Why Trump Won

"Is the popular vote to blame for Vietnam, since it gave LBJ the greatest popular landslide of all-time?" T #59

No.
The U.S. had obligations in Vietnam during the JFK administration.
LBJ escalated, but did not initiate war in Vietnam.

"You are committing a logical fallacy." A #60

That might have been true if it was a "conclusion" based entirely on logic.
It's not devoid of logic.
But it relies on additional disciplines, history & psychology for obvious examples.

"While it is plausibly true that if Bush were not elected we might not have gone to war with Iraq, you can never prove that definitively."

The comment was not presented as a logical certitude (even if it was).
The comment was an appeal to humanity and justice.

What is a certitude is that in all the centuries of U.S. history no U.S. president has lied U.S. into U.S. military invasion and occupation of Iraq, except the President Bush that lost the vote but won the s/election.
You've already cited what I can't prove.
Can you prove that it's a coincidence? Looks like a draw to me.

"What is demonstrably false is your assumption that eliminating the electoral college will somehow prevent unnecessary wars. Forgive me but that is Deshtard stupid"

I deduce that you do not have advanced professional expertise with statistical analysis.
I both studied statistics in college, and have decades of practical experience in applied statistics.

You failing to understand is not necessarily proof that I am wrong.

While we're at it,
are you aware though we'll have multiple Republican presidents in this millennium, that:

a) More than one of them gained election victory after losing the vote, exclusively because of the electoral college.

b) Without the electoral college, nearly two decades into the 3rd Millennium, not one Republican would have made it to the presidency?

"Forgive me but that is Deshtard stupid"

Actually, that's an indisputable fact.
 
OldMercsRule said:

Yup: Einstein, it's that pesky 'obsolete' Cornstitution that has made this REPUBLIC the most successful country in the history of mankind that you TARD infested moon bats wanna tear down.
Click to expand...

sear was pointing to a certain obsolete provision, he/she did not recommend throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Typical illogical and disingenuous argument from you. The electoral college is only defensible on a contractual basis, i.e. that it was agreed to. It certainly is not a pillar buttressing the American experiment/ dream/ what have you. If you think so, prove it.
 
OldMercsRule said:
It would tear this very successful Republic apart if the fruit loop masses in NYC, LA, Chicago and other major dim wit Democrat cesspools were allowed to totally direct the leadership of this Republic.

I guess ya wanna outlaw the Senate as well, eh?

Look at those cesspools that have been led by dim wit Democrats fer decades. They are all nearly bankrupt, (unsustainable financially), have crime issues, and are the armpits of this Republic.

If ya wanna change the Constitution there is a process.

I guess that is why yer a scorched moon bat, that posts like a termite chompin' on his own house, eh?

burp...
Click to expand...

There is another process to accomplish the same thing, the National Popular Vote interstate compact.
 
sear said:
"Is the popular vote to blame for Vietnam, since it gave LBJ the greatest popular landslide of all-time?" T #59

No.
The U.S. had obligations in Vietnam during the JFK administration.
LBJ escalated, but did not initiate war in Vietnam.

"You are committing a logical fallacy." A #60

That might have been true if it was a "conclusion" based entirely on logic.
It's not devoid of logic.
But it relies on additional disciplines, history & psychology for obvious examples.

"While it is plausibly true that if Bush were not elected we might not have gone to war with Iraq, you can never prove that definitively."

The comment was not presented as a logical certitude (even if it was).
The comment was an appeal to humanity and justice.

What is a certitude is that in all the centuries of U.S. history no U.S. president has lied U.S. into U.S. military invasion and occupation of Iraq, except the President Bush that lost the vote but won the s/election.
You've already cited what I can't prove.
Can you prove that it's a coincidence? Looks like a draw to me.

"What is demonstrably false is your assumption that eliminating the electoral college will somehow prevent unnecessary wars. Forgive me but that is Deshtard stupid"

I deduce that you do not have advanced professional expertise with statistical analysis.
I both studied statistics in college, and have decades of practical experience in applied statistics.

