d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Trump Policy And Completions
Prev17891011Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 49,289
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 11.77
Mar 1 2020 12:54pm
Quote (tagged4nothing @ Mar 1 2020 01:05pm)
adding this in for reference to a future post. kinda surprised the topic hasn't had a thread created for itself yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c-EMWCfR0U


Trump definitely holds the mantle for historic, bad foreign policy deals.

The reaction had Obama done this sort of deal with the Taliban would be unanimous condemnation from the right... talk of retreating, being soft on the enemy, providing aid and comfort to the enemy, etc.

https://twitter.com/stephenfhayes/status/1233748851439423489

I suppose the most honest argument the Trump side can make is "yeah, it's a shitty, embarrassing deal, but we've been there for 19 years and it's time to go".
Member
Posts: 26,025
Joined: Jun 14 2006
Gold: 5,300.00
Warn: 10%
Mar 1 2020 01:04pm
Quote (IceMage @ Mar 1 2020 01:54pm)
Trump definitely holds the mantle for historic, bad foreign policy deals.

The reaction had Obama done this sort of deal with the Taliban would be unanimous condemnation from the right... talk of retreating, being soft on the enemy, providing aid and comfort to the enemy, etc.

https://twitter.com/stephenfhayes/status/1233748851439423489

I suppose the most honest argument the Trump side can make is "yeah, it's a shitty, embarrassing deal, but we've been there for 19 years and it's time to go".

bold sounds about right.
it appears the anti-Trump side is against negotiation and pro-war. maybe you have a different opinion?
Quote (Thor123422 @ Mar 1 2020 01:49pm)
Not surprising that Trump would negotiate with terrorists. He hates American values and is a draft dodger after all.


This post was edited by tagged4nothing on Mar 1 2020 01:04pm
Member
Posts: 53,368
Joined: Sep 2 2004
Gold: 57.00
Mar 1 2020 01:06pm
Quote (tagged4nothing @ 1 Mar 2020 14:04)
underlined sounds about right.
it appears the anti-Trump side is against negotiation and pro-war. maybe you have a different opinion?

both those users are pro-endless wars of establishment aggression. they were rooting for WWIII to kick off just a couple months ago
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Mar 1 2020 01:21pm
Quote (tagged4nothing @ Mar 1 2020 01:04pm)
bold sounds about right.
it appears the anti-Trump side is against negotiation and pro-war. maybe you have a different opinion?


I was being facetious, i.e. I was acting the way the right would have acted if Obama did this, not sure if you were gonna pick up on that lol

Quote (excellence @ Mar 1 2020 01:06pm)
both those users are pro-endless wars of establishment aggression. they were rooting for WWIII to kick off just a couple months ago


citation needed

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Mar 1 2020 01:21pm
Member
Posts: 49,289
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 11.77
Mar 1 2020 02:16pm
Quote (tagged4nothing @ Mar 1 2020 02:04pm)
bold sounds about right.
it appears the anti-Trump side is against negotiation and pro-war. maybe you have a different opinion?


This deal could've been made under any presidency. If Bush or Obama wanted to cut and run, they could've done something like this.

I don't have a kneejerk opposition to American presence in other countries. The cost of our presence in Afghanistan was low, and the benefits were the ability to conduct counter-terrorism operations and maintain the current Afghan government. It's not in our interest for the Taliban to control Afghanistan.

So, while Trump gets a campaign talking point by cutting this horrible deal, I don't think it's good for our interests. That doesn't mean I'm against negotiation and pro-war... it means I'm against bad deals and willing to maintain a military presence in situations where it makes sense.
Member
Posts: 26,025
Joined: Jun 14 2006
Gold: 5,300.00
Warn: 10%
Mar 1 2020 02:38pm
Quote (IceMage @ Mar 1 2020 03:16pm)
This deal could've been made under any presidency. If Bush or Obama wanted to cut and run, they could've done something like this.

