Oh feck.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
The whole point of the "I'd take Bush over Trump" argument isn't to downplay how terrible Bush is, it's to highlight how terrifying the thought of Trump in a similar situation is.
Repeatedly pointing out the terrible things Bush did in no way counters that argument as nobody is saying that Trump has actually been worse than Trump thus far, or has done worse things than Bush ultimately did.
They're saying that Trump's actions thus far (over a short and relatively uneventful period) suggests that he has the potential to do far worse in similar circumstances to the one Bush found himself in, which is an entirely fair thing to suggest.
Or at least that's the way I'm reading it.
It's quite possible we'd be extinct by now if Trump was in charge post 9/11. That is not to say Bush's reaction wasn't abhorrent, however. But to suggest that anyone who'd take Bush over Trump today is somehow condoning Bush's actions is the real false equivalence @Buchan.
We're just terrified he's going to drop a fecking nuke.
We're just terrified he's going to drop a fecking nuke.
I'm just saying what I'm saying. He has zero qualms about hurting people to make money and he's got plenty of time yet if he doesn't get impeached. Honestly, if he was getting his way on everything rather than being stifled in every attempt so far, he could create those conditions you describe in his own country (removing health coverage, inciting racism and denegrating the media and judicial system).
Trump is systematically destroying everything Obama did purely out of spite because he embarrassed him in public. It really is that simple, he's that nasty, that vengeful and that evil. Bush started a war to finish what his dad couldn't do and also because the American public demanded someone pay for the September 11th attacks. Bush was awful, but Cheney was far worse. I'm not excusing Bush at all but in his defence he was a politician, he had ideals he believed in and he had policies he wanted to pass and implement. Trump is just out for himself AND to destroy Obama's legacy.
You can't equate the two, and you can't defend Bush's crimes because they are despicable and cost hundreds of thousands of lives BUT he wasn't alone or the only culprit. Blair is just as responsible as is Rumsfeld and Cheney. It doesn't make it right at all, but this false equivalency is being exaggerated way too much.
I think when people are saying they would prefer Bush over Trump they mean they would prefer a politician who has beliefs, ideals and actually wants to make a difference for the people. They want someone who can show compassion, empathy and sympathy when soldiers die or attacks happen and lives are lost. They want someone who has restraint and is above petty name calling and arguing. They want someone who the rest of the world respects, regardless of liking them, and they want someone who doesn't make their country seem like a complete joke. They also want someone they can trust with the biggest military and most powerful weapons on earth.
I hated Bush, and when Obama was elected I said that people could actually sleep safe at night now without worry of war breaking out, however I never once had the fear that Bush would nuke anyone. I can't honestly say the same about Trump.
You can't equate the two, and you can't defend Bush's crimes because they are despicable and cost hundreds of thousands of lives BUT he wasn't alone or the only culprit. Blair is just as responsible as is Rumsfeld and Cheney. It doesn't make it right at all, but this false equivalency is being exaggerated way too much.
I think when people are saying they would prefer Bush over Trump they mean they would prefer a politician who has beliefs, ideals and actually wants to make a difference for the people. They want someone who can show compassion, empathy and sympathy when soldiers die or attacks happen and lives are lost. They want someone who has restraint and is above petty name calling and arguing. They want someone who the rest of the world respects, regardless of liking them, and they want someone who doesn't make their country seem like a complete joke. They also want someone they can trust with the biggest military and most powerful weapons on earth.
I hated Bush, and when Obama was elected I said that people could actually sleep safe at night now without worry of war breaking out, however I never once had the fear that Bush would nuke anyone. I can't honestly say the same about Trump.
Exactly.
Even Bush (univerally recognised as an absolutely horrendous president here) would have struggled to do as much damage as Trump has over the short, largely uneventful period he's been in charge. He certainly wouldn't have demonstrated the same potential for large scale disaster that Trump has.
Therefore, given the horrendous things Bush ultimately did, the thought of what could happen should Trump have a similar crisis to deal with (or exploit) is rather disturbing.
This is how I'm reading it too. The equivalence is only false through Buchan-tinted glasses. It's clear that everyone is taking about Trump's unprecedented level of incompetence.
C'mon.
Trump is transparent in his greed, dividing the nation, has no interpersonal skills and I'll give you easily totally lacking in empathy. Plus a dozen or so more. At the end of the day he is beinging the position of Commander-in-Chief into disrepute and making a mockery of the USA.
Bush x 2 knew how to play the game. They were no less avaricious in their wealth grabbing for their friends.
Enough surely?
