Current Affairs Afghanistan

[NilSatisOptimum]

Trump & Pompeo reduced the US military numbers from 10,000 to 2,500 with barely any trouble. As he had good comms with the Taliban chiefs it appears likely his administration would've managed the final 2500 without great incident.

Biden, and whoever was onside with him on this (not many, by all accounts), made an unholy mess out of getting this final 2500 out, including leaving an immense, sheer unbelievable amount of high-end military equipment behind for the Taliban (and by extension the Chinese) to plunder. Not to mention the tragic human cost of those chaotic airport scenes.

Let's at least give Trump some due: his foreign policy, while bullish, did not result in increased strife in the Middle-East. Biden's here for barely 6 months and we already potentially face a refugee crisis to match 2015/6's Syrian waves.

Had Trump won the presidential election this would have happened in May, signed off and done. Instead it happened months later in September. So people had 4 months getting used to stupid idea. Biden worse Trump worser. The only people enjoying this are the ones who don't much like Afghanistan people.

 

[dholliday]

Had Trump won the presidential election this would have happened in May, signed off and done. Instead it happened months later in September. So people had 4 months getting used to stupid idea. Biden worse Trump worser. The only people enjoying this are the ones who don't much like Afghanistan people.

The only people enjoying this are the ones who support Sharia.

We'll never know how it would've gone under Trump, but the signs were there that it would've gone smoother.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

The only people enjoying this are the ones who support Sharia.

We'll never know how it would've gone under Trump, but the signs were there that it would've gone smoother.

Well an interpretation of Sharia... Would not want to generalise would we! Can't see how it would have been smother had this happened sooner. Both have played to America first crowd for different reasons. Biden has environmental concerns as his thing and will use this as capital at home. Trump is just a looser one term president.

 

[BlueTX]

eh? Who cares about the Washington Examiner? What makes you assume I'm a reader of it?

I didn't even link it, i linked a Yahoo News link which cited it. It could just as well have cited the Times piece.

You're deflecting, as you know you've been caught. You've not actually discussed the content of that story.


It does folk a lot of good to admit where they've stumbled in a debate. It makes them clearer thinkers, for next time they are better prepared.


And further, GOT's Current Affairs is an extreme example of groupthinkian ad-hominem principles...almost every time a story or opinion gets brought up which your groupthink does not like, the focus of your attack goes to the messenger, not the message.

Yous never get out of second gear:

Boris's Tories win elections because they're able to debate above 2nd-gear, and their voters appreciate it.





Another second-gearist, tho' barely even that.

Several have addressed the content of the story and the sources, the original one actually being National Pulse (a Trumpist quasi-news site) reporting on a poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports.

The poll itself is junk, by the standards of professional polling, and Rasmussen has an incredibly poor track record in the polling field. That the Wasington Examiner, Yahoo News or any other larger, "more credible" source picked up the original story, which would have been seen by a tiny few if not picked up by the larger media, shouldn't give the story credibility - it's simply poor work.

Odd you seem less interested in discussing the legitimacy of the story and the tree from which it comes being poison than re-posing your beloved pyramid. It is your own myopia and probable clinging to a confirmation bias on display here, not an issue of group-think (though that can happen here, as anywhere).

Perhaps Boris may win as you describe but Trump didn't win because of debate above second gear and isn't his re-election the topic?The man cannot debate in any classic sense of the term and his communication rarely moves past "first-gear" name-calling or bullying.

He won the first election due to a quirk in our system (Electoral College). He subsequently, over the next 4 years, lost his Presidency and both houses of Congress. So, if your suggestion to the conservatives here in the States is to bring the level of debate up a notch - I'm not going to disagree.

 

[tsubaki]

I hope you're wumming, because if not then that is a stunningly stupid comment.

Are you uni-educated?


You replied to my below comment only last night. That's where you started this weird deflection about Washington Examiner:

"weird deflection"?

You made a comment saying you were posting links from acceptable sources, and my comment was to point out that you actually had posted a link from a garbage site just recently. This has led to several posts where you pretend the argument was about something else.

 

[dholliday]

Well an interpretation of Sharia... Would not want to generalise would we! Can't see how it would have been smother had this happened sooner. Both have played to America first crowd for different reasons. Biden has environmental concerns as his thing and will use this as capital at home. Trump is just a looser one term president.

Did you mean loser or actually looser?

The poll itself is junk, by the standards of professional polling,

How did you ascertain that? Rasmussen were among the most accurate mainstream pollers of 2016, and also predicted Biden winning 2020 despite their Republican-leaning reputation. They also made a point of surveying more Democrats than Republicans for this particular one. The Washington Times found it serious enough to warrant a report.

I don't think the important issue is Rasmussen or whoever, the real issue is Biden's reputation crumbling, while Trump's improves. Which is what that poll indicates.

That the Wasington Examiner, Yahoo News or any other larger, "more credible" source picked up the original story, which would have been seen by a tiny few if not picked up by the larger media, shouldn't give the story credibility - it's simply poor work.

Washington Times reported on it. We should seriously drop this whole Examiner angle. Pointless, other than to deflect.

Odd you seem less interested in discussing the legitimacy of the story and the tree from which it comes being poison than re-posing your beloved pyramid.

