They've never witnessed functioning policy on any front. Bin Laden wanted to destroy America, and he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. The current administration is the logical result of fear and ignorance and xenophobia being elevated to our primary motivations, rather than merely being the position of a few embarrassing reactionary cranks. A prerequisite for winning elections in half the country today is that you must be the dumbest and meanest and most corrupt motherfucker the voters have ever seen. If you're not, somebody dumber and meaner and more corrupt will come along to push you out (e.g. Paxton in Texas for a current example, but it's the entirety of the Republican party and a not insignificant part of the Democratic party).
They've never witnessed functioning policy on any front. Bin Laden wanted to destroy America, and he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.
This is revisionism. The agenda of al-Qaeda was to establish a caliphate. The whole "al‑Qaeda Plot to Just Sit Back and Enjoy Collapse of United States" meme was just a pivot after they got pummeled by the US army, after 9/11. That's not to say the US won, but the US losing isn't the same as al‑Qaeda winning.
al-Qaeda[a] is a pan-Islamist militant organization led by Sunni Islamist jihadists who self-identify as a vanguard spearheading a global Islamist revolution to unite the Muslim world under a supra-national Islamic caliphate
Which was why it was widely considered a dumb move on the part of Bin Laden. It attracted all sorts of unwanted attention, that ultimately led to the the core group losing all relevance. The other al-Qaeda franchises might be doing well, but the people who pulled off 9/11 (and their successors) have virtually no influence, on top of being hunted by the US.
I didn't say anything about what al-Qaeda wanted. I said, "Bin Laden wanted to destroy America". Am I wrong for believing the evidence of his actions supports that assertion?
Given that Bin Laden is al-Qaeda's leader, it's approximately correct to treat them as the same entity, unless you're arguing that there's some factional struggle inside al-Qaeda.
I said, "Bin Laden wanted to destroy America". Am I wrong for believing the evidence of his actions supports that assertion?
No, because the "destroy America" objective came afterwards, after his most bombastic attack, so there's a texas sharpshooter fallacy going on, where you're redefining your conditions for success. It's like putin invading ukraine claiming to want to conquer the entirety of it, then after years of stalemate pivoting and claiming all he wanted to do was capture donbas.
"Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in
any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!"
American politics has often been about pitting one group against another. Convincing them that others are benefiting at their expense, or that they will in the future.
To rip off my own comment from a couple of months ago:
This kind of reflexive both-sides-ism works to obfuscate the _huge_ difference in scale, _and_ the occasional, small-but-real attempts of mostly democrats to do something about it.
Now, if the democrats had more big donors than republicans, maybe they wouldn't? But that's a counterfactual that we can't know. But we do know that Bush 1 vetoed a soft money limit passed mostly by democrats, and that Clinton pushed for one, but didn't get it done.
McCain-Feingold passed the Senate with 48 out of 50 D votes (96%), and 11 of 38 R votes (29%) (and one I (100%)), the House with 198 of 210 D (94%), and house, 41 out of 217 R (19%), 1 out of 2 I (50%). Then it was a mostly R appointed Supreme Court that gutted it. Then a _more_ R appointed court that has continued to whittle it down.
For all that the Democrats don't go far enough, there is a _huge_ difference between the parties on this.
No. A difference of degree is still a difference, and Trump 2 is vastly and openly more corrupt than any other administration, Democratic or Republican.
It's hundreds of billions of dollars in personal self-dealing, so far. So, yes, the corruption of the Trump administration vastly outstrips all prior administrations in scope, and I can't believe I need to point that out. It is, as you've agreed, happening right out in the open.
And of course Hunter Biden was totally qualified to be on the board of Burisma, and the hundreds of billions funneled through Ukraine is a nothing burger.
The ex-President's son cashing in on the family fame is an utter nothingburger compared to Trump's children actively participating in government and diplomacy and taking bribes for themselves and the most openly corrupt President in US history. You ever looked up how much Trump's net worth has increased while President?
