawal, whose end date was known to Biden since taking office). 

If given the opportunity, Trump could bungle anything. Despite Biden's request to "compare him to the alternative, not the almighty", if the alternative is incompetent, he has to be held to higher standards.

The GOP started the war, negotiated the withdrawal, slow walked the emigration of our translators and other afghan allies and left Biden with a unsustainable minimal troop level if he needed to keep the taliban subdued. Biden would have needed to deploy more troops to keep the country safe from the taliban if he repeatedly extended the withdrawal date. 

All of these factors are hugely significant in the withdrawal, but the media’s analysis is Biden is nearly 100% to blame for a terrorist attack in a terrorist nation, that was completely overrun by the most dangerous terrorist organization on earth in days. No one in the military told Biden this was a likelihood. 

When the gop is in the White House during an terrorist attack we are ordered to come together for unity. When a democratic president is in office, he gets blamed. How independents don’t see this is stunning.

War is messy, including the withdrawal from war. Blame should be assigned to those responsible for it. Not the one leader with the courage to end it.

people repeatedly mock trump as a political neophyte. But he had the genius to realize withdrawing from Afghanistan would me messy even though he wanted out. He did the political calculation and passed on withdrawal, yet Biden had the political courage to announce the end within half a year of his presidency.

how independents do not grasp this is stunning

"Political genius"? Trump recognized that the withdrawal was popular (i.e. once wheels set in motion, there's no politically safe way to turn back), but that there was no possible way of executing the withdrawal well. Solution: take the credit for the withdrawal plan, make the next guy take care of the backlash when it doesn't go well. I don't perceive any brilliance there, just the usual.

As for Biden's side of affairs - here's the reality: it was after chaos and public outcry that more resources were committed to the withdrawal, and all of a sudden, with those additional resources, things started to go better. I don't find it a stretch that those resources, timed and deployed properly, would've prevented or minimized that chaos and outcry.

This isn't exactly 2+2 = 4, but a POTUS should be able to add up the context:
-the USA was at war with Afghanistan for 20 years, over something not perpetrated by their people
-the USA was a constant policing force over the region for 20 years
-the USA announced its retreat from policing the region
-the entity reclaiming control (the Taliban) is an entity that wasn't tolerable to the US when the war started - what changed?
-the Taliban has stated animosity against the US
-the region has known enemies of the Taliban, with a commitment to produce chaos
-the Taliban has goals counter to many in modern Afghanistan, specifically with respect to female rights

Biden had a year and a half, and I believe more resources could've been committed, and earlier. 

nicknyr15

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

How Independents don't pick up on this is confusing. 

Lerxst1992 said:

How independents don’t see this is stunning.

how independents do not grasp this is stunning

What’s it like being so much more in tune than than all those head-in-the-sand independents?

Ha! A few people here are the absolute smartest people in the room 24/7. I used to find it condescending and rude. Now it’s just laughable. 

mickeyrat

benjs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

benjs said:

dankind said:

Actually, I’m seeing it more from democrats now, who almost seem giddy that their democracy was brought to the brink of destruction by a megalomaniac who just so happened to run as a republican. 

Almost any criticism I see of the current administration is met with, but Trump ______.

I mean, sure, if that’s who you want to measure up to, then good for you team blue. You win the twit Olympics. Way to jump over those matchsticks. 

The other thing you could do is actively listen to the policy aspects that are being criticized and see if we can improve upon them as a nation. But I guess until we’re far enough removed from 45, they’ll continue being lazy and the nation will continue to divide and suffer. 

"But Trump" should be used if Trump actively did something which perpetuated or worsened a situation left for Biden (particularly if these were actions which offered the country no alternative gain whatsoever). That said, while the "but Trump" is justified, it only serves to form context, and doesn't absolve Biden of blame (especially for actions performed poorly under Biden's administration with ample time to prepare - i.e. the Afghanistan withdrawal, whose end date was known to Biden since taking office). 

If given the opportunity, Trump could bungle anything. Despite Biden's request to "compare him to the alternative, not the almighty", if the alternative is incompetent, he has to be held to higher standards.