I am interested in that very much, just that the replies I keep getting focus on attacking the messenger. You did a lot of that too, but at least you have one line about the story (see above) where you simply called the poll "junk", without explaining why you think that.

Assuming you don't believe Trump would beat Biden right now, then that puts you in 4th-gear:

bring the level of debate up a notch - I'm not going to disagree.

yes please.

 

[PhilM]

Anyone else shouting "k'off with the triangle?"

 

[tsubaki]

Anyone else shouting "k'off with the triangle?"

careful, that is an easy way to get triangled

 

[dholliday]

"weird deflection"?

You made a comment saying you were posting links from acceptable sources, and my comment was to point out that you actually had posted a link from a garbage site just recently. This has led to several posts where you pretend the argument was about something else.

must be wumming...

Tho' I note @BlueTX liked your post. And you'll probably get a couple more.

It's as if there's a mass...psychosis...going on...like a blindspot. Honed by years of training.

Uni-educated, yeah? I've got a theory about that.

 

[ste d' indica]

It's as if there's a mass...psychosis...going on...like a blindspot. Honed by years of training.

Uni-educated, yeah? I've got a theory about that.

Oh, I'll bet you have lol

 

[tsubaki]

must be wumming...

Tho' I note @BlueTX liked your post. And you'll probably get a couple more.

It's as if there's a mass...psychosis...going on...like a blindspot. Honed by years of training.

Uni-educated, yeah? I've got a theory about that.

I am sure you do have a theory about it, or rather you've read something else on a dodgy site online and thought it would make you sound clever.

Also it isn't "years of training", its years of reading your posts. Yesterday it was look at this video I've completely misunderstood, today its the vaccine-hesitant are the smart ones.

 

[Yarrgh]

eh? Who cares about the Washington Examiner? What makes you assume I'm a reader of it?

I didn't even link it, i linked a Yahoo News link which cited it. It could just as well have cited the Times piece.

You're deflecting, as you know you've been caught. You've not actually discussed the content of that story.


It does folk a lot of good to admit where they've stumbled in a debate. It makes them clearer thinkers, for next time they are better prepared.


And further, GOT's Current Affairs is an extreme example of groupthinkian ad-hominem principles...almost every time a story or opinion gets brought up which your groupthink does not like, the focus of your attack goes to the messenger, not the message.

Yous never get out of second gear:

Boris's Tories win elections because they're able to debate above 2nd-gear, and their voters appreciate it.





Another second-gearist, tho' barely even that.

Isn't this the sort of thing that gets posted on r/selfawarewolves?

 

[BlueTX]

Did you mean loser or actually looser?




How did you ascertain that? Rasmussen were among the most accurate mainstream pollers of 2016, and also predicted Biden winning 2020 despite their Republican-leaning reputation. They also made a point of surveying more Democrats than Republicans for this particular one. The Washington Times found it serious enough to warrant a report.

I don't think the important issue is Rasmussen or whoever, the real issue is Biden's reputation crumbling, while Trump's improves. Which is what that poll indicates.





Washington Times reported on it. We should seriously drop this whole Examiner angle. Pointless, other than to deflect.



I am interested in that very much, just that the replies I keep getting focus on attacking the messenger. You did a lot of that too, but at least you have one line about the story (see above) where you simply called the poll "junk", without explaining why you think that.

Assuming you don't believe Trump would beat Biden right now, then that puts you in 4th-gear:

yes please.

Regrets: Trump would beat Biden today, more women and blacks support

A slew of new polls have come out this week showing the shrinking support for and approval of President Joe Biden, his average now below 50%.But today,

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Sixteen polling firms released generic polling just prior to the mid-term elections. Rasmussen was literally the least accurate pollster of the group - by far. His firm routinely scored Trump with much higher approval ratings than other firms during his Presidency, hence why he was so frequently cited by the former POTUS. Those approval numbers were wildly off per exit polling (by 7%, IIRC). He was also wrong in this past election - off by nearly 4% IIRC.

He's simply bad at what he does (polling).

Are you familiar with the type of polling utilized in the recent poll you cited from Rasmussen?

Lastly, I'm not going to pay for Rasmussen's data. If you do and wish to provide the crosstabs then I'll take a look. I have serious doubts as to any claim he polled more Dems than GOPers. The only tab I saw cited in an article indicated 45% voted for Biden in 2020, 45% for Trump, 6% voted other and 4% unsure.

That's a pretty sizeable skew of polling audience.

 

[BlueTX]

must be wumming...

Tho' I note @BlueTX liked your post. And you'll probably get a couple more.

It's as if there's a mass...psychosis...going on...like a blindspot. Honed by years of training.

Uni-educated, yeah? I've got a theory about that.

Ooooh!

I've made a list!!!

 

[dead_soft]

must be wumming...

Tho' I note @BlueTX liked your post. And you'll probably get a couple more.

It's as if there's a mass...psychosis...going on...like a blindspot. Honed by years of training.

Uni-educated, yeah? I've got a theory about that.

Have you not considered, maybe, that it's not a mass psychosis but that you are really, really, ill-informed and everyone can see through your YouTube and Russel Brand gleaned nonsense?