What it is like arguing with a Trumper over Soleimani

Yes. That is the most relevant question of all. At what point do you decide that enough is enough? Where do you draw the line for Trump?
The danger is...that for Trump supporters...that line simply does not exist. When will you stop him from bullying your own country?

 

And then everybody on the bus stood up and cheered for me.

 

That will be done with an election, should we choose to do so. Unfortunately, the same option does not exist for Iran.

 

And in what way does killing him stop more US deaths?

Now US deaths is one of their first (if not first) priorities. Or do you believe that Iran won't retaliate?

Where did you get this weird idea that the only alternative was to commit an act of war that gives them the support of the majority of the M.E.?

See? This is what I have been saying: the world is too complex to have Republicans in charge. Even the well-intentioned ones just don't understand how it works. Whatever gave us the idea that they could be in charge?

In the long run, the right thing to do would have been to stay within the Iran agreement. Most likely both the contractor and the General would be alive. As well as all the people who will die because of this escalation. But it's impossible to expect Trump and his supporters to think in terms of "the long run"

The right move now is to remove Trump from power. It has been shown that ... saying that the job is waaaay over his head feels like an understatement.

 

What is this other action that you would propose except to do nothing?

As I said above. We have an election for that purpose. However, no such option exists for Iran.

 

Me: I applaud the President's decision to eliminate a terrorist commander and send the clear and powerful message that the consequence for attacking our embassies will be swift and deadly.

Never Trumper: But what about the unintended consequences. Iranian terrorists are going to keep doing terrorism, but more and harder now in resp....

Me: So you're saying we shouldn't have retaliated for our embassy being attacked?

Never Trumper: Of course! We deserved it! If we had rolled over and submissively urinated on ourselves, Iran would be nice to us!

Me: That's ridiculous. If we had done that, we'd look like weaklings, and Iran would just be emboldened to attack us again knowing they'll be no payback.

Never Trumper: ORANGE MAN BAD! ORANGE MAN LOVER!

Then everybody on the bus cheered for me.

True story.

That really happened.

Swear to god.

 

You've learned much about life. Where would you draw the line for Trump?

 

Basically a reiteration of many of the posts on this board

 

They have lost an effective and charismatic leader who was in charge of US deaths. Their ability to retaliate is severely damaged.

Where did you get this weird idea that the majority of the ME now supports Iran?

 

The short bus.

 

Russia hacked our US election. That's equivalent to the damage done to the US at Pearl Harbor in 1941 and got us into WW2. North Korea is threatening Japan and the US mainland with nuclear devastation and China has been ripping out our a-holes for decades over trade. It's not direct slaughter but the consequences of their actions have far reaching impacts on the US.

 

"Iran is a bad actor, and the United States already takes serious steps to curb its support for terrorism, and to defend Israel. But Trump is making the threat worse by ending the Iran nuclear deal and provoking Iran. We now find ourselves in yet another edition of Trump’s deadly reality show: will he or won’t he strike?! Will he or won’t he risk the lives of American soldiers in an unnecessary war?! Or will he try to manufacