Trump Is Giving This Country Its Identity Back

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-19-2017, 08:43 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The fact that you're not aware that people have been complaining about defense spending for years now is startling. Even within the context of Trump's administration, people have been complaining since he proposed a budget that cuts domestic spending and raises defense spending. 

I know people have complained about defense spending. The issue here is that people are trying to criticize Trumps use of Tomahawk missles like it's some "new" thing. 

[Belsnickel]

(04-19-2017, 09:04 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I know people have complained about defense spending. The issue here is that people are trying to criticize Trumps use of Tomahawk missles like it's some "new" thing. 

I am one who criticizes defense spending loudly and often. The recent use of the tomahawk cruise missiles is a great example of the issues with our defense budget, and with the quote I was responding to in particular. For reference:

(04-18-2017, 04:17 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: “Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples' money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other peoples' freedom and security.”

- William F. Buckley

The reason my response was directly related to this was because the cruise missile attack in Syria did not have to do with our national survival. It was the antithesis of "America First." This is the problem with acting like the world's police force. We utilize our expenditures to take care of internal matters of sovereign nations over taking care of our own. If the international community rose up to put their collective foot down on Assad, then I can get behind that a little bit (I'm still against war 99.99999% of the time). But it is not our place to get involved in such a way individually when we have so many problems at home.

So really, my critical statements have less to do about the use of the missiles specifically, but in a more general sense about the defense expenditures that do not benefit our own country as much as that money being spent domestically could have.

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-19-2017, 08:33 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'd say a lot of this comes from Trump's selling that he's a money maker.  He knows how to save money and get the best deals.

Add in his claims to not want to police the world his history of saying bombing Syria was bad he gets taken to task a lot more.

Which is kind of my point. This seems to me more like Trump bashing than actual real yuge concern about "defense spending".  It's just another trendIng topic for people to act like they "care" so they can show how much they hate Trump on their Facebook and twitter feeds. "Can't believe Trump shot Tomahawk missles at Syria, now that place is gonna be a radiation zone for years. And on top of that he pretty much just started World War 3". 

Most pepole are gonna go back to eating doritos and watching movies on the couch like nothing ever happened.

[BmorePat87]

(04-19-2017, 09:04 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I know people have complained about defense spending. The issue here is that people are trying to criticize Trumps use of Tomahawk missles like it's some "new" thing. 

One could easily argue that the use of these would then require the US to buy more to keep its stockpile at that 3000-4000 range. The use of them is not some new thing and every President does it, but not every President has out of the gate proposed a budget that slashes numerous relatively small budget programs that directly aid Americans. So when you drop $200-300m worth of explosives in a 2 week span, people can rightfully question why we can't spend that same amount to fund libraries and museums for our citizens. 

If the Trump administration hadn't argued that we need to slash domestic programs, I doubt there would have been the same reaction. The amount of money we spend on his golf trips every weekend, protecting his adult children when they do personal business overseas, and protecting his wife and child as they live in a golden tower hundreds of miles away from him also make him a prime critic for all spending.

[Belsnickel]

(04-19-2017, 09:29 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Which is kind of my point. This seems to me more like Trump bashing than actual real yuge concern about "defense spending".  It's just another trendIng topic for people to act like they "care" so they can show how much they hate Trump on their Facebook and twitter feeds. "Can't believe Trump shot Tomahawk missles at Syria, now that place is gonna be a radiation zone for years. And on top of that he pretty much just started World War 3". 

Most pepole are gonna go back to eating doritos and watching movies on the couch like nothing ever happened.

For me it's both concern about defense spending and Trump bashing. I am a multi-tasker.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-19-2017, 06:35 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: So then why not talk about defense spending as a whole? People are clearly trying to make this a "Trump issue" and not a "defense spending"one.

People have talked about defense spending as a whole.  Trump has added $54 billion to Defense spending in his budget proposal.  Tomahawk missiles are a part of defense spending.  Deployments are a part of defense spending.

It clearly is a Trump issue.  For four years, Trump warned Obama to not use force in Syria because it was stupid. Tillerson stated Assad's fate will be determined by the people of Syria on 3/30/17.  Within the week Assad allegedly used chemical weapons against the people Tillerson said would decide Assad's fate and Trump ordered a missile strike which he railed against for four years.  Tha man has more political positions than the Kama Sutra.

This isn't an either or situation as you're trying to make it.  It's both; a Defense spending issue and a Trump issue. It's also a political issue on the international level issue, a strategic issue, and an international law issue.

But, for you, clearly it is a circle your wagons around the ***** Grabber In Chief issue.  (Seeing as you have no idea what "Russian interests" means.)

Quote:Again, the US has been firing Tomahawks for years.

In Syria?  No.

