Steaming Ass

12345679»

Comments

  • fighting the vampire menace

  • image

    Just a panicked-sounding US president threatening war crimes via social media, no big deal folks, maybe check out what's on TV.

  • "These here thirteen stripes represent the number of underage women my good friend Jeffery Epstein and I raped and murdered ..."

  • "These five dead immigrant kids represent those kids from Central Park who tragically never got the executions for which I so vigorously advocated..."

  • I wouldn't worry too much, Bill said Trump was the candidate least likely to get us into a war.

  • I'm not sure I actually said that, but in any case, let's see if he gets us in a war first.

  • @Bill said:
    I'm not sure I actually said that, but in any case, let's see if he gets us in a war first.

    Yes let's not rush to judgment. Maybe threatening war crimes via twitter is part of his plan to ensure peace.

  • I don't claim to understand the psychology of the Iranian leadership enough to know what might cow them.

  • what nation could tolerate the killing of top generals/statesmen by a foreign government?

  • @Bill said:
    I don't claim to understand the psychology of the Iranian leadership enough to know what might cow them.

    Fair point, apart from the fact that it could be an argument for literally anything.

    "Wait, so you're okay with Trump posthumously pardoning Jeffrey Epstein?"

    "I'm just saying it might cow the Iranian leadership, you never know"

  • Epstein pardon is the darkest timeline

  • Lon, maybe you can claim to understand the psychology of the Iranian leadership enough to be sure that pardoning Epstein wouldn't help, but I, a rational thinker, do not.

  • Notice that Iran's retaliation appears to have been rather weak.

  • some folks weak is other folks measured, but it seems to have been effective

    Trump sniffing like crazy this morning

  • Iran's response certainly was weak. Probably they were cowed by tweets.

    Or, it could have been deescalation from someone who doesn't want a war in response to someone who does.

    Unrelated pic:

  • Between that late conference this morning and whatever the hell he said last night I'm actually beginning to wonder about his health. Like, not in a 'too many hamberders' way, or a 'narcissistic sociopath' way, but I actually wonder if the man is unwell in a serious, physical way.

    At the very least, someone is medicating the hell out of that man in order to get him through these conferences.

    I'm also kind of wondering if they held the meeting 40 minutes late just to make sure that the sun would be shining behind the president when they opened the doors to that hallway in order to make it look like a more impressive entrance.

  • @fenomas said:
    Iran's response certainly was weak. Probably they were cowed by tweets.

    Or, it could have been deescalation from someone who doesn't want a war in response to someone who does.

    It could be, but trying to discern actual desires when engaged in an activity that involves multiple levels of bluffing and multiple levels of rating the opponent as in even or odd or rock, paper, scissors isn't easy.

    For all I know, the most basic interpretation is the correct one:

    The U.S. had credible information that Soleimani was planning a new attack. Soleimani put himself where he was easy to take out with acceptable collateral damage. The U.S. took the shot.

    Iran decided that it couldn't let that pass without a reaction. They make a lot of noise.

    Trump says that they best be careful or they're going to be really sorry.

    Iran makes a measured response that doesn't kill anyone, but big enough to save face.

    Trump says we can all live with that.

    Note that I'm saying it could be that simple, but I don't really know. It's possible that Trump is insane and wants a war with Iran but is just too incompetent to start one.

  • @Clme said:
    I actually wonder if the man is unwell in a serious, physical way.

    I didn't watch the speech, but I did get the feeling something was going on when "Trump", "slurring" and "Adderall" were all trending at the same time...

    @Bill said:
    It could be, but trying to discern actual desires when engaged in an activity that involves multiple levels of bluffing and multiple levels of rating the opponent as in even or odd or rock, paper, scissors isn't easy.

    I'm always fascinated by how attack-the-left Bill is all "well they criticized nuclear power so clearly they want humanity to be exterminated, there's no gray area to consider", while defend-trump Bill is all "without fully understanding the nuances of the situation I couldn't possibly form an opinion about the president tweeting that America intends to commit war crimes".