I don't have a kneejerk opposition to American presence in other countries. The cost of our presence in Afghanistan was low, and the benefits were the ability to conduct counter-terrorism operations and maintain the current Afghan government. It's not in our interest for the Taliban to control Afghanistan.

So, while Trump gets a campaign talking point by cutting this horrible deal, I don't think it's good for our interests. That doesn't mean I'm against negotiation and pro-war... it means I'm against bad deals and willing to maintain a military presence in situations where it makes sense.

fair criticism. it's basically what John Bolton is saying right now. i am not saying i agree, but i am not truly set in a stance on this either way. it's a large issue worth discussion.

------
just adding some extra stuff here


even if pro-removal, it's not going to be an easy process. just an i.e.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/afghan-government-questions-aspects-of-us-taliban-peace-deal/2020/03/01/0a973228-5a68-11ea-8efd-0f904bdd8057_story.html
Quote
The U.S.-Taliban deal, the result of talks from which the Afghan government was excluded, charts a path for the full withdrawal of all U.S. troops from the country it invaded after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It stipulates that talks between the Taliban and Ghani’s government must begin by March 10 — at which point the sides must have completed a prisoner exchange.

Quote
The Taliban has long demanded the release of 5,000 of its fighters held by the Afghan government. But officials in Kabul see the prisoners as a key piece of leverage to be used during their talks with the militants.

“Freeing Taliban prisoners is not [under] the authority of America, but the authority of the Afghan government,” Ghani told reporters in Kabul on Sunday. “There has been no commitment for the release of 5,000 prisoners.” He said the prisoner swap could be discussed during talks with the Taliban, but could not be a precondition.
Member
Posts: 54,059
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Mar 1 2020 06:45pm
Quote (IceMage @ 1 Mar 2020 21:16)
This deal could've been made under any presidency. If Bush or Obama wanted to cut and run, they could've done something like this.


I think this is a typical "only Nixon could go to China"-situation: only a GOP president with a reputation as a strongman and skyhigh support from his base could have cut a deal which amounts to a surrender like this.


Quote
I don't have a kneejerk opposition to American presence in other countries. The cost of our presence in Afghanistan was low, and the benefits were the ability to conduct counter-terrorism operations and maintain the current Afghan government. It's not in our interest for the Taliban to control Afghanistan.

So, while Trump gets a campaign talking point by cutting this horrible deal, I don't think it's good for our interests. That doesn't mean I'm against negotiation and pro-war... it means I'm against bad deals and willing to maintain a military presence in situations where it makes sense.


That's fair criticism. However, it must also be acknowledged that no progress whatsoever was made in Afghanistan in all those years. Despite continuing anti-terrorism operations and great efforts to train and arm the Afghan government and its police/military, there was no progress. Terrorists still have the upper hand in most of the country, the security situation is still as shitty as ever, and the Afghan government still cant stand on its own feet. If after 19 years of engagement the situation is still that the Taliban will overrun the country as soon as the NATO troops are withdrawn, one might simply have to acknowledge that this country is a lost cause.

Freedom and democracy cant be brought from the outside, they have to grow from the inside. The Afghan people clearly arent ready yet, and there is nothing the West could do to make it happen.
It's really investment strategy 101: dont throw good money after bad money, cut your losses early. Translated to the geopolitical stage: dont spend lives, money, military resources and political capital on a conflict that cant be won.


edit: I agree, however, with the notion that this deal should not count as a "win" or a "policy completion" for Trump.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 1 2020 06:48pm
Member
Posts: 26,025
Joined: Jun 14 2006
Gold: 5,300.00
Warn: 10%
Mar 21 2020 08:38pm
Quote (jadeoshbogosh @ Mar 21 2020 09:19pm)
I apologize for the wall of text, I wanted to respond to at least everything on the first page of that link lol. Would have gone over more of it, but I thought this was more than enough for now.

Where we differ, is that a handful of small marks in the plus column, will never offset an unprecedented amount of shortcomings both personally and professionally for me.