Quote:Why are we not talking about that?

People have been discussing defense spending, deficiet spending, and the national debt for years.  Hell, they've sent forensic accountants to Iraq to try to account for tens of billions of unaccounted dollars which have just gone missing.  You're either unaware of this or pretending to be unaware.  Not sure which is worse.

Quote:Why is it that as soon as Trump does it everyone jumps out of their seats like "Oh my gawd, look at how much it'll cost to replace those Trump missles"

Part of it is his blatant hypocrisy.  A 180 degree shift in policy in less than a week.

Quote:yet there is barely any mention about what the US has already spent on its military before Trump got in office.

 Un-fuggin-believable.

Quote:We're talking about what Trump cost us instead of talking about what the US as a nation has been costing itself for years.

Yeah, it's not like political parties, wont mention any names (Republican'ts), threatened a government shut down annually over spending and the debt.

Or that Grover Norquist controls the purse strings to re-elections for Republicans with his tax pledge.

Quote:Those 59 Tomahawks don't even compare to what's been spent before Trump got in office. Trump didnt just buy those missles and have them UPS Next Day Aired so that he could fire them at Syria. The money was already spent before he started his campaign to be president.

It's a little drop the Defense budget, but every drop counts.  If we value the cost of the missiles at $80 million, isn't it sad that's only 0.1% of the proposed Defense budget?  Trump didn't even shut down the airfield for a day.  Three crackheads in Atlanta have shut down I-85N for 2-3 months.  

Quote:Do I believe people do have a concern about defense spending? Yes. Do I think people actually care to the point that it really matters? No.

Kinda like how you support the military, but your support is basically limited to writing an empty platitude, "I support military action."  (BTW, supporting "military action" is different that supporting the people conducting the "military action.")  But, even if you wrote you support the military, instead of Trump's military action, do you "actually care to the point it really matters"?  Let me quote you again, "No."

Quote:People care more about what Trump is spending on Syria than actually talking about what we've spent on military through the years and across the globe.

That is completely false.  Military spending has been an issue since we started spending on the military.  Defense spending has received more attention during the past two decades with regards to Iraq and Afghanistan compared to the previous two decades.  You have a really myopic view.

I bet the love child of Sean Spicer and Kellyanne Conway would sound a lot like this . . .

Quote:"Defense spending" doesn't mean "How much it cost to fire Tomahawks at Syria". Like I've already said, pepole are acting like Trump just bought those cruise missles, but they were already there. The money was already spent.

Now we have to spend money to replace them.  But, don't worry because the replacement costs "don't even compare to what's been spent" per you.  Hell, if Trump cancels his golf trips to Mar-o-Lago during May maybe we won't have to put the missiles on our credit card?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-19-2017, 09:29 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Which is kind of my point. This seems to me more like Trump bashing than actual real yuge concern about "defense spending".  It's just another trendIng topic for people to act like they "care" so they can show how much they hate Trump on their Facebook and twitter feeds. "Can't believe Trump shot Tomahawk missles at Syria, now that place is gonna be a radiation zone for years. And on top of that he pretty much just started World War 3". 

Which is kinda my point.  People are acting like Trump cares for the civilians in Syria because he killed some innocent civilians in a missile strike because 86ish innocent civilians were killed in a chemical attack while ignoring the close to 100,000 civilian deaths due to conventional weapons and the roughly 5 million innocent civilian refugees which Trump is trying to ban from entering the US because the innocent civilians want to attack us while completely ignoring everything Trump said regarding Syria for the past four years and act like Assad's use of chemical weapons is a "new" thing.

Quote:Most pepole are gonna go back to eating doritos and watching movies on the couch like nothing ever happened.

Which is not kinda, but exactly, my point regarding your support of "military action" so save the fake moral outrage because I compared you to the same doritos eating, movie watching, laying on the couch crowd.

[Belsnickel]

(04-19-2017, 09:29 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: One could easily argue that the use of these would then require the US to buy more to keep its stockpile at that 3000-4000 range. The use of them is not some new thing and every President does it, but not every President has out of the gate proposed a budget that slashes relatively small budget programs that directly aid Americans. So when you drop $200-300 worth of explosives in a 2 week span, people can rightfully question why we can't spend that same amount to fund libraries and museums for our citizens. 

If the Trump administration hadn't argued that we need to slash domestic programs, I doubt there would have been the same reaction. The amount of money we spend on his golf trips every weekend, protecting his adult children when they do personal business overseas, and protecting his wife and child as they live in a golden tower hundreds of miles away from him also make him a prime critic for all spending.