  • Also:

    @Bill said:
    It's possible that Trump is insane and wants a war with Iran

    Dude.

  • edited January 9

    @Bill said:
    The U.S. had credible information that Soleimani was planning a new attack.

    This is still a matter for debate... Any evidence of an impending attack is being withheld; which is in keeping with every other time that the administration has had something to hide (like the absence of any actual evidence).

    I think it's highly likely that Trump just wanted something to do to punish Iran for the attacks on the US Embassy in Iraq... and when presented with some options, he picked the most extreme.

  • It could be that, too. Or it could be something else.

  • @fenomas said:

    I'm always fascinated by how attack-the-left Bill is all "well they criticized nuclear power so clearly they want humanity to be exterminated, there's no gray area to consider",

    I told you a long time ago that I have no intention of ever treating environmentalists seriously again. They just aren't serious people.

  • @Rufus said:
    I think it's highly likely that Trump just wanted something to do to punish Iran for the attacks on the US Embassy in Iraq... and when presented with some options, he picked the most extreme.

    You and Bill both seem to be forgetting that the dude is being impeached; he has an obvious and presumptive reason to provoke external conflict. One can argue what other reasons he did or didn't have, but impeachment is the elephant in the room.

    @Bill said:
    I told you a long time ago that I have no intention of ever treating environmentalists seriously again. They just aren't serious people.

    I know. That was the point of the comment - that with topics you perceive as leftist you group together lots of disparate positions and treat them as a homogeneous mass who all believe the most absurd thing that any one of them believes. Somebody on the tv talking about trees? "Ugh, she's probably an environmentalist, and environmentalists are non-serious, so I know she's wrong even without hearing her position".

    But with topics you're sympathetic to, you parse and sub-parse for any nuance or hidden explanation that lets you keep your assumptions. Trump tweeted about vaccines causing autism (or whatever)? "Well he must have a reason, he may not actually believe that, maybe a subordinate wrote the tweet, without all the details I couldn't possibly" etc.

    I mean, global warming is a reasonable litmus test. "Environmentalists" widely agree that it's a real and imminent threat; Trump has repeatedly called it a hoax, says it's not caused by humans, pulled out of the Paris agreement, gutted regulations meant to address it, etc. Which side is serious people?

  • @fenomas said:

    @Rufus said:
    I think it's highly likely that Trump just wanted something to do to punish Iran for the attacks on the US Embassy in Iraq... and when presented with some options, he picked the most extreme.

    You and Bill both seem to be forgetting that the dude is being impeached; he has an obvious and presumptive reason to provoke external conflict. One can argue what other reasons he did or didn't have, but impeachment is the elephant in the room.

    Oh, no doubt it's a convenient distraction, but as pissed-off as he may be about it, I don't think he's too worried about the outcome. He's confident enough that the Senate is going to white-wash over the whole thing for him.

  • edited January 11

    Its interesting that so many people that were in security briefings (after the fact) are coming out and saying that there was no imminent threat, and all evidence was primarily for past actions and possible plans for future (but not imminent) ones.

    Then today Trump upped the number of imminent attacks from one embassy to four while bragging on a Fox interview.

    ...That sure would have been nice for National Security members to tell senate and house members they met with recently, huh?

  • @Rufus said:
    Oh, no doubt it's a convenient distraction, but as pissed-off as he may be about it, I don't think he's too worried about the outcome. He's confident enough that the Senate is going to white-wash over the whole thing for him.

    I assume that's what'll wind up happening, but I don't think he can just count on it by default. Some new GOPers are true believers but one has to assume that a lot of the ones that predate him would hugely prefer Pence or some other politician-ey politician, if there was a path to it.

    Incidentally, unsourced but WSJ claims that Trump told people that the strike was partly due to pressure from GOP senators he'd need the support of during impeachment.

Sign In or Register to comment.