Well, specifically a Trump supporter. I know some Republicans who are actually reality-based - but it's not really possible to do that when you are a Trump supporter, and have to believe three untrue tweets before breakfast.
The Impeachment of President Trump
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
A reality-based Republican partisan would be an outright, self-aware, well-informed, and completely cynical fascist.
They would also be aware of the support for Trump inherent in Republican partisanship, and acknowledge the fact that in supporting the Republican Party they are supporting Trump.
Necessarily. By definition of "reality based", essentially: that's the reality of the Republican Party - it is the American fascist Party, and of course supports Trump and defends Trump's presidency in all respects and by every action it takes.
The Republican Party - its voting base, leadership, political representation at all levels except local backwater, financial support, and media operations - is completely and without serious internal opposition a fascist Party.
Furthermore, this has been true since - at the very latest, with all benefit of even fringe doubt granted - 1994. That was the very last possible year a reality based partisan could claim be Republican without endorsing fascism. That was more than 25 years ago.
example:
No Senators voted on impeachment.
The House impeached Trump, and the entire Republican House supported Trump against impeachment throughout the process - no exceptions.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/31/us/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-house-vote.html
https://nypost.com/2019/12/18/house-votes-along-party-lines-to-impeach-trump/
Reality's base, House district by House district, in the US.
Last edited:
If Trumps history of generating outrage is anything to go by, it is far from over...
Example:
That drone strike kill of Suleiman was supposed to be with out US causalities. According to Trump no military personal were injured.
since then the Pentagon has stated over 100 service men have suffered brain damage.
Sources many:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51453829
Hypothesis:
Trump and probably the Pentagon didn't know about the specialized nature of the missiles fired on the base. Assumed they were conventional when they were probably not.
Designed to injure and not necessarilly kill so to speak...
Trumps impulsive, ill-informed and fundamentally stupid actions have cost over 100 (109?) service men permanent injury and could have cost considerably more if the USA retaliated.IMO
Which is why your commander in chief (CIC) was forced to stand down in his ill advised altercation with Iran.
Most USA military personal are smart enough to work out what is going on...
and they can look forward to being led by an incompetent CIC.
so yes it ain't over yet...
Note:
Figures available state only 109 so far injured but the number may actually be considerably more and yet to be released or are classified and never released.
Last edited:
Where is there any indication, in any report on the issue, that suggests that the missiles fired were not conventional? I mean, you do know what a TBI is, right? You do know how they can be caused? What makes you hypothesise that the weapons were not conventional?
Given the destruction of the buildings, most people would happily conclude that the ordinance was entirely conventional, and designed to destroy anything in the blast radius. Anything caught in the shockwave, or in any over/under-pressure situations, will be affected. And this happens with conventional weapons.
Permanent injury, but the TBIs have been diagnosed as mild, meaning they were knocked out, suffered concussion, etc.... much the same as a rugby player or boxer who is knocked out might be considered to have permanent injury. Sure, cumulatively these things add up. Rugby players and boxers have had to retire as a result, but the majority of those 109 servicemen are back on active duty, and the rest still undergoing review.
If they happened to be in reasonable proximity of the explosions, then it is not surprising that they felt the impact, with some picking up concussion. But a mild TBI is something that c.400k troops have picked up in one way or another since 2000 (according to the BBC report you linked). That’s 20k a year on average. That’s a lot of evidence for your unconventional weapons hypothesis to consider, I guess.
Sure, even mild TBI can have profound effects on an individual, but having suffered concussion myself, it can also be asymptomatic beyond the initial recovery.
I look forward to the day that you can show you are smart enough to work out what is going on.
Seriously, you think the Trump administration took out Suleimani for the giggles? Or do you not think that, just perhaps, they really did have intelligence not shared with you (what were they thinking on that score!) that suggested it was worth the risk?
You do tend to see conspiracy, subterfuge, and deceit in most things you disagree with, don’t you. Always thinking the worst. The pentagon has even stated that the numbers may well change, as symptoms of concussion may not be apparent until some time later.
Great post!Where is there any indication, in any report on the issue, that suggests that the missiles fired were not conventional? I mean, you do know what a TBI is, right? You do know how they can be caused? What makes you hypothesise that the weapons were not conventional?
Given the destruction of the buildings, most people would happily conclude that the ordinance was entirely conventional, and designed to destroy anything in the blast radius. Anything caught in the shockwave, or in any over/under-pressure situations, will be affected. And this happens with conventional weapons.
Permanent injury, but the TBIs have been diagnosed as mild, meaning they were knocked out, suffered concussion, etc.... much the same as a rugby player or boxer who is knocked out might be considered to have permanent injury. Sure, cumulatively these things add up. Rugby players and boxers have had to retire as a result, but the majority of those 109 servicemen are back on active duty, and the rest still undergoing review.
If they happened to be in reasonable proximity of the explosions, then it is not surprising that they felt the impact, with some picking up concussion. But a mild TBI is something that c.400k troops have picked up in one way or another since 2000 (according to the BBC report you linked). That’s 20k a year on average. That’s a lot of evidence for your unconventional weapons hypothesis to consider, I guess.
Sure, even mild TBI can have profound effects on an individual, but having suffered concussion myself, it can also be asymptomatic beyond the initial recovery.
I look forward to the day that you can show you are smart enough to work out what is going on.
Seriously, you think the Trump administration took out Suleimani for the giggles? Or do you not think that, just perhaps, they really did have intelligence not shared with you (what were they thinking on that score!) that suggested it was worth the risk?
You do tend to see conspiracy, subterfuge, and deceit in most things you disagree with, don’t you. Always thinking the worst. The pentagon has even stated that the numbers may well change, as symptoms of concussion may not be apparent until some time later.