Oh I agree, but when people say they want Bush, I think they are disregarding what he actually did and just saying they want a Republican politician. They want someone who doesn't talk shite and insult the worlds leaders on Twitter, they want someone who actually wants to pass bills rather than just pushes everything to someone else. They want someone who can say sorry, someone who will say the right things when soldiers die, someone who wont insult the wife of a dead soldier the day he is being buried.
Feck me, I hated Bush but we are a year in and there hasn't been a single day where Trump hasn't dominated the news headlines for a bad or scandalous reason. It's also telling that nobody can say they trust Trump NOT to drop nukes on someone.
Anyway, @Buchan agreed with you so I don't ever want to listen to anything you ever have to say again, and nor will I ever respect your opinion. So ner ner ner ner ner.
You surely don't think they'll let him do you?
'Oh look Mr President, another Golf Course!'
No, but this is the man who asked 5 times why they have them if they can't use them. Someone with no empathy................
The Bush administration had actually committed terror in the Middle East. The Trump administration only has the potential commit worse terror. I find it strange that people will judge someone as the worse President based on speculation of what he might do. Ignore the loud talking and consider what has been done. Bush and co. were far far worse. But we’re also judging 8 years against 10 months.
Last edited:
Tell that to the people underneath the 26,000+ bombs Obama dropped in 2016 alone (Obama was also 'at war' longer than any U.S. President ever so how's that for 'sleeping safely' without war hanging over you?). That, however, seems to be an inconvenient truth here among the Bush (and by extension of your point above - Obama) revisionism. feck the millions in the Middle East, as long as I'm safe in my house in North America. Bush was a disgrace during his time in office and the fact that posters here are defending him is startling to say the least.
Those 26k bombs are mainly against ISIS right?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...akistan-middle-east-afghanistan-a7534851.html
And the ~26,000 is only a conservative estimate. It's likely higher.
Nope also look up his drone bombing campaign, Obama has plenty of blood on his hands too.
Thanks, so yes it's mainly against ISIS. That's relatively important for context.
Not when your point is "Trump isn't so bad, come on people give him a chance!".
Until someone stops the conflict and brings peace to the region they're all just as bad as each other with regards war.
There is no doubt that most members of the security council have blood on their hands, that's not even debatable but in that case there is no winners. If the US do nothing they have blood on their hands and if they do something they have blood on their hands.
This is important too, I feel, for context. Of course Trump has the potential to be worse, but that's only speculation for now.
Of course Obama had ISIS in his sights but many of those cities where bombs dropped were still populated with citizens who could not/would not flee. It's naive to assume only ISIS members were hit, which is why I brought it up in the first place: posters here, bizarrely, are of the opinion that Obama was a peace-time president who oversaw a utopian period in history, and that's a preposterous claim to make.
He isn't interested in context.
I didn't say that only ISIS members were hit. I will tell you something though, war is ugly, it's messy, there will always be collateral damages and mistakes. Clean wars don't exist, which is why context is important and why the reasons for the war is crucial when judging the decision makers because the second they enter war, people will die, innocents like culprits.
Absolutely. Fully agree.
Going back to why I mentioned it, it was simply to counter the bizarre notion that Obama guaranteed us to 'sleep safely' at night. Yes, for us in the West it was, but not for the thousands in Iraq, Syria etc. Although I will say that Obama is a pacifist by nature and was no doubt led by more war-hungry members of his administration, including military officials. It's another example of President-elects being hamstrung by red-tape/opposition/their own internal administrative politics which prevents them from delivering their idealistic campaign promises.
Make This Thread Great Again.
Did anyone ever think the day would come when there'd be a worse President of the US then Bush Jr. ?
I imagine the conversation went something like this. 'This chance is too good to miss, let's stick the boot in and everyone will forget how bad we were!'
I imagine the conversation went something like this. 'This chance is too good to miss, let's stick the boot in and everyone will forget how bad we were!'
I wonder what conditions were imposed on the Kurds for help in establishing their own state.
Exactly. I'm out again, and will return to just posting Tweets. It's really gone to shit. I think it's the oldies that have done it, or the Arsenal supporters. @oatesLove ya really mate x x x x x x
I know. I didn't ask permission to play with your toys. I'll leave you all in peace now lol
Touche, mon ami. Not my toys mate and your input is great. Nice to have different opinions in here. As long as they are not batshit crazy or just being purposely obtuse.
He did it because it was necessary. Unless you are saying letting ISIS have their will in Syria would somehow have been better. Which really is a view only alt-right and leftist western elitist share.
Amusing
We should just accept at this point that everything Trump does is ethically wrong and illegal but nothing will ever get done about it.
Last edited:
It continually staggers me that she continues to argue points when she's clearly lied and been called out on it.
- Status