The best thing out of what I read was the ARPO take down, which was fucking great, but he had nothing to do with it, so it's silly to try and give him the win for that. Fighting healthcare fraud and making bills more transparent is monumentally important, but it doesn't fight the root of the problem, which Trump is firmly opposed to. His overarching stance negates any small amount of good that may or may not come from these efforts, or at least until he changes his tune on education. Bolstering border security is a waste of time and taxpayer money. We're not making the country any safer by making legal immigration impossible and by treating misdemeanor criminals like murdering rapists. As far as the trafficking argument goes, we as a country will ALWAYS get our narcotics with relative ease, regardless of what actions are taken on the southern border. Any big-time narco isn't sending people running across the border, it's just not feasible. This anti-immigrant, illegal or otherwise, rhetoric is great at keeping people distracted, but it doesn't do fuck-all in terms of making the country a stronger or better place. Immigration should be enforced, but we as a country founded on immigrants, need to make the immigration process as painless as possible to the needy people of the world. Doing everything in your power to slow the legal process down and attempting to make desperate people even more desperate, does nothing but make us look like shit. Reducing our NATO contribution from 20 to 16% was a win, but it's a small win. The total budget is what, 2 billion and change? It's cool and all to show that we're not going to foot the entire bill, but it's reaching to consider it as a headline worthy win. The last thing, the space force, I mean.... come on, you can't honestly see this as a win? Space exploration is important, but there's zero reason to spend hundreds of billions on another mission to the moon, unless he's just hoping to make leaps in the private sector (conjecture, I know, couldn't help myself). It's another gimmick without substance, which is what he does best. There are much better ways to allocate funding.

I'm glad that you're able to find a silver-lining in everything, but I just can't do it. Even had some of these wins been substantial, which I've explained why I don't believe they are, it'd be impossible for me to turn a blind eye towards his brazen corruption, theft, nepotism, ineptitude, and never-ending flaws as a person. I'm not going to go into any of that unless you insist, I've found pointing out the flaws of Trump devolves the conversation immediately and since you seem reasonable enough, I'd rather continue this conversation with you if you're interested. I do believe it would be best if we took it elsewhere though. Either PM, or in one of your threads, whatever would be fine, but we should both stop taking up space in this important thread.

1. the ARPO takedown: when Trump was candidate, he ran on combatting the opiode epidemic.
you should skim through it all, but i'll quote the law-enforcement section.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-combatting-opioid-crisis/
Quote
is week Attorney General Sessions announced the creation of the Prescription Interdiction & Litigation (PIL) Task Force, which will focus on targeting opioid manufacturers and distributors who have contributed to the epidemic.
In January, Attorney General Sessions announced a new Joint Criminal Opioid Darknet Enforcement (J-CODE) Team tasked with helping law enforcement disrupt online sales of illicit opioids.
The Department of Justice launched a health care fraud crackdown that charged more than 400 defendants, including more than 120 for their role in prescribing and distributing opioids and other narcotics.
The Department of Justice secured its first-ever indictments against Chinese fentanyl manufacturers.
The President signed the INTERDICT Act on January 10, 2018, authorizing to enhance efforts to detect and interdict the supply of synthetic opioids such as fentanyl that are being illegally imported.


immigration: we have fundamental disagreements on this. building a wall is not to keep "legal" immigrants out. a wall has been requested by BCP, and i have a thread that breaks down the cost to USA from "illegal" immigration per year, that i can find if you need. in short though, it is much more than a full-border wall would cost to build. and the wall/policy that president Trump has implemented, has decreased illegal crossings.
this is also an odd argument right now as nearly every country has shut it's border. there are obvious safety reasons that go beyond just this virus.
also you say "drugs" like every drug is a good-time happy drug. sure we can get some weed or harder stuff just about everywhere, but do we need fentanyl crossing the border?
not everyone may be the worst of criminal, but those criminals do exist and there are reasons to put laws in place to prevent/punish them.
i'll need evidence that we are treating misdemeanor criminals as rapists. i'm not even sure what that means really.
i can keep going on this subject, and i can provide links as requested. i'm sure there's enough for you to start on here though.

