|
Post by robeiae on Dec 11, 2017 19:23:14 GMT -5
I don't disapprove of what Trump did in itself. I disapprove of the fact that he did it without thought, introspection, or a plan. He just does whatever makes his dick hard at any given moment. I don't disagree, really. Well, except my disapproval for Trump is more of a general thing. Still, I can't really get too angry with a politician who acknowledges reality, even if for questionable reasons. Again, what really gets me here is the infantilizing of the Palestinians by their supposed supporters/defenders in Europe and the US, as if they--the Palestinians--are too simple-minded or unsophisticated to process this stuff without resorting to violence (thus absolving the ones committing the violence of blame).
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 11, 2017 20:28:19 GMT -5
I say good for Trump. Unlike those who hate the man so much they can only see bad in whatever he does, (or if the action isn't inherently bad then his motivation for it must be) I do think he is sincerely attempting to do the right thing by Israel. He promised that from day one in his campaign, and he's following through. And it WAS the right thing to do, not only for Israel our friend and ally, but for the peace process itself. It's time the Palestinians begin to learn that the world (or at least the U.S.) won't kowtow to them on this any longer. They have to meet in the middle somewhere, in order for this peace process to work, if it ever will work. All the gnashing of teeth reminds me of the dramatic despair over Brexit...or of how the stock market would crash if Trump got elected... This isn't exactly "meeting in the middle." It's telling the Palestinians "Fuck you." Maybe that's what you actually think Trump should be doing (I don't have a problem per se with telling the Palestinians to go pound sand, myself), but do not pretend this was some thoughtful and considered move towards a more stable peace. This was Trump showboating, ingratiating himself with Israel, and giving the Palestinians and their Arab supporters the middle finger. And you and everyone else pretending you luurrrrve Trump and will continue to pretend you were never asked your thoughts about being a pussy to grab by the POTUS are just pounding the table and hooting because you like the idea of giving Arabs the middle finger. I don't disapprove of what Trump did in itself. I disapprove of the fact that he did it without thought, introspection, or a plan. He just does whatever makes his dick hard at any given moment. I do admit I like the idea of giving some Arabs the middle finger -- those who are terrorists and those who want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth among them. To your other point, I find it really fascinating that some people on this board can know exactly how much thought or introspection another person puts into an action or decision or even a post on this board. Some gifted ones also know how much Googling another has done, or how many links they have read. It's truly amazing. Anyway, back to Trump... You are so sure Trump did this without thought, introspection, or a plan that you call this a "fact". Ok. I happen to think you don't know at all how much thought Trump put into this. He has advisors and has been discussing a plan for Middle East peace for some time now. For goodness' sake, his son-in-law is Jewish, religious, educated at Jewish schools, has visited Israel many times since he was a child, is a big Israel supporter whose family is even close with Netanyahu. And Trump's daughter converted to Judaism. It makes logical sense to assume Trump actually has discussed the Israel situation with at least Jared and Ivanka on multiple occasions prior to him being POTUS, and with them and other experts after the election. It defies logic that Trump went into this without thought or introspection or a plan, and plenty of people who heard his speech on the matter think it was well-reasoned and appropriately delicate, given the strong feelings on both sides.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2017 21:00:00 GMT -5
Any number of things defy logic...
...but not the idea that Trump went into something without thought or introspection or a plan. That is how he flies.
I would like to prop you in front of his twitter feed. Every. Single. Day. with your eyelids propped open and force you to read and defend every one in accordance with the principles you espouse.
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Dec 12, 2017 4:00:09 GMT -5
I'm just surprised there is someone somewhere in the world that thinks Brexit is a success. Is it okay to pick myself off the floor, or is there more incoming?
I don't think the term alt-right is the right one. That's not a way to say that they should be called for what they are, in the "call a spade a spade" theory of politics. I think the alt-right is the dumb-right. It has no capacity for detail, for critical examination, for an ideas coherence.
