It’s ludicrous to me that people still think the after-effects of large-scale military action in the Middle East can be predicted.
It’s inherently unpredictable. There’s no way to know what would happen if we utterly destroyed ISIS. There’s no reason to believe that things getting better would be any more likely than things getting worse.
There’s a logical fallacy in there somewhere, but I’m not sure which one. You win the argument already - even in stating that idiocy is they way you want to go - because the alternative is perfectly untenable: “flimflam.” The problem is that you’re defining diplomacy - you know the thing that allows nations to deal with each other without killing millions of people? - as flimflam. You’d rather have a leader who makes a statement, even if it is idiocy, for Christ’s sake, because you think diplomacy is flimflam.
You’re a Trump supporter, alright.
So by your logic, there’s no point in doing anything at all to oppose them militarily? (Leaving the politics aside for the nonce, since it would obviously be political suicide to unilaterally withdraw from the fight.)
ETA: Jack, how about “straw man”, for the “flimflam”?
We already are opposing them militarily, with the goal being to destroy them. We’re just trying to do it without losing many Americans in the process. But we will fight to the last Kurd, Shiite Arab, Iranian, and even French and German citizen.
With a large scale ground force from the US, yes.
It’s a damn good thing Trump is such a #whinylittlebitch and just generally a disaster as a general election candidate. If a competent Republican delivered some of the lines Trump read listlessly from the teleprompter today (Monday), it would be a very effective broadside against the politically correct liberal line. And that danger still remains for 2020 and beyond:
We definitely do not want Democrats to come to be seen like Merkel is. She was so popular for so long, and now she has just trashed her image by appearing to be a sucker, a chump, who puts Muslim immigrants ahead of her own people and ahead of enlightened, progressive, 21st century Western values.
“I am not going to slam the door on women and children.” - Hillary Clinton, commenting on Syrian refugees moments ago in the presidential debate.
Mission. Accomplished.
<takes a bow>
Despite what you think, she’s not actually complimenting you; indeed, the comment in the debate wasn’t even saying what you were saying, much less saying anything about you.
To the extent that she’s proposing barring men, she’s wrong. But there’s nowhere on her website that she makes such a proposal; the comment in the debate was a rhetorical flourish, as our society generally considers “women and children” to be a helpless, harmless group.
I will give you this: when she made that comment, I immediately thought, “Oh boy, I bet Slacker’s gonna bump his thread over this.”
Right. Claiming that means she’s planning on barring men is either extremely myopic or disingenuous.
Of course! But you argue here as though it was the substance that was the important part. The word “triangulate” should have been a clue that it was the *politics *I was after. And by saying this in the debate, watched by scores of millions, she did just what I wanted her to do. No one’s going to go check her website, and it doesn’t matter what will actually ultimately happen. The *political *aim has been achieved.
ETA: I want to highlight more specifically one specific part of your sputtering protestations there, LHOD: “as our society generally considers ‘women and children’ to be a helpless, harmless group.” That you don’t understand that this was exactly my point all along kind of blows my mind. I thought you were a little more perspicacious than that.
I don’t care (much) what she’s planning, I care what *message *she is sending to low information voters (yes, I’m cynical that way). And what message do you think she meant to send by saying “I am not going to slam the door on women and children”? That she’s not going to slam the door on Syrian men? Awfully funny way to put it in that case! :rolleyes:
That she cares about humanitarian crises. Obviously.
Obviously. :rolleyes: And she just *happened *to specifically mention women and children, while just *happening *to leave out any mention of men.
And she also just coincidentally *happened *to do the same at the earlier town hall debate in her response to a similar question:
No political calculation at all, no sir.
Look, I know you’re all sputtering and smoking like V-ger, your logic circuits overloading, but the fact is that if you think my proposal was so “immoral” and “unconscionable”, then so is what she has been doing, in what is obviously a very calculated manner, in these two debates. You just can’t have it both ways.
Sputtering. Hah. Ad hominem is the first resort to those that have nothing.
Who said it wasn’t political calculation? Women and children have always been more sympathetic in the public mind.
Uhhh…then what was with all the outrage over my proposal originally? This is exactly what I had in mind, and she did exactly what I wanted her to.
P.S. I’d do some research on ad hominem if I were you. Characterizing what you see your debate opponents doing in the current debate does not qualify. It’s more like “We all know Joe Blow is a loser, so why should we believe his opinion on refugees?”
There is nothing Clinton says in prepared remarks that isn’t tested in front of focus groups. She says “women and children”, but I’ve seen the picture of refugees. In reality, we’ll be taking 80% young men I bet.
Only 25% of Syrian refugees are males aged 18-59. Women and children comprise 73% of the total.
Dude, you know that Hillary Clinton has NOT taken your dreadful advice on refugee policy even though you pick out a few words and say that it can be read to mean something other than what her position is.
I read your gloating and I think of Aesop:
http://englishaesop.lauragibbs.net/2010/07/fly-and-chariot.html
“Dude”, you remind me (sorry!) of Trump here. Like when he continues to insist he always opposed the Iraq war, or he never said global warming was a fraud perpetrated by China. You can insist all you like that black is white and up is down, but it don’t make it so.
Ok, let’s bet. It is a two-part bet: I say between now and the election, Clinton will make no statement or policy proposal to exclude males from being eligible for refugee status. This doesn’t mean “she only mentioned women and children so we can infer something,” I’m saying she will never say (and might even outright reject) “males will not be allowed in.”
And, after the election, males will be eligible to come to the US as refugees.
If I’m wrong on either or both parts, I’ll send you $500 for being a genius. If I’m right on both parts, you send me $250.
I think these terms are very generous. And I pay my debts, unlike Trump. Do you?
Shocking. Friend adaher says one thing, facts say another.