The GOP started the war, negotiated the withdrawal, slow walked the emigration of our translators and other afghan allies and left Biden with a unsustainable minimal troop level if he needed to keep the taliban subdued. Biden would have needed to deploy more troops to keep the country safe from the taliban if he repeatedly extended the withdrawal date. 

All of these factors are hugely significant in the withdrawal, but the media’s analysis is Biden is nearly 100% to blame for a terrorist attack in a terrorist nation, that was completely overrun by the most dangerous terrorist organization on earth in days. No one in the military told Biden this was a likelihood. 

When the gop is in the White House during an terrorist attack we are ordered to come together for unity. When a democratic president is in office, he gets blamed. How independents don’t see this is stunning.

War is messy, including the withdrawal from war. Blame should be assigned to those responsible for it. Not the one leader with the courage to end it.

people repeatedly mock trump as a political neophyte. But he had the genius to realize withdrawing from Afghanistan would me messy even though he wanted out. He did the political calculation and passed on withdrawal, yet Biden had the political courage to announce the end within half a year of his presidency.

how independents do not grasp this is stunning

"Political genius"? Trump recognized that the withdrawal was popular (i.e. once wheels set in motion, there's no politically safe way to turn back), but that there was no possible way of executing the withdrawal well. Solution: take the credit for the withdrawal plan, make the next guy take care of the backlash when it doesn't go well. I don't perceive any brilliance there, just the usual.

As for Biden's side of affairs - here's the reality: it was after chaos and public outcry that more resources were committed to the withdrawal, and all of a sudden, with those additional resources, things started to go better. I don't find it a stretch that those resources, timed and deployed properly, would've prevented or minimized that chaos and outcry.

This isn't exactly 2+2 = 4, but a POTUS should be able to add up the context:
-the USA was at war with Afghanistan for 20 years, over something not perpetrated by their people
-the USA was a constant policing force over the region for 20 years
-the USA announced its retreat from policing the region
-the entity reclaiming control (the Taliban) is an entity that wasn't tolerable to the US when the war started - what changed?
-the Taliban has stated animosity against the US
-the region has known enemies of the Taliban, with a commitment to produce chaos
-the Taliban has goals counter to many in modern Afghanistan, specifically with respect to female rights

Biden had a year and a half, and I believe more resources could've been committed, and earlier. 

a year and a half?

Halifax2TheMax

More like 4 months, from assuming office to the POOTWH agreed upon May 30th deadline. Set up to fail.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timeline-of-u-s-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/

Lerxst1992

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

How Independents don't pick up on this is confusing. 

Lerxst1992 said:

How independents don’t see this is stunning.

how independents do not grasp this is stunning

What’s it like being so much more in tune than than all those head-in-the-sand independents?

They keep falling for the GOP nonsense as what was posted earlier and edited out. Why else would biden drop five in the polls after having the courage to end the war 75% of the country wanted him to?

that ain’t Ds flipping on him, it’s the fickle independents, the group most responsible for allowing trump to get elected


 

Lerxst1992

benjs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

benjs said:

dankind said:

Actually, I’m seeing it more from democrats now, who almost seem giddy that their democracy was brought to the brink of destruction by a megalomaniac who just so happened to run as a republican. 

Almost any criticism I see of the current administration is met with, but Trump ______.

I mean, sure, if that’s who you want to measure up to, then good for you team blue. You win the twit Olympics. Way to jump over those matchsticks. 

The other thing you could do is actively listen to the policy aspects that are being criticized and see if we can improve upon them as a nation. But I guess until we’re far enough removed from 45, they’ll continue being lazy and the nation will continue to divide and suffer. 

"But Trump" should be used if Trump actively did something which perpetuated or worsened a situation left for Biden (particularly if these were actions which offered the country no alternative gain whatsoever). That said, while the "but Trump" is justified, it only serves to form context, and doesn't absolve Biden of blame (especially for actions performed poorly under Biden's administration with ample time to prepare - i.e. the Afghanistan withdrawal, whose end date was known to Biden since taking office). 

If given the opportunity, Trump could bungle anything. Despite Biden's request to "compare him to the alternative, not the almighty", if the alternative is incompetent, he has to be held to higher standards.