You just have to look at the champion in chief in the White House. He's dumb. His movement is dumb. And I won't apologise for saying that because I sometimes too adhere to the "call a spade a spade" theory of politics.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 12, 2017 7:37:19 GMT -5
You shouldn't call him names and Europe's leaders shouldn't criticize him. After all, he might bomb the shit out of you, right?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 12, 2017 8:52:46 GMT -5
This isn't exactly "meeting in the middle." It's telling the Palestinians "Fuck you." What do you think meeting in the middle would look like? Well, I think the phrase is overused, to start with. I am not sure we can "meet in the middle" where Middle East peace is concerned. Sometimes one side is going to win and one side is going to lose. So like I said, I don't have a problem with telling the Palestinians to go pound sand, per se. However, I think, if Trump was determined to do this, the smarter and more effective way to do so would have been after meeting with Palestinian leaders, giving them an opportunity to have their say, and making clear that we are still committed to negotiating a peace process, and maybe throwing them a bone or two. In other words, especially when dealing with Arabs, you have to let them save some face. That's the way the culture is. Just delivering a blunt bomb of a message - "You don't matter, your leaders are powerless and we don't respect them, fuck you!" - was almost calculated for maximum outrage. If I were really trying to come up with the most anti-Trump theory I could, I'd say it almost seems as if he was trying to provoke another intifada. Even when we beat the Germans and the Japanese, we didn't make their leaders crawl on their bellies to the table to sign the surrender. That seems about Trump's style.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 12, 2017 9:01:37 GMT -5
I do admit I like the idea of giving some Arabs the middle finger -- those who are terrorists and those who want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth among them. To your other point, I find it really fascinating that some people on this board can know exactly how much thought or introspection another person puts into an action or decision or even a post on this board. Some gifted ones also know how much Googling another has done, or how many links they have read. It's truly amazing. Anyway, back to Trump... You are so sure Trump did this without thought, introspection, or a plan that you call this a "fact". Ok. I happen to think you don't know at all how much thought Trump put into this. He has advisors and has been discussing a plan for Middle East peace for some time now. For goodness' sake, his son-in-law is Jewish, religious, educated at Jewish schools, has visited Israel many times since he was a child, is a big Israel supporter whose family is even close with Netanyahu. And Trump's daughter converted to Judaism. It makes logical sense to assume Trump actually has discussed the Israel situation with at least Jared and Ivanka on multiple occasions prior to him being POTUS, and with them and other experts after the election. It defies logic that Trump went into this without thought or introspection or a plan, and plenty of people who heard his speech on the matter think it was well-reasoned and appropriately delicate, given the strong feelings on both sides. So, still good with Trump grabbing your pussy, then? I don't think anyone has a problem with flipping the bird at terrorists, but you are missing my point. A political stunt that amounts to flipping the bird at the entire Arab world is not statesmanship, no matter how gleefully you and the POTUS giggle about it. Frankly, I don't believe your "some" qualifier and I sure as hell don't believe it about Trump. I think you put "some" in there in the same way Trump puts it in there when describing how criminal Mexicans are. As for how much introspection Trump put into his decision, obviously none of us can read his mind, but we all form opinions of how leaders come to their decisions based on their words, their actions, and their history. You certainly had plenty of opinions about what was in Obama and Clinton's minds. The fact that Trump has Jewish family members is not exactly an argument in favor of the wisdom of his actions. Okay, so he has family (and no doubt a lot of friends) who are very pro-Israeli. That's not coming to a considered decision about what's best for America, that's letting his inner circle push his opinions. Jared and Ivanka aren't (or shouldn't be) foreign policy advisors. I cannot even imagine the pitch you would have reached if Obama had been listening to a Muslim friend or family member while making political decisions that were unfavorable to Israel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2017 9:10:38 GMT -5
