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

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

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. 

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 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.