F'dup Chapters in American History(The Trump Years) - Part 9

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]530099[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]528803[/split]

 

[wobbly]

Tbh, while I get the whole 'they'd like to be called monsters' thing, the term 'losers' just doesn't carry nearly enough weight to adequately describe these sick b@stards.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Calling them monsters elicits exactly the kind of reaction the terrorists want. Calling them losers takes the projection of power out of it. Whoever wrote that speech for agent orange did the right thing.

 

[souvlaki]

I mean I know there is already so much evidence to back up collusion with Russia but why are we still talking about what adjective Trump used for a terrorist instead of Brennan testifying that there is evidence that people within the Trump campaign had contact with Russia during the election? I figured that would be kinda a big deal.

 

[chamber-music]

When Boris Johnson was mayor of London he called terrorist losers who can't get laid

“If you look at all the psychological profiling about bombers, they typically will look at porn. They are literally w********. Severe onanists,” he declared. “They are tortured. They will be very badly adjusted in their relations with women, and that is a symptom of their feeling of being failures and that the world is against them.

“They are not making it with girls and so they turn to other forms of spiritual comfort – which of course is no comfort.”

 

[Donner]

When Boris Johnson was mayor of London he called terrorist losers who can't get laid

He's not wrong.

 

[Matt]

Novel solution to the whole "losers" thing: don't take something so tragic and complex and bring it down to the level of a second grade insult. Lives were lost. I'm not saying that terrorists ought to be respected, but the weight and gravity of the situation should. Hurling childish insults at the murderers is disrespectful to the victims and their families as it adds a degree of levity to the situation (which is entirely inappropriate, especially less than 24 hours out).

 

[Iceman]

Tbh, while I get the whole 'they'd like to be called monsters' thing, the term 'losers' just doesn't carry nearly enough weight to adequately describe these sick b@stards.

Taking out the weight of it is exactly why it's better. Is it really worth doing all that to get the notoriety of being called only a loser. When they get called mass murderer, evil beyond belief, terrorists, mastermind or anything of that nature it elevates their achievement while loser is a non event. It isn't even much of an insult that anyone can get too up in arms about which is why it is a very good term to use. Of course it would be more effective here if Trump didn't already use that term to describe pretty much everyone he comes across who isn't a terrific/great guy.

 

[Matt]

I mean I know there is already so much evidence to back up collusion with Russia but why are we still talking about what adjective Trump used for a terrorist instead of Brennan testifying that there is evidence that people within the Trump campaign had contact with Russia during the election? I figured that would be kinda a big deal.

Yeah, Brennan's testimony is pretty huge. Especially considering who John Brennan is. This isn't some political animal who is out to hurt his political opposition or make a name for himself/pad his legacy (as some may accuse Comey of being). Brennan is a through and through career Company man. He is basically Saul from Homeland. What he is saying should absolutely be listened to and respected.

 

[C. Lee]

I listened to some of the ex CIA chief testifying today......how it must gall a guy like him to know that the President of the United States is working with the Russians.

 

[Matt]

Taking out the weight of it is exactly why it's better. Is it really worth doing all that to get the notoriety of being called only a loser. When they get called mass murderer, evil beyond belief, terrorists, mastermind or anything of that nature it elevates their achievement while loser is a non event. It isn't even much of an insult that anyone can get too up in arms about which is why it is a very good term to use. Of course it would be more effective here if Trump didn't already use that term to describe pretty much everyone he comes across who isn't a terrific/great guy.

But the situation SHOULD have weight. I understand a desire to not glorify these people and encourage future attacks. Its the same argument that is used when dealing with mass shooters and not wanting to give them the notoriety that they desire. But it is a very fine line between not giving notoriety to killers and being so flippant that you take the weight out of the situation as a whole. People died. It is disrespectful to the deceased to treat their killers so flippantly and dismissively and in doing so diminish the weight of the situation as a whole.

I mean, imagine if George Bush's response to 9/11 was to get on TV and say "that Osama Bin Laden is a real butt head!"

 

[Iceman]

But the situation SHOULD have weight. I understand a desire to not glorify these people and encourage future attacks. Its the same argument that is used when dealing with mass shooters and not wanting to give them the notoriety that they deserve. But it is a very fine line between not giving notoriety to killers and being so flippant that you take the weight out of the situation as a whole. People died. It is disrespectful to the deceased to treat their killers so flippantly and dismissively and in doing so diminish the weight of the situation as a whole.

I mean, imagine if George Bush's response to 9/11 was to get on TV and say "that Osama Bin Laden is a really butt head!"

I just read your previous post as well as this one and yes, you're right. I know what I was trying to get at but it doesn't really work when we're talking about lost lives when those families might be watching these news reports.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Does calling the terrorists poopy heads really devalue them and hurt their pride or does it trivialize the entire situation?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I mean I know there is already so much evidence to back up collusion with Russia but why are we still talking about what adjective Trump used for a terrorist instead of Brennan testifying that there is evidence that people within the Trump campaign had contact with Russia during the election? I figured that would be kinda a big deal.