What do you think meeting in the middle would look like? Well, I think the phrase is overused, to start with. I am not sure we can "meet in the middle" where Middle East peace is concerned. Sometimes one side is going to win and one side is going to lose. So like I said, I don't have a problem with telling the Palestinians to go pound sand, per se. However, I think, if Trump was determined to do this, the smarter and more effective way to do so would have been after meeting with Palestinian leaders, giving them an opportunity to have their say, and making clear that we are still committed to negotiating a peace process, and maybe throwing them a bone or two. In other words, especially when dealing with Arabs, you have to let them save some face. That's the way the culture is. Just delivering a blunt bomb of a message - "You don't matter, your leaders are powerless and we don't respect them, fuck you!" - was almost calculated for maximum outrage. If I were really trying to come up with the most anti-Trump theory I could, I'd say it almost seems as if he was trying to provoke another intifada. Even when we beat the Germans and the Japanese, we didn't make their leaders crawl on their bellies to the table to sign the surrender. That seems about Trump's style. Yes. One might also argue that the closest approach to "meeting in the middle" when it comes to Jerusalem just now might be doing what past presidents have done rather than deliberately (and IMO, rather pointlessly) rocking that boat.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 12, 2017 18:08:37 GMT -5
Well, I think the phrase is overused, to start with. I am not sure we can "meet in the middle" where Middle East peace is concerned. Sometimes one side is going to win and one side is going to lose. So like I said, I don't have a problem with telling the Palestinians to go pound sand, per se. However, I think, if Trump was determined to do this, the smarter and more effective way to do so would have been after meeting with Palestinian leaders, giving them an opportunity to have their say, and making clear that we are still committed to negotiating a peace process, and maybe throwing them a bone or two. In other words, especially when dealing with Arabs, you have to let them save some face. That's the way the culture is. Just delivering a blunt bomb of a message - "You don't matter, your leaders are powerless and we don't respect them, fuck you!" - was almost calculated for maximum outrage. If I were really trying to come up with the most anti-Trump theory I could, I'd say it almost seems as if he was trying to provoke another intifada. Even when we beat the Germans and the Japanese, we didn't make their leaders crawl on their bellies to the table to sign the surrender. That seems about Trump's style. One might also argue that the closest approach to "meeting in the middle" when it comes to Jerusalem just now might be doing what past presidents have done rather than deliberately (and IMO, rather pointlessly) rocking that boat. I don't think so. Amadan's answer made sense, IMO. Diplomacy is still important, regardless of the "who" one is dealing with. That's quite different from saying don't rock the boat, saying don't recognize Jerusalem, just like everyone else hasn't. Really, that's not meeting in the middle at all, IMO. It's refusing to recognize a fait accompli, for no good reason that I can see. That said, given that Israel has offered 96 percent of the West Bank, plus the part of Jerusalem where the Al-Aqsa Mosque is located, and the Palestinian leadership turned it down, I think the concept of "meeting in the middle" with regard to this conflict has been seriously distorted.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 12, 2017 21:39:23 GMT -5
So, still good with Trump grabbing your pussy, then? Right then. No one else is saying anything, so I will, because this is a seriously inappropriate thing to say, and I have no earthly idea why you would say it (and continue to harp on it in this way). As much as I vehemently disagree with celawson's (and others' I encounter on a daily basis) support of Trump, and though I'm loathe to speak for her or anyone else, I feel quite sure she would not be okay with Trump or anyone else grabbing her genitals, in case that helps you. The rest of your post was totally fair, as would be any questions posed regarding Trump's fitness for office, what with his history and the stack of assault allegations against him. But I have no clue why you feel you must stoop to this level of animosity and crudeness. You are, I think, in danger of becoming what you proclaim to despise. So, from one member to another and on behalf of another fellow member, kindly fucking stop.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2017 23:02:07 GMT -5
You did not mind nighttimer asking her pretty much the exact same question.
Kindly stop trying to moderate.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 12, 2017 23:39:48 GMT -5
I'm speaking as a member, which I clearly stated.
That's allowed, right? If not, I'm sure you'll slap up MOD NOTE.
Nighttimer did not badger in this way, over and over again, becoming progressively more offensive. It's clearly different.
Isn't the goal to attack each others' arguments without making it personal? "Your pussy" is kind of personal.
That you seem to not be able to see this, or to at least allow me to mention it without a snide comeback, is perplexing.
|
|
|
Post by CG Admin on Dec 13, 2017 7:47:51 GMT -5
It is allowed.