This, when combined with the "America First" rhetoric of the campaign is what makes these criticisms fair game when it comes to Trump. America First was originally a response to Wilsonian intervention during the progressive era and was about keeping us out of the affairs of other countries. So when that is the message out of the campaign and then there are immediate cuts to domestic programs and Wilson style meddling in the affairs of other countries it is absolutely fair to bring these criticisms.

[*bfine32*]

Of course folks can criticize and that one kid could keep yelling Wolf.

[Vas Deferens]

(04-19-2017, 03:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course folks can criticize and that one kid could keep yelling Wolf.

Which kid? Ivanka?

[Dill]

(04-19-2017, 09:29 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Which is kind of my point. This seems to me more like Trump bashing than actual real yuge concern about "defense spending".  It's just another trendIng topic for people to act like they "care" so they can show how much they hate Trump on their Facebook and twitter feeds. "Can't believe Trump shot Tomahawk missles at Syria, now that place is gonna be a radiation zone for years. And on top of that he pretty much just started World War 3". 

Most pepole are gonna go back to eating doritos and watching movies on the couch like nothing ever happened.

So odd the way Trumpsters divorce Trump from any kind of accountability.

Like Trump hate somehow has nothing to do with the man's statements and actions. If his provocation in Korea kills 20,000 Korean allies whose concerns he ignored, then the haters gonna hate, right?  And having nothing else to do they will find something else to criticize, like maybe if Trump scraps the Iran Nuclear deal and Iran too has nukes by next January and China and Russia will no longer work with us on sanctions. People will be angry because Trump is not part of the establishment.

I can understand this somewhat with foreign policy, as I have yet to meet a Trumpster who connects military action with any consequence beyond the moment.

But it is true on domestic front as well.  If Trump deports parents of American children with no criminal record or backs the serial sexual harasser Bill O'Reilly, people complain because they just don't like Trump, not because they really empathize with the victims and reject support of unethical behavior.  If Trump falsely accuses Obama of a wiretapping felony and Susan Rice of breaching national security, the critics are not really upset that the commander in chief of the world's largest intel organization and military publicly displays such unstable judgment. They are upset because he is an "outsider."

If most people went back to eating Doritos and watching movies on the couch, we would not see the continuation of protests months after the election and Democrats running close house races in the redest of states.

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-19-2017, 09:24 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am one who criticizes defense spending loudly and often. The recent use of the tomahawk cruise missiles is a great example of the issues with our defense budget, and with the quote I was responding to in particular. For reference:


The reason my response was directly related to this was because the cruise missile attack in Syria did not have to do with our national survival. It was the antithesis of "America First." This is the problem with acting like the world's police force. We utilize our expenditures to take care of internal matters of sovereign nations over taking care of our own. If the international community rose up to put their collective foot down on Assad, then I can get behind that a little bit (I'm still against war 99.99999% of the time). But it is not our place to get involved in such a way individually when we have so many problems at home.

So really, my critical statements have less to do about the use of the missiles specifically, but in a more general sense about the defense expenditures that do not benefit our own country as much as that money being spent domestically could have.

Which I think is a fair point to be made here. The criticism of Trump isn't what I have a problem with, it's the way in which these criticisms are being presented and fed to the masses and then people eat it up as some sort of way out of the universe action being taken by Trump. Defense spending is an issue and has been for years. I believe it's far more effective to talk about the issue of defense spending in a greater context rather than give the majority of focus to 59 Tomahawks and how much they cost.

[Belsnickel]

(04-19-2017, 03:20 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Which I think is a fair point to be made here. The criticism of Trump isn't what I have a problem with, it's the way in which these criticisms are being presented and fed to the masses and then people eat it up as some sort of way out of the universe action being taken by Trump. Defense spending is an issue and has been for years. I believe it's far more effective to talk about the issue of defense spending in a greater context rather than give the majority of focus to 59 Tomahawks and how much they cost.

You may think it is far more effective, and indeed it would be in the long run with rational people. However, this sort of thing does not lead people to think rationally. Look at some of the posts on both sides of these issues. Partisanship can often cause otherwise logical people to throw reason out the window and deny them the critical thinking skills that use in other facets of their daily lives.

The missile attack is a good tool in discussing policy as it is recent, it is controversial, and it highlights well the concept of money being used in a way that does not prioritize our own nation. To use it effectively, though, it should be used to draw attention to the issue and then broaden the discussion to the overall concerns. People just fall short of that second part to the equation.

[Dill]

(04-19-2017, 03:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course folks can criticize and that one kid could keep yelling Wolf.

Can you really be sure about kids and wolves though?

The man-child keeps yelling "the black wolf tapped my phones" or "Rice wolf broke the law" or "three million wolves voted illegally."

And the only result is that millions now see wolves everywhere, and are thankful for a outsider who speaks from the heart rather than a professional shepherd who knows where and when to deploy the sheepdogs.