The only people saying there was zero contact were red hats with their heads deep in the sand.

It was disappointing Brennan dodged whether there was hard evidence of collusion.

 

[Matt]

I just read your previous post as well as this one and yes, you're right. I know what I was trying to get at but it doesn't really work when we're talking about lost lives when those families might be watching these news reports.

In fairness, there is really no reason you should be thinking in this context. If you want to call them losers, you should. Because it does take power away from them and your words don't really affect anyone.

However, the words of the President of the United States, no matter how seemingly inconsequential, carry immense weight. Every word out of Trump's mouth, spoken publicly or in his capacity as President, should be uttered only with the utmost consideration and deliberation. Especially when tragedy strikes, POTUS shouldn't give a speech thinking "meh, I'll wing it" and blurt the first thing that comes to mind. Because at the end of the day, the words of POTUS can start wars, they can console or invoke rage in millions. People are looking to him for strength, leadership, and direction when tragedy strikes. Not second grade insults.

This issue, while seemingly small, underlines one issue that has been a continuing problem throughout the Trump presidency: he doesn't seem to understand the weight of his office and responsibilities. And if he does, he simply has no respect for it and is a child playing with daddy's loaded gun (only this child is playing with the nuclear codes). I can forgive that in the first few weeks. I don't think most Presidents, unless they held the office of the Vice-Presidency, can really know what they are getting into prior to being sworn in. But once you become POTUS, that should change. It hasn't with Trump. He still acts like a petulant man-child, sending out tweets to insult his opponents and focused only on himself.

 

[Matt]

Does calling the terrorists poopy heads really devalue them and hurt their pride or does it trivialize the entire situation?

It trivializes the entire situation. People have died. 24 hours out is not the time for levity or to be flippant.

More over, these aren't cartoon villains. The response isn't going to be Cobra Commander jumping up and down, whining to Destro about those rotten G.I. Joes. This is real life. We are dealing with a dangerous, well equipped terror network. The reaction to such provocation could be a suicide bomber killing 50 in Afghanistan tomorrow. If you devalue them, their response is going to be to show their value through escalation.

 

[The Overlord]

If Trump's slightly inappropriate terms for a tragic situation was the worst thing he does this week, we would be lucky.

I do wonder if Trump has a degenerative brain disease, because he seemed far more articulate in the past:

https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/23/donald-trump-speaking-style-interviews/

1980s Trump would not have made a good President either, but I think he would be more careful and less reckless.

 

[Matt]

If Trump's slightly inappropriate terms for a tragic situation was the worst thing he does this week, we would be lucky.

I do wonder if Trump has a degenerative brain disease, because he seemed far more articulate in the past:

https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/23/donald-trump-speaking-style-interviews/

1980s Trump would not have made a good President either, but I think he would be more careful and less reckless.

Its not disease. It is branding. Trump is, if nothing else, a brilliant marketer. He builds brands. No matter how bad his products are, its the label people are paying for.

That is how he ran his campaign. By being a character/brand and targeting that brand to a certain demographic.

That is what he is doing with his presidency, maintaining his brand awareness.

 

[Donner]

It trivializes the entire situation. People have died. 24 hours out is not the time for levity or to be flippant.

More over, these aren't cartoon villains. The response isn't going to be Cobra Commander jumping up and down, whining to Destro about those rotten G.I. Joes. This is real life. We are dealing with a dangerous, well equipped terror network. The reaction to such provocation could be a suicide bomber killing 50 in Afghanistan tomorrow. If you devalue them, their response is going to be to show their value through escalation.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Calling the terrorists a threat to Western life or a well-organized terror cell or anything more than cowards gives them legitimacy. The best thing you can do for them is make them sound like they're a bigger threat than they are. Let's not forget, killing innocent and unarmed people is not hard. Anyone can do it. Any idiot can do it. It does not require organization, intelligence, strength, etc. All it takes is a moron willing to blow himself up or drive through a crowd.

After 9/11, Bush made the mistake of calling bin Laden's group of virgins masterminds and a serious threat to society. It helped them recruit more members because they were suddenly seen as a contender; as a group capable of taking out a global superpower. They were anything but.

 

[Matt]

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Calling the terrorists a threat to Western life or a well-organized terror cell or anything more than cowards gives them legitimacy. The best thing you can do for them is make them sound like they're a bigger threat than they are. Let's not forget, killing innocent and unarmed people is not hard. Anyone can do it. Any idiot can do it. It does not require organization, intelligence, strength, etc. All it takes is a moron willing to blow himself up or drive through a crowd.

After 9/11, Bush made the mistake of calling bin Laden's group of virgins masterminds and a serious threat to society. It helped them recruit more members because they were suddenly seen as a contender; as a group capable of taking out a global superpower. They were anything but.