And Amadan's "your pussy" comment is pushing right up to the line.
Yet, we're all still adults here and can recognize that Amadan is actually employing a rhetorical device; it's personal to the extent that the back and forth is personal. And I'm okay with that, to an extent. I'm not asking for more of it, to be sure, but if we can't get a little heated, we can't really go all in. At the end of the day, I prefer self-policing, as much as possible.
So...I'm okay with what happened here: Amadan pushing the envelope and Christine pointing it out.
But I also get where my fellow Mod is coming from. Because if we really dig down here, nothing good will come of it.
Points made, move on, be nice, tra-la-la-la-la...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 11:49:31 GMT -5
One might also argue that the closest approach to "meeting in the middle" when it comes to Jerusalem just now might be doing what past presidents have done rather than deliberately (and IMO, rather pointlessly) rocking that boat. I don't think so. Amadan's answer made sense, IMO. Diplomacy is still important, regardless of the "who" one is dealing with. That's quite different from saying don't rock the boat, saying don't recognize Jerusalem, just like everyone else hasn't. Really, that's not meeting in the middle at all, IMO. It's refusing to recognize a fait accompli, for no good reason that I can see. That said, given that Israel has offered 96 percent of the West Bank, plus the part of Jerusalem where the Al-Aqsa Mosque is located, and the Palestinian leadership turned it down, I think the concept of "meeting in the middle" with regard to this conflict has been seriously distorted. I don't disagree with you on either the notion that "meeting in the middle" here is difficult as hell, nor that the Palestinians have been guilty of plenty of bad behavior. (And to be clear -- if someone here were a fervent defender of bad Palestinian behavior, I'd be bickering with them. As it happens, no one here is, as far as I can see, so I find myself arguing with the pro-Israelis. Really, to some extent, my position is a pox on them both, but...) But that said -- on the offering of 96% of the West Bank (or thereabouts), it's my understanding (which I admit is based largely on discussions with a friend (American) who works for the U.N. in Jerusalem) that the Palestinian's objection to that offer was that the 4% Israel wasn't offering included the best land of the West Band, and also meant that the remaining 96% was not only pretty much all desert, but also would have been only partial sovereignty over non-continuous land. And if I'm not remembering wrong (I might be -- I had the conversation with him a few years ago while I was visiting Jerusalem), it didn't address East Jerusalem. They wanted 1967 borders. When I get a chance (God willing, later this week, I'll have more free time), I will look into it and see if I've got this right. Meanwhile, feel free to correct me on what I've got wrong. I'm pretty much on board with the '67 border thing, so (assuming I'm understanding this correctly), I can kind of grok why the proposal wasn't embraced -- even though, at the same time, I can grok why it was offered. At this point, there are no simple solutions. But that, actually, is part of my problem here -- Trump is trying to quickly force a simple solution into an intricate mess, and IMO, he's doing it purely to curry favor with pro-Israel voters. That bugs me. That kind of thing always bugs me. Even if we grant that the Palestinians should have accepted the offer of the 96ish% of the West Bank as the best they'd get, I still don't think Trump needed to stomp in there and make this declaration -- certainly not now, certainly not the way in the manner he did it (to be fair, I hate the manner in which he does almost everything, so there's that). Sometimes, IMO, it's better to let growling dogs lie. What's sad is that my typing this means I'm going to be munching a sandwich over my keyboard instead of taking a break. Someone shoot me, please.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 13, 2017 12:28:28 GMT -5
So, I will tone down the rhetoric, but for the record, my "badgering" is when I perceive someone asked a direct question, saying they will respond to it, and then quietly tiptoing away and hoping everyone forgets because they aren't actually able to articulate a response that doesn't expose the logical flaws and cognitive dissonance in their position. I would not expect anyone to let me get away with ducking and weaving like that, and I won't let anyone else.
I will apologize to celawson, since I really wasn't trying to personally attack her even though I was being deliberately inflammatory - but my question remains, and I am going to continue to harp on it (in a less inflammatory manner) every time she defends Trump, until she addresses the point she said she was going to address.
|
|