The GOP started the war, negotiated the withdrawal, slow walked the emigration of our translators and other afghan allies and left Biden with a unsustainable minimal troop level if he needed to keep the taliban subdued. Biden would have needed to deploy more troops to keep the country safe from the taliban if he repeatedly extended the withdrawal date. 

All of these factors are hugely significant in the withdrawal, but the media’s analysis is Biden is nearly 100% to blame for a terrorist attack in a terrorist nation, that was completely overrun by the most dangerous terrorist organization on earth in days. No one in the military told Biden this was a likelihood. 

When the gop is in the White House during an terrorist attack we are ordered to come together for unity. When a democratic president is in office, he gets blamed. How independents don’t see this is stunning.

War is messy, including the withdrawal from war. Blame should be assigned to those responsible for it. Not the one leader with the courage to end it.

people repeatedly mock trump as a political neophyte. But he had the genius to realize withdrawing from Afghanistan would me messy even though he wanted out. He did the political calculation and passed on withdrawal, yet Biden had the political courage to announce the end within half a year of his presidency.

how independents do not grasp this is stunning

"Political genius"? Trump recognized that the withdrawal was popular (i.e. once wheels set in motion, there's no politically safe way to turn back), but that there was no possible way of executing the withdrawal well. Solution: take the credit for the withdrawal plan, make the next guy take care of the backlash when it doesn't go well. I don't perceive any brilliance there, just the usual.

As for Biden's side of affairs - here's the reality: it was after chaos and public outcry that more resources were committed to the withdrawal, and all of a sudden, with those additional resources, things started to go better. I don't find it a stretch that those resources, timed and deployed properly, would've prevented or minimized that chaos and outcry.

This isn't exactly 2+2 = 4, but a POTUS should be able to add up the context:
-the USA was at war with Afghanistan for 20 years, over something not perpetrated by their people
-the USA was a constant policing force over the region for 20 years
-the USA announced its retreat from policing the region
-the entity reclaiming control (the Taliban) is an entity that wasn't tolerable to the US when the war started - what changed?
-the Taliban has stated animosity against the US
-the region has known enemies of the Taliban, with a commitment to produce chaos
-the Taliban has goals counter to many in modern Afghanistan, specifically with respect to female rights

Biden had a year and a half, and I believe more resources could've been committed, and earlier. 

As soon as the country fell, Biden added resources and evacuated 130,000 in about ten days. No one predicted the country would fall as quick as it did. Would there have been an uproar if Biden sent in tens of thousands of more troops to facilitate a withdrawal? He was stuck with 2500 troops the prior admin left him and adding troops coukd have  been just as risky. But that question is a bit of revisionist history, because I don’t recall any military expert predicting the immediate fall of the govt.

The only main failure was the terrorist attack. At some point when troops are withdrawn, there is an increased risk of an attack. Trump knew this, had four full years to withdraw and never did. Because he did the political math. Trump knew withdrawals are risky and chose not to take the risk. And trump was rewarded for stalling by dropping zero percent in the polls. Biden did withdraw unequivocally, but gets tagged in the polls because a block of voters are being unrealistic about the dangers of a withdrawal and who put the troops in that vulnerable position to begin with. 

dankind

Lerxst1992 said:

benjs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

benjs said:

dankind said:

Actually, I’m seeing it more from democrats now, who almost seem giddy that their democracy was brought to the brink of destruction by a megalomaniac who just so happened to run as a republican. 

Almost any criticism I see of the current administration is met with, but Trump ______.

I mean, sure, if that’s who you want to measure up to, then good for you team blue. You win the twit Olympics. Way to jump over those matchsticks. 

The other thing you could do is actively listen to the policy aspects that are being criticized and see if we can improve upon them as a nation. But I guess until we’re far enough removed from 45, they’ll continue being lazy and the nation will continue to divide and suffer. 

"But Trump" should be used if Trump actively did something which perpetuated or worsened a situation left for Biden (particularly if these were actions which offered the country no alternative gain whatsoever). That said, while the "but Trump" is justified, it only serves to form context, and doesn't absolve Biden of blame (especially for actions performed poorly under Biden's administration with ample time to prepare - i.e. the Afghanistan withdrawal, whose end date was known to Biden since taking office). 