You failing to understand is not necessarily proof that I am wrong.

While we're at it,
are you aware though we'll have multiple Republican presidents in this millennium, that:

a) More than one of them gained election victory after losing the vote, exclusively because of the electoral college.

b) Without the electoral college, nearly two decades into the 3rd Millennium, not one Republican would have made it to the presidency?

"Forgive me but that is Deshtard stupid"

Actually, that's an indisputable fact.
Click to expand...

8 years of Obama and US troops are still in Afghanistan, and have returned troops to Iraq.
 
M #62

Thanks.

"8 years of Obama and US troops are still in Afghanistan, and have returned troops to Iraq." GQ #64

Correct.
But unlike our previous U.S. president, President Obama has been parsimonious with the blood of U.S. military troops.

Obama pulled troops from Iraq in conformance to requirements established by the Bush administration, on the timetable the Bush administration set for Obama.

BUT !!

Obama had more flexibility in Afghanistan, and postponed the previously scheduled U.S. military draw-down there; for the purpose of promoting the objectives that got U.S. there in the first place, during the Bush administration.
To criticize Obama for pursuing those objectives is to criticize President Bush, for it's President Bush (younger) that set the objectives in the first place.
 
sear said:
M #62

Thanks.

"8 years of Obama and US troops are still in Afghanistan, and have returned troops to Iraq." GQ #64

Correct.
But unlike our previous U.S. president, President Obama has been parsimonious with the blood of U.S. military troops.

Obama pulled troops from Iraq in conformance to requirements established by the Bush administration, on the timetable the Bush administration set for Obama.

BUT !!

Obama had more flexibility in Afghanistan, and postponed the previously scheduled U.S. military draw-down there; for the purpose of promoting the objectives that got U.S. there in the first place, during the Bush administration.
To criticize Obama for pursuing those objectives is to criticize President Bush, for it's President Bush (younger) that set the objectives in the first place.
Click to expand...

Weak and ineffective US leadership has wrought havoc in the ME. Hundreds of thousands of dead and millions of refugees. 8 years of war, with a new one beginning again in Iraq. Well done, Barry.
 
archives said:
Trump won because he had a collection of evemts happening at the same time: Russia, FBI, overt right wing media, and Clinton as a bad campaigner

You people like to think it was some kind of historical movement, but more people voted for the other candidate, lot more, and swing hundred thousand votes and he loses, not a movement

Now the denying can begin
Click to expand...

Uhhh, ummm, yeah it did all happen and guess what? It IS a historical event.

This whining, wailing, and beating of breast is already going down in history!

Did y'all wanna start book burning again?

I'll betcha' can ;)
 
"Weak and ineffective US leadership has wrought havoc in the ME. Hundreds of thousands of dead and millions of refugees. 8 years of war, with a new one beginning again in Iraq. Well done, Barry." GQ #66

"American people are friends of Liberty everywhere, but custodians only of their own." John Adams

Libya's Malomar Quadaffy was tied to the Lockerbie, Scotland airliner crash.
There's no statute of limitations on mass-murder.

Reagan staged a bombing raid on Quadaffy from Diego Garcia. We didn't get Quadoofy. But we got a close family member, and sobered him up.

Obama staged further aerial U.S. military operations there, and finished Quadopey off.

Obama's been good on that. Republicans like Reagan and Bush (younger) start it, Obama gets it done.

BUT !!

Problem is:

Saddam and Quadaffy were bad guys. Very bad guys.

But it turns out, getting rid of them hasn't made the Middle East better. It's made the Middle East worse. Thus the inherent wisdom of Adams' words:

"American people are friends of Liberty everywhere, but custodians only of their own." John Adams
 
sear said:
"Weak and ineffective US leadership has wrought havoc in the ME. Hundreds of thousands of dead and millions of refugees. 8 years of war, with a new one beginning again in Iraq. Well done, Barry." GQ #66

"American people are friends of Liberty everywhere, but custodians only of their own." John Adams

Libya's Malomar Quadaffy was tied to the Lockerbie, Scotland airliner crash.
There's no statute of limitations on mass-murder.