NATO win may not have been the largest amount of money ever, but it was a good start and hopefully it continues, as president Trump still is vocal about the subject.

space force... just to go to the moon.... not even going to bother with this one. try again after you learn what space force is.
Member
Posts: 66,871
Joined: Feb 24 2009
Gold: 250.00
Warn: 10%
Mar 21 2020 09:01pm
Quote (tagged4nothing @ Mar 21 2020 07:38pm)
1. the ARPO takedown: when Trump was candidate, he ran on combatting the opiode epidemic.
you should skim through it all, but i'll quote the law-enforcement section.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-combatting-opioid-crisis/


immigration: we have fundamental disagreements on this. building a wall is not to keep "legal" immigrants out. a wall has been requested by BCP, and i have a thread that breaks down the cost to USA from "illegal" immigration per year, that i can find if you need. in short though, it is much more than a full-border wall would cost to build. and the wall/policy that president Trump has implemented, has decreased illegal crossings.
this is also an odd argument right now as nearly every country has shut it's border. there are obvious safety reasons that go beyond just this virus.
also you say "drugs" like every drug is a good-time happy drug. sure we can get some weed or harder stuff just about everywhere, but do we need fentanyl crossing the border?
not everyone may be the worst of criminal, but those criminals do exist and there are reasons to put laws in place to prevent/punish them.
i'll need evidence that we are treating misdemeanor criminals as rapists. i'm not even sure what that means really.
i can keep going on this subject, and i can provide links as requested. i'm sure there's enough for you to start on here though.

NATO win may not have been the largest amount of money ever, but it was a good start and hopefully it continues, as president Trump still is vocal about the subject.

space force... just to go to the moon.... not even going to bother with this one. try again after you learn what space force is.


He ran on a lot of things, that doesn't mean he cares about them, or has any real involvement in them. As I said, the takedown was a huge win, but pharmaceutical companies are the ones solely responsible for the opioid epidemic, if he was serious about combating it, he would be targeting the threat on multiple fronts and he'd have some involvement other than talking about it almost exclusively during campaign pushes. Given that he's constantly pushing to deregulate everything, including the FDA and pharmaceutical companies, it's laughable to claim any win against the opioid epidemic belongs to him, when he's attempting to pour gasoline on the flame.

Keeping people in the worst imaginable living conditions because of a misdemeanor, which is what an illegal border crossing has always been until whatever the fuck we're doing now, is treating misdemeanor criminals worse than we treat murderers and rapists. We're also forcefully making the process move slower at every turn to severely hamper the ability of people seeking entry through legal channels, which I find detestable. I don't believe in open borders or anything like that, but what we're doing in the south goes against everything we as a country have been built on, and it's about as unamerican as it fucking gets. I'm not sure how you got it into your head that I was talking about happy drugs, or w/e your line of reasoning was there, but there is a demand for narcotics, ALL narcotics in the United States. They will continue to flow in and stopping small-time runners who are trying to illegally cross the border doesn't do shit to that supply, so it's a non-argument. If the *numbers* you're referring to for what immigrants cost us, was the one that included all legal family expenses assuming that they were illegals in their calculations, it's going to be hard for me to take that too seriously. That being said, a reduced number in border crossings, doesn't mean the number of illegal immigrants is plummeting or will be non-existent. The VAST majority of illegals in recent years have been those who overstayed on work or travel visas, or who entered via other legitimate means. We're not hurting the drug trade, we're not stopping illegals getting into the country, we're pissing over everything our country was built on, and we're paying a fuck-ton to do it.... I'll never understand how anyone can consider the price we're paying as a fair trade-off for keeping out a small number of people that mostly just want to work and support their families.