There are a number of reasons for my doubts about the convention-ality of the weapons allowed to strike the bases.
I do not accept anything the media publishes with out a grain of salt.
The point though of my post was to state that the unilateral action of calling a drone strike was demonstrably impulsive. Demonstrated by the Trump administrations lack of preparedness to confront media and almost literally standing down for an Iranian retaliatory strike and the Pentagons obvious confusion concerning future troop withdrawal from Iraq.
Trump allowed the Iranian retaliation.
Why?
Why would he allow an armed retaliation for what he claims to be a planned and legitimate assassination?
The greatest military force ever seen in the world's history stands down to let Iran take a shot at them... why?
Absurd!
Other factors coincide to strongly suggest that the act of calling a drone strike was more about Trumps need to deflect from his ongoing political issues. A fit of narcissistic need perhaps. A grave mistake, one with consequences he was not prepared for.
Trumps action has cost at least 109 military personal TBI of varying severity. ( unknown ) Remember the retaliation was organized between Iran and the USA. Notice was given..Troops were prepared and bunkered.
The mere fact that a figure has been published when over 400000 military personal have suffered supposedly similar TBI since 2000 is in itself telling.
I ask why even bother mentioning it when it is so common place?
There are other reasons as well but perhaps another thread...
Either way my point still stands
it ain't over yet by a long shot....(re Sculptors post #423)
Last edited:
Start providing them, then. Please.
Healthy skepticism is great. Making up stuff to fit it to your own narrative is not.
First, if you have a point to make, best not surround it by unsupported nonsense that will only distract the reader.
Second, don’t confuse impulsive for incorrect.
Allowed? Tolerated, I think. But he has no direct control over the actions of Iran. He can at best put pressure on them to act in certain ways.
Further, just because Trump and perhaps others see the assassination as planned and legitimate, I’m fairly sure the people of Iran do not. But then they see the retaliation as planned and legitimate. So why should they allow any further retaliation by the US, if any was to come?
Once the Iranians decided to retaliate, and understandably so, it was actually in what most, including the US, considered to be a rather tame action. But don’t be foolish to think the US could realistically stop them from doing what they wanted to do. The only way might be to threaten all-out war for any retaliation, and for the Iranians to genuinely believe Trump meant it. But the US would never do that as their second act to something they themselves started.
Since you aren’t aware of the information that he was privy to, all this is is you coming up with a narrative to satisfy your own preconceived notions.
This is the way of things in international relationships. If the intention of the retaliation, of the measured response, is to target the infrastructure only, you give warning so that the personnel can minimise their risk. Presumably this they did. That is not to say that the two countries organised it, no more so than the British government organised things with the IRA when the IRA gave warnings of bombings so that people could be evacuated before they went off.
Because Trump initially said that there were no injuries in the raid. The fact that 109 have suffered TBI, and that it is rightly classed as an injury, even in mild form, contradicts the President’s initial comments. This makes it newsworthy.
For what?
No, it really is. The impeachment “trial” has been carried out, and Trump survived. Whether he is impeached in the future for other actions would be a separate matter entirely.
A lot of people want to get on with their lives, which is why they won't give up on having Mr. Trump face the justice he is due. Would you "give it up" and move on if the government took your guns away or did something else to piss you off?
I believe they argued the former, but the latter follows as a direct corollary.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
What do you think that "our government" has taken from you?
Nothing from me personally (apart from all that juicy internet money you guys must surely be hiding from us Canadians), but it appears a very large segment of the US population if not an outright majority believes their right to democratic governance from accountable officials has been taken away, as if it were just a privilege rather than a natural right. The US Senate has made Trump unaccountable to the electorate, and the Senate itself does not democratically represent the nation's population.
They have taken away our trust in their ability to govern the country based on the Constitution, of course.
So, trusting the government to follow the Constitution is irrelevant to you?
oh oh... here it comes:
DOJ Barr says that it is impossible to do his job....
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/13/8057...t-make-his-job-as-attorney-general-impossible
and
"Senior leaders lack policy vision, moral clarity and leadership skills," Marie Yovanovitch said at Georgetown University. "Foreign service officers are wondering if it is safe to express concerns about policy, even behind closed doors."
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/13/8056...-is-in-trouble-and-leaders-lack-moral-clarity
wait and see what Trumps reaction will be... lol
DOJ Barr says that it is impossible to do his job....
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/13/8057...t-make-his-job-as-attorney-general-impossible
and
"Senior leaders lack policy vision, moral clarity and leadership skills," Marie Yovanovitch said at Georgetown University. "Foreign service officers are wondering if it is safe to express concerns about policy, even behind closed doors."
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/13/8056...-is-in-trouble-and-leaders-lack-moral-clarity
wait and see what Trumps reaction will be... lol
I watched a video of a lawyer going over the Stone case and the two memos in question. The lawyer clearly outlined that the second memo is definitely not something the prosecution would ever submit, but rather something the defense would, hence the reason why the four prosecutors left the case. It was Barr not allowing the prosecutors to do their jobs, whether Barr was influenced by Trump or not.
And, yet it is Barr who is interfering in the case, the second memo is proof of that. And although the second memo does indicate the sentence of 7-9 years was harsh, it did not state what should be fair. This whole thing looks like they're trying to pass the buck only to create yet another diversion away from the sentencing.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
And, now, we come to the problem.
Many who would claim what you have have not read nor understood the constitution.
I rather like the document, and advise many to read it, and then to contemplate what they read.
It seems most likely that the current 2 party system is anathema to the good of most of my fellow countrymen.
(and, also ---Not in the constitution.)
Don't they take an oath of office ?
Are they to be trusted to not lie when taking that oath of office?
As an Aussie I find it hard to understand how you can pledge loyalty to the constitution then ignore it so easily...
Please explain?