Reagan staged a bombing raid on Quadaffy from Diego Garcia. We didn't get Quadoofy. But we got a close family member, and sobered him up.

Obama staged further aerial U.S. military operations there, and finished Quadopey off.

Obama's been good on that. Republicans like Reagan and Bush (younger) start it, Obama gets it done.

BUT !!

Problem is:

Saddam and Quadaffy were bad guys. Very bad guys.

But it turns out, getting rid of them hasn't made the Middle East better. It's made the Middle East worse. Thus the inherent wisdom of Adams' words:

"American people are friends of Liberty everywhere, but custodians only of their own." John Adams
Click to expand...

Good to hear you think the world is in great shape. I just want it on record that when Trump took office, America is involved in the same two wars as when Obama took office. Carry on.
 
"Good to hear you think the world is in great shape." GQ #70

You infer what I did not imply.
If you think ANYthing I posted means what you've attributed to me here, you need some remedial reading comprehension training.

"I just want it on record that when Trump took office, America is involved in the same two wars as when Obama took office. Carry on."

I disagree.

President Bush's War in Iraq, the invasion, and the subsequent occupation / counterinsurgency ended when the U.S. SOFA expired. Almost to the hour according to some reports.
And the SOFA expired due to diplomacy handled (or mishandled depending on your pov) of the Bush (younger) administration.
The MRAPs may have rolled during the Obama administration. But they did so on the Bush administration's timetable.

The U.S. Revolutionary war, and the War of 1812 might have both been fought against the Brits, in America. That doesn't mean they're the same war.

Bush sent the U.S. invasion / occupation forces to Iraq to:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt, that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
U.S. President Bush (the younger) televised address to the U.S. March 17th, 2003

MARCH 30, 2003: Donald Rumsfeld: We know where the WMD are
We know where [the weapons of mass destruction] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. [ABC This Week, 3/30/03]

Obama returned U.S. military to Northern Iraq to support Iraq's military in destroying ISIL, reportedly with significant success. Obama has made a higher % progress toward mission completion in a shorter time than Bush did, with far less loss of U.S. blood or $treasure.

f2b35eef490860371bf690b479aa4750be20203.JPG
 
sear said:
"Good to hear you think the world is in great shape." GQ #70

You infer what I did not imply.
If you think ANYthing I posted means what you've attributed to me here, you need some remedial reading comprehension training.

"I just want it on record that when Trump took office, America is involved in the same two wars as when Obama took office. Carry on."

I disagree.

President Bush's War in Iraq, the invasion, and the subsequent occupation / counterinsurgency ended when the U.S. SOFA expired. Almost to the hour according to some reports.
And the SOFA expired due to diplomacy handled (or mishandled depending on your pov) of the Bush (younger) administration.
The MRAPs may have rolled during the Obama administration. But they did so on the Bush administration's timetable.

The U.S. Revolutionary war, and the War of 1812 might have both been fought against the Brits, in America. That doesn't mean they're the same war.

Bush sent the U.S. invasion / occupation forces to Iraq to:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt, that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
U.S. President Bush (the younger) televised address to the U.S. March 17th, 2003

MARCH 30, 2003: Donald Rumsfeld: We know where the WMD are
We know where [the weapons of mass destruction] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. [ABC This Week, 3/30/03]

Obama returned U.S. military to Northern Iraq to support Iraq's military in destroying ISIL, reportedly with significant success. Obama has made a higher % progress toward mission completion in a shorter time than Bush did, with far less loss of U.S. blood or $treasure.

f2b35eef490860371bf690b479aa4750be20203.JPG
Click to expand...

Lotta words to say America is involved in the same two wars now as it was when Obama took office.
 
#74

And blacksmith's anvils postulate algebra.

Just because it's within the borders of the same nation does not mean it's the same War.

The objectives are different.
The strategy is different.
We're not battling a ferocious insurgency the way we did in Bush's (younger) occupation.