If given the opportunity, Trump could bungle anything. Despite Biden's request to "compare him to the alternative, not the almighty", if the alternative is incompetent, he has to be held to higher standards.

The GOP started the war, negotiated the withdrawal, slow walked the emigration of our translators and other afghan allies and left Biden with a unsustainable minimal troop level if he needed to keep the taliban subdued. Biden would have needed to deploy more troops to keep the country safe from the taliban if he repeatedly extended the withdrawal date. 

All of these factors are hugely significant in the withdrawal, but the media’s analysis is Biden is nearly 100% to blame for a terrorist attack in a terrorist nation, that was completely overrun by the most dangerous terrorist organization on earth in days. No one in the military told Biden this was a likelihood. 

When the gop is in the White House during an terrorist attack we are ordered to come together for unity. When a democratic president is in office, he gets blamed. How independents don’t see this is stunning.

War is messy, including the withdrawal from war. Blame should be assigned to those responsible for it. Not the one leader with the courage to end it.

people repeatedly mock trump as a political neophyte. But he had the genius to realize withdrawing from Afghanistan would me messy even though he wanted out. He did the political calculation and passed on withdrawal, yet Biden had the political courage to announce the end within half a year of his presidency.

how independents do not grasp this is stunning

"Political genius"? Trump recognized that the withdrawal was popular (i.e. once wheels set in motion, there's no politically safe way to turn back), but that there was no possible way of executing the withdrawal well. Solution: take the credit for the withdrawal plan, make the next guy take care of the backlash when it doesn't go well. I don't perceive any brilliance there, just the usual.

As for Biden's side of affairs - here's the reality: it was after chaos and public outcry that more resources were committed to the withdrawal, and all of a sudden, with those additional resources, things started to go better. I don't find it a stretch that those resources, timed and deployed properly, would've prevented or minimized that chaos and outcry.

This isn't exactly 2+2 = 4, but a POTUS should be able to add up the context:
-the USA was at war with Afghanistan for 20 years, over something not perpetrated by their people
-the USA was a constant policing force over the region for 20 years
-the USA announced its retreat from policing the region
-the entity reclaiming control (the Taliban) is an entity that wasn't tolerable to the US when the war started - what changed?
-the Taliban has stated animosity against the US
-the region has known enemies of the Taliban, with a commitment to produce chaos
-the Taliban has goals counter to many in modern Afghanistan, specifically with respect to female rights

Biden had a year and a half, and I believe more resources could've been committed, and earlier. 

As soon as the country fell, Biden added resources and evacuated 130,000 in about ten days. No one predicted the country would fall as quick as it did. Would there have been an uproar if Biden sent in tens of thousands of more troops to facilitate a withdrawal? He was stuck with 2500 troops the prior admin left him and adding troops coukd have  been just as risky. But that question is a bit of revisionist history, because I don’t recall any military expert predicting the immediate fall of the govt.

The only main failure was the terrorist attack. At some point when troops are withdrawn, there is an increased risk of an attack. Trump knew this, had four full years to withdraw and never did. Because he did the political math. Trump knew withdrawals are risky and chose not to take the risk. And trump was rewarded for stalling by dropping zero percent in the polls. Biden did withdraw unequivocally, but gets tagged in the polls because a block of voters are being unrealistic about the dangers of a withdrawal and who put the troops in that vulnerable position to begin with. 

Damn voters! Where’s that America’s March to Fascism thread?

Lerxst1992

Perhaps unrealistic voters disregarding context are more dangerous than autocracy.

dankind

The Juggler

Lerxst1992 said:

benjs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

benjs said:

dankind said:

Actually, I’m seeing it more from democrats now, who almost seem giddy that their democracy was brought to the brink of destruction by a megalomaniac who just so happened to run as a republican. 

Almost any criticism I see of the current administration is met with, but Trump ______.

I mean, sure, if that’s who you want to measure up to, then good for you team blue. You win the twit Olympics. Way to jump over those matchsticks. 