Bush oversold it in the name of justifying a war. But even then, you are simplifying it. Al-Queda is an organization that carried out two of the only three foreign attacks on American soil since Pearl Harbor. They are one of six foreign entities to successfully carry out attacks on American soil. To repeat, that is nearly 250 years, six foreign entities have successfully carried out such attacks. It is a little more complicated than "any idiot can do it."

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Calling the terrorists a threat to Western life or a well-organized terror cell or anything more than cowards gives them legitimacy. The best thing you can do for them is make them sound like they're a bigger threat than they are. Let's not forget, killing innocent and unarmed people is not hard. Anyone can do it. Any idiot can do it. It does not require organization, intelligence, strength, etc. All it takes is a moron willing to blow himself up or drive through a crowd.

After 9/11, Bush made the mistake of calling bin Laden's group of virgins masterminds and a serious threat to society. It helped them recruit more members because they were suddenly seen as a contender; as a group capable of taking out a global superpower. They were anything but.

But wasn't Obama attacked for calling ISIS junior varsity.

Maybe they should be called a perversion of islam.

It's accurate, you're not trivializing their victims, and they can't use it for recruitment.

It took me a few seconds to come up with that. Surely Trump could hire some Yale alum speech writer to help him.

 

[The Overlord]

Its not disease. It is branding. Trump is, if nothing else, a brilliant marketer. He builds brands. No matter how bad his products are, its the label people are paying for.

That is how he ran his campaign. By being a character/brand and targeting that brand to a certain demographic.

That is what he is doing with his presidency, maintaining his brand awareness.

I think people are giving him too much credit, I think he got lucky by tapping into things that appeal to a lot of Americans, but I don't think he is very clever. He may not be as comically stupid as some people portray him as, but his lack of impulse control and unwillingness to learn from mistakes shows a bigger issue with him.

If he was a smart but cynical business man who plays the common man, he would be doing better, I don't think that is what Trump is. I think he is a sick old man, who would be better off under someone's care, rather then being the President.

 

[Iceman]

In fairness, there is really no reason you should be thinking in this context. If you want to call them losers, you should. Because it does take power away from them and your words don't really affect anyone.

However, the words of the President of the United States, no matter how seemingly inconsequential, carry immense weight. Every word out of Trump's mouth, spoken publicly or in his capacity as President, should be uttered only with the utmost consideration and deliberation. Especially when tragedy strikes, POTUS shouldn't give a speech thinking "meh, I'll wing it" and blurt the first thing that comes to mind. Because at the end of the day, the words of POTUS can start wars, they can console or invoke rage in millions. People are looking to him for strength, leadership, and direction when tragedy strikes. Not second grade insults.

This issue, while seemingly small, underlines one issue that has been a continuing problem throughout the Trump presidency: he doesn't seem to understand the weight of his office and responsibilities. And if he does, he simply has no respect for it and is a child playing with daddy's loaded gun (only this child is playing with the nuclear codes). I can forgive that in the first few weeks. I don't think most Presidents, unless they held the office of the Vice-Presidency, can really know what they are getting into prior to being sworn in. But once you become POTUS, that should change. It hasn't with Trump. He still acts like a petulant man-child, sending out tweets to insult his opponents and focused only on himself.

All true. You have a different responsibility when your comments are published/heard on a wider scale. I'm sure a fair percentage of Trump's gaffes could be contained if they stopped him using twitter which is suited for impulsive but misjudged statements.

 

[samsnee]

In fairness, there is really no reason you should be thinking in this context. If you want to call them losers, you should. Because it does take power away from them and your words don't really affect anyone.

However, the words of the President of the United States, no matter how seemingly inconsequential, carry immense weight. Every word out of Trump's mouth, spoken publicly or in his capacity as President, should be uttered only with the utmost consideration and deliberation. Especially when tragedy strikes, POTUS shouldn't give a speech thinking "meh, I'll wing it" and blurt the first thing that comes to mind. Because at the end of the day, the words of POTUS can start wars, they can console or invoke rage in millions. People are looking to him for strength, leadership, and direction when tragedy strikes. Not second grade insults.

This issue, while seemingly small, underlines one issue that has been a continuing problem throughout the Trump presidency: he doesn't seem to understand the weight of his office and responsibilities. And if he does, he simply has no respect for it and is a child playing with daddy's loaded gun (only this child is playing with the nuclear codes). I can forgive that in the first few weeks. I don't think most Presidents, unless they held the office of the Vice-Presidency, can really know what they are getting into prior to being sworn in. But once you become POTUS, that should change. It hasn't with Trump. He still acts like a petulant man-child, sending out tweets to insult his opponents and focused only on himself.

He doesn't know how to act Presidential. Compare what he wrote at the Israel Holocaust Museum to what Obama wrote. His sounds like something you write at the end of the school year in someone's yearbook.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...vashems-book-of-remembrance-for-yearbook.html