Call it the same war all you like. But repeating the lie will never validate the lie.

BUT !!

Reductio ad absurdum:
follow your absurdity to it's inevitable logical extreme, and it's all been just one war, since Genesis.

- ridiculous! -
 
archives said:
Trump won because he had a collection of evemts happening at the same time: Russia, FBI, overt right wing media, and Clinton as a bad campaigner

You people like to think it was some kind of historical movement, but more people voted for the other candidate, lot more, and swing hundred thousand votes and he loses, not a movement

Now the denying can begin
Click to expand...

9285a77624d1d2aea38f84dbdbe7e9235720a25f5a4cb4337f5a0781805372fd.jpg
 
sear said:
#74

And blacksmith's anvils postulate algebra.

Just because it's within the borders of the same nation does not mean it's the same War.

The objectives are different.
The strategy is different.
We're not battling a ferocious insurgency the way we did in Bush's (younger) occupation.

Call it the same war all you like. But repeating the lie will never validate the lie.

BUT !!

Reductio ad absurdum:
follow your absurdity to it's inevitable logical extreme, and it's all been just one war, since Genesis.

- ridiculous! -
Click to expand...
The war in Afghanistan is the same war, as you have previously noted. The war in Iraq belongs to Obama.
 
"The war in Iraq belongs to Obama." GQ

For another ~21.5 hrs. or so.

BUT !!

Obama opposed the Bush proposed U.S. military invasion of Iraq.

And it's a War Bush LIED U.S. into.

AND !!

ISIL, perhaps among the largest threats the U.S. faces in the Middle East at the moment.

AND !!

Most ISIL senior military command are former Saddam Iraq military commanders.

So had the Bush administration not first conquered Iraq, and then fired Saddam's senior military command, President Obama would not now be saddled with the ISIL problem.

Lay it on Obama if you like.

It's Bush's fault.

Take away the Bush administration, and the ISIL problem goes with it.
 
sear said:
"The war in Iraq belongs to Obama." GQ

For another ~21.5 hrs. or so.

BUT !!

Obama opposed the Bush proposed U.S. military invasion of Iraq.

And it's a War Bush LIED U.S. into.

AND !!

ISIL, perhaps among the largest threats the U.S. faces in the Middle East at the moment.

AND !!

Most ISIL senior military command are former Saddam Iraq military commanders.

So had the Bush administration not first conquered Iraq, and then fired Saddam's senior military command, President Obama would not now be saddled with the ISIL problem.

Lay it on Obama if you like.

It's Bush's fault.

Take away the Bush administration, and the ISIL problem goes with it.
Click to expand...

Obama ended the war in Iraq before he started it again. No boots on the ground.
 
"Obama ended the war in Iraq" GQ #79 in accordance with the Bush administration's timetable.

Bush set the terms, the chronology. That chronology just happens to have fallen on the Obama administration.

HOWEVER!!

Politicians waffle.
Obama passed Obamacare, but didn't close Gitmo.

Bush originally cited as reason for a U.S. military invasion of Iraq:

"Time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." U.S. President Bush (the younger) in his State of the Union speech Jan. 29, 2002

The problem there was, once it was determined there were no Iraqi WMD, the reason for Bush's War there vanished.

So the Bushies had to concoct an alternate justification on the fly. They came up with: plant the seed of democracy in the Middle East.

That didn't fly.
So it then they switched it again:

In President Bush (younger's) own words: He said the goal remains
"an Iraq that can govern itself and sustain itself and defend itself." U.S. President Bush (younger)

It's worth noting:
When Obama withdrew U.S. military occupying forces from Iraq ACCORDING TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TIMETABLE
the Bush administration's stated objective: "an Iraq that can govern itself and sustain itself and defend itself." had been realized.

Were it otherwise, Iraq would have collapsed within days or weeks of the U.S. exit.
But Iraq remained stable for many months, before ISIL invaded.

And the rout ISIL inflicted on the Iraqi military is an absolute embarrassment to military honor. An entire army of deserters! Well isn't that special.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top