Comments
They've never witnessed functioning policy on any front. Bin Laden wanted to destroy America, and he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. The current administration is the logical result of fear and ignorance and xenophobia being elevated to our primary motivations, rather than merely being the position of a few embarrassing reactionary cranks. A prerequisite for winning elections in half the country today is that you must be the dumbest and meanest and most corrupt motherfucker the voters have ever seen. If you're not, somebody dumber and meaner and more corrupt will come along to push you out (e.g. Paxton in Texas for a current example, but it's the entirety of the Republican party and a not insignificant part of the Democratic party).
This is revisionism. The agenda of al-Qaeda was to establish a caliphate. The whole "al‑Qaeda Plot to Just Sit Back and Enjoy Collapse of United States" meme was just a pivot after they got pummeled by the US army, after 9/11. That's not to say the US won, but the US losing isn't the same as al‑Qaeda winning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
Did they need the real estate under the World Trade Center to establish a caliphate?
Which was why it was widely considered a dumb move on the part of Bin Laden. It attracted all sorts of unwanted attention, that ultimately led to the the core group losing all relevance. The other al-Qaeda franchises might be doing well, but the people who pulled off 9/11 (and their successors) have virtually no influence, on top of being hunted by the US.
I didn't say anything about what al-Qaeda wanted. I said, "Bin Laden wanted to destroy America". Am I wrong for believing the evidence of his actions supports that assertion?
Given that Bin Laden is al-Qaeda's leader, it's approximately correct to treat them as the same entity, unless you're arguing that there's some factional struggle inside al-Qaeda.
No, because the "destroy America" objective came afterwards, after his most bombastic attack, so there's a texas sharpshooter fallacy going on, where you're redefining your conditions for success. It's like putin invading ukraine claiming to want to conquer the entirety of it, then after years of stalemate pivoting and claiming all he wanted to do was capture donbas.
I dunno, man.
Bin Laden's words:
"Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!"
American politics has often been about pitting one group against another. Convincing them that others are benefiting at their expense, or that they will in the future.
If you think democratic party is any less corrupt than republican, you are already biased
To rip off my own comment from a couple of months ago:
This kind of reflexive both-sides-ism works to obfuscate the _huge_ difference in scale, _and_ the occasional, small-but-real attempts of mostly democrats to do something about it.
Now, if the democrats had more big donors than republicans, maybe they wouldn't? But that's a counterfactual that we can't know. But we do know that Bush 1 vetoed a soft money limit passed mostly by democrats, and that Clinton pushed for one, but didn't get it done.
McCain-Feingold passed the Senate with 48 out of 50 D votes (96%), and 11 of 38 R votes (29%) (and one I (100%)), the House with 198 of 210 D (94%), and house, 41 out of 217 R (19%), 1 out of 2 I (50%). Then it was a mostly R appointed Supreme Court that gutted it. Then a _more_ R appointed court that has continued to whittle it down.
For all that the Democrats don't go far enough, there is a _huge_ difference between the parties on this.
No. A difference of degree is still a difference, and Trump 2 is vastly and openly more corrupt than any other administration, Democratic or Republican.
I think some 19th century administrations could compete.
Openly? Sure. Vastly? Lol.
It's hundreds of billions of dollars in personal self-dealing, so far. So, yes, the corruption of the Trump administration vastly outstrips all prior administrations in scope, and I can't believe I need to point that out. It is, as you've agreed, happening right out in the open.
And of course Hunter Biden was totally qualified to be on the board of Burisma, and the hundreds of billions funneled through Ukraine is a nothing burger.
Hunter Biden is accused of doing 10% of what Kushner is doing in the open. It's very different.
And there isn't hundreds of billions "funneled through" Ukraine.
And you are going to turn a blind eye to his paintings as well? Lol
The ex-President's son cashing in on the family fame is an utter nothingburger compared to Trump's children actively participating in government and diplomacy and taking bribes for themselves and the most openly corrupt President in US history. You ever looked up how much Trump's net worth has increased while President?
Lol look at hunter's mememcoin.
What role in government do you believe Hunter Biden holds?
C'mon. Be serious.
I'm serious. Remove your blindfold.
"If you don't think this ridiculous thing that I believe, you're biased and wrong!"
The current republican party is comedically more corrupt than the current democratic party.