Currently Online 
| EricHiggin said: I'd like to take your point about my metaphorical BS seriously, yet another person followed that up with their own partially flawed version, and you haven't said squat about that. I'm either going to assume you're attacking me because you don't like which side I'm on, which again, is odd since it's pretty clear I haven't taken a side, or possibly it's a scenario where you think because I started it, anyone who follows suit doesn't require criticism. Hopefully that's not the case because then few Presidents should ever be criticized since they're just following suit for the most part, and could get away with a lot of poor decisions without legitimate push back. If it's so evident that Trump has always been shifty and a back stabber, then it would only make sense for nations to do everything they could, to at the very least have a back up plan, if not loosen or break relations with the U.S, knowing what could happen under Trump. China certainly prepped for change. The U.S. has not always been a Kurd ally and America is not a dictatorship, so they can't expect complete consistency from the same ruling elite, and have to be thinking ahead to some degree. That's not saying Trump would be free and clear of fault in this case, but again, to put all blame on him wouldn't be taking everything necessary into account. I think Trump is partially correct, however, America voted the way they did, partially to get out of the Middle East back then, so while Obama did have a hand in it, I wouldn't totally blame just him. If ISIS or whatever they decide to call themselves, resurges and becomes a serious threat again, then Trump would be partially to blame for that as well, even though America partially voted for him to reign in the world policing. Nothing has been gained as of yet. That's not to say something definitely will be gained, but Trump seems to always have a plan, even though things don't always end up going to plan. Sometimes you have to give a little to get a lot, but that can be risky at times. We'll have to see what happens in time. I also wouldn't be completely surprised if perhaps Trump again is killing two birds with one stone. He's fulfilling promises he made about less world policing, while also partially steering attention away from the Ukraine and impeachment talk. While I'm not saying by any means that allowing people to suffer so you can misdirect negative attention towards yourself is acceptable, it's strategically a smart political move at the moment, which throughout history has been used more often than it should by many in power for different reasons, where in a perfect world, should never happen. Nothing's as simple or perfect as we'd like it to be, unfortunately. |
The other person follow up with a metaphor and it accomplished the same thing. You decided to poke holes in it because you saw the situation different which is why using them confuses the situation more than actually helps. Being direct with your opinion is a much better course than trying to wrap it within a metaphor.
Even if Trump was crazy enough to believe this would alleviate impeachment pressure it actually had the opposite effect and added just another nugget to the pile of gold the Dems continue to dig up on this situation. Hell, with him trying to have the G7 summit at his hotel at a time like this just shows an absolute dereliction of judgement on an scale probably never seen in the White House.
At least you trust Trump to always have a plan, I on the other hand do not have your faith. Also you would be correct if you stated less world policing if not for the fact that he just moved troops from one area to another one then talked about how the Saudis are paying for it as if the US military is some type of mercenary force to be sent to the highest bidder. I guess bringing our Troops back home is outweighed by how much money someone else is willing to offer up.