[ballsofsteel]

(04-18-2017, 08:52 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I find it funny that Trump shoots off 59 Tomahawk missiles and now all of a sudden everyone cares about how much Tomahawk missiles cost even though the US has been using Tomahawk missiles for years and apparently has approximately 4000 in it's arsenal. But lets just sit here and act like Trump just ordered 59 Tomahawks hot off the press and shot them at Syria.

I found it funny that Trump was making a big deal about firing those 59 tomahawks on that air field that was up running the next day. He acted like he wiped the whole country out. Some sending a message. Another 59 mill down the drain for nothing. That 59 mill could feed alot of children in this country.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-19-2017, 03:20 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Which I think is a fair point to be made here. The criticism of Trump isn't what I have a problem with, it's the way in which these criticisms are being presented and fed to the masses and then people eat it up as some sort of way out of the universe action being taken by Trump. Defense spending is an issue and has been for years. I believe it's far more effective to talk about the issue of defense spending in a greater context rather than give the majority of focus to 59 Tomahawks and how much they cost.

It's too bad the ***** Grabber In Chief and His supporters are oblivious to the "greater context" of his dog and pony show in Syria.

[Rotobeast]

(04-19-2017, 03:34 PM)Dill Wrote: Can you really be sure about kids and wolves though?

The man-child keeps yelling "the black wolf tapped my phones" or "Rice wolf broke the law" or "three million wolves voted illegally."

And the only result is that millions now see wolves everywhere, and are thankful for a outsider who speaks from the heart rather than a professional shepherd who knows where and when to deploy the sheepdogs.

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-19-2017, 03:17 PM)Dill Wrote: So odd the way Trumpsters divorce Trump from any kind of accountability.

Like Trump hate somehow has nothing to do with the man's statements and actions. If his provocation in Korea kills 20,000 Korean allies whose concerns he ignored, then the haters gonna hate, right?  And having nothing else to do they will find something else to criticize, like maybe if Trump scraps the Iran Nuclear deal and Iran too has nukes by next January and China and Russia will no longer work with us on sanctions. People will be angry because Trump is not part of the establishment.

I can understand this somewhat with foreign policy, as I have yet to meet a Trumpster who connects military action with any consequence beyond the moment.

But it is true on domestic front as well.  If Trump deports parents of American children with no criminal record or backs the serial sexual harasser Bill O'Reilly, people complain because they just don't like Trump, not because they really empathize with the victims and reject support of unethical behavior.  If Trump falsely accuses Obama of a wiretapping felony and Susan Rice of breaching national security, the critics are not really upset that the commander in chief of the world's largest intel organization and military publicly displays such unstable judgment. They are upset because he is an "outsider."

If most people went back to eating Doritos and watching movies on the couch, we would not see the continuation of protests months after the election and Democrats running close house races in the redest of states.

I said Trump's not accountable?

[Dill]

(04-19-2017, 09:12 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I said Trump's not accountable?

Have you divorced Trump from accountability? 

We can check that pretty easily if you'll answer three questions.

1. Has Trump done anything that a reasonable person might protest--unprecedented things like publicly and falsely accusing other public servants of crimes and then using his staff to manufacture a scandal in his defense--all this while his foreign policy is veering from one whiplash U turn to another and his state department is understaffed and de-funded?

2. Are Trump critics motivated by something other than Trump's actions? E.g. if he appoints someone who doesn't believe in climate change to head the EPA, then criticism of that move is just sour grapes about the election, not a concern for the environment?

3. Are the "masses" fed disinformation about Trump?  E.G., he did NOT really say 3-5 million people ("illegals"?) voted illegally in the last election, did he NOT really say "who knew health care was so complicated?" or did he NOT appoint someone to head the dept of education who has never attended a public school and fought them all her life? He HAS made public his tax returns and he has NOT refused to open the White House visitors list to public scrutiny but the MSM is misleading us?

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-19-2017, 09:39 PM)Dill Wrote: Have you divorced Trump from accountability? 

We can check that pretty easily if you'll answer a couple of questions.

1. Has Trump done anything that a reasonable person might protest--llike falsely accusing other public servants of crimes and then using his staff to find something to manufacture a scandal in the president's defense--all this while his foreign policy is veering from one whiplash U turn to another and his state department is understaffed and de-funded?

2, Are Trump critics motivated by something other than Trump's actions? E.g. if he appoints someone who doesn't believe in climate change to head the EPA, then criticism of that move is just sour grapes about the election, not a concern for the environment?

1. Yeah, I believe so.

2. I don't believe they are motivated by something "other than" but rather that hatred for Trump is included with the criticism of his actions, which tend to lead to a mob mentality whenever Trump does something "bad".