The other thing you could do is actively listen to the policy aspects that are being criticized and see if we can improve upon them as a nation. But I guess until we’re far enough removed from 45, they’ll continue being lazy and the nation will continue to divide and suffer. 

"But Trump" should be used if Trump actively did something which perpetuated or worsened a situation left for Biden (particularly if these were actions which offered the country no alternative gain whatsoever). That said, while the "but Trump" is justified, it only serves to form context, and doesn't absolve Biden of blame (especially for actions performed poorly under Biden's administration with ample time to prepare - i.e. the Afghanistan withdrawal, whose end date was known to Biden since taking office). 

If given the opportunity, Trump could bungle anything. Despite Biden's request to "compare him to the alternative, not the almighty", if the alternative is incompetent, he has to be held to higher standards.

The GOP started the war, negotiated the withdrawal, slow walked the emigration of our translators and other afghan allies and left Biden with a unsustainable minimal troop level if he needed to keep the taliban subdued. Biden would have needed to deploy more troops to keep the country safe from the taliban if he repeatedly extended the withdrawal date. 

All of these factors are hugely significant in the withdrawal, but the media’s analysis is Biden is nearly 100% to blame for a terrorist attack in a terrorist nation, that was completely overrun by the most dangerous terrorist organization on earth in days. No one in the military told Biden this was a likelihood. 

When the gop is in the White House during an terrorist attack we are ordered to come together for unity. When a democratic president is in office, he gets blamed. How independents don’t see this is stunning.

War is messy, including the withdrawal from war. Blame should be assigned to those responsible for it. Not the one leader with the courage to end it.

people repeatedly mock trump as a political neophyte. But he had the genius to realize withdrawing from Afghanistan would me messy even though he wanted out. He did the political calculation and passed on withdrawal, yet Biden had the political courage to announce the end within half a year of his presidency.

how independents do not grasp this is stunning

"Political genius"? Trump recognized that the withdrawal was popular (i.e. once wheels set in motion, there's no politically safe way to turn back), but that there was no possible way of executing the withdrawal well. Solution: take the credit for the withdrawal plan, make the next guy take care of the backlash when it doesn't go well. I don't perceive any brilliance there, just the usual.

As for Biden's side of affairs - here's the reality: it was after chaos and public outcry that more resources were committed to the withdrawal, and all of a sudden, with those additional resources, things started to go better. I don't find it a stretch that those resources, timed and deployed properly, would've prevented or minimized that chaos and outcry.

This isn't exactly 2+2 = 4, but a POTUS should be able to add up the context:
-the USA was at war with Afghanistan for 20 years, over something not perpetrated by their people
-the USA was a constant policing force over the region for 20 years
-the USA announced its retreat from policing the region
-the entity reclaiming control (the Taliban) is an entity that wasn't tolerable to the US when the war started - what changed?
-the Taliban has stated animosity against the US
-the region has known enemies of the Taliban, with a commitment to produce chaos
-the Taliban has goals counter to many in modern Afghanistan, specifically with respect to female rights

Biden had a year and a half, and I believe more resources could've been committed, and earlier. 

As soon as the country fell, Biden added resources and evacuated 130,000 in about ten days. No one predicted the country would fall as quick as it did. Would there have been an uproar if Biden sent in tens of thousands of more troops to facilitate a withdrawal? He was stuck with 2500 troops the prior admin left him and adding troops coukd have  been just as risky. But that question is a bit of revisionist history, because I don’t recall any military expert predicting the immediate fall of the govt.

The only main failure was the terrorist attack. At some point when troops are withdrawn, there is an increased risk of an attack. Trump knew this, had four full years to withdraw and never did. Because he did the political math. Trump knew withdrawals are risky and chose not to take the risk. And trump was rewarded for stalling by dropping zero percent in the polls. Biden did withdraw unequivocally, but gets tagged in the polls because a block of voters are being unrealistic about the dangers of a withdrawal and who put the troops in that vulnerable position to begin with. 

This is the correct take and an example of why we need to draw comparisons between the two administrations. It is impossible not to, when the previous admin put the wheels in motion for what we saw play out the last few months.