There's hardly any ground to be gained on the NATO front given the paltry sum to begin with. It's nothing more than Trump pandering to his America first base, which is an obvious tactic of his.

My dismissal of the Space Force is more-so based on how I've heard Trump talk about it. I understand there's much more going into it, but his primary focus seems to be instilling some futuristic military support space team, and taking us back to the moon. Both of which are incredibly stupid imo, but we'll see I guess. If a large chunk of the allocated funds go towards research and development, it'll have been a worthwhile cause, but I believe funding is still down from last year even, so it's not like he's doing much on that front either.
Member
Posts: 26,025
Joined: Jun 14 2006
Gold: 5,300.00
Warn: 10%
Mar 21 2020 09:15pm
Quote (jadeoshbogosh @ Mar 21 2020 11:01pm)
He ran on a lot of things, that doesn't mean he cares about them, or has any real involvement in them. As I said, the takedown was a huge win, but pharmaceutical companies are the ones solely responsible for the opioid epidemic, if he was serious about combating it, he would be targeting the threat on multiple fronts and he'd have some involvement other than talking about it almost exclusively during campaign pushes. Given that he's constantly pushing to deregulate everything, including the FDA and pharmaceutical companies, it's laughable to claim any win against the opioid epidemic belongs to him, when he's attempting to pour gasoline on the flame.

Keeping people in the worst imaginable living conditions because of a misdemeanor, which is what an illegal border crossing has always been until whatever the fuck we're doing now, is treating misdemeanor criminals worse than we treat murderers and rapists. We're also forcefully making the process move slower at every turn to severely hamper the ability of people seeking entry through legal channels, which I find detestable. I don't believe in open borders or anything like that, but what we're doing in the south goes against everything we as a country have been built on, and it's about as unamerican as it fucking gets. I'm not sure how you got it into your head that I was talking about happy drugs, or w/e your line of reasoning was there, but there is a demand for narcotics, ALL narcotics in the United States. They will continue to flow in and stopping small-time runners who are trying to illegally cross the border doesn't do shit to that supply, so it's a non-argument. If the *numbers* you're referring to for what immigrants cost us, was the one that included all legal family expenses assuming that they were illegals in their calculations, it's going to be hard for me to take that too seriously. That being said, a reduced number in border crossings, doesn't mean the number of illegal immigrants is plummeting or will be non-existent. The VAST majority of illegals in recent years have been those who overstayed on work or travel visas, or who entered via other legitimate means. We're not hurting the drug trade, we're not stopping illegals getting into the country, we're pissing over everything our country was built on, and we're paying a fuck-ton to do it.... I'll never understand how anyone can consider the price we're paying as a fair trade-off for keeping out a small number of people that mostly just want to work and support their families.

There's hardly any ground to be gained on the NATO front given the paltry sum to begin with. It's nothing more than Trump pandering to his America first base, which is an obvious tactic of his.

My dismissal of the Space Force is more-so based on how I've heard Trump talk about it. I understand there's much more going into it, but his primary focus seems to be instilling some futuristic military support space team, and taking us back to the moon. Both of which are incredibly stupid imo, but we'll see I guess. If a large chunk of the allocated funds go towards research and development, it'll have been a worthwhile cause, but I believe funding is still down from last year even, so it's not like he's doing much on that front either.

this was ignorant af. you completely ignored the white house link and prattled on like it didn't exist. did you want President Trump to make arrests personally?

so your "misdemeanor criminals"... are people crossing the border illegally. when they are given shelter/food/water until processed. like every other misdemeanor imprisonment ever, except we stay in those conditions after processing....
i've been in jail for misdemeanors... was i being treated like a rapist? i didn't even have a bed for 1 visit and had to sleep on the floor. how about that?

and your space force argument. is "cuz trump said let's go to the moon". you thought it best to assume that's the entirety of the program?

This post was edited by tagged4nothing on Mar 21 2020 09:18pm
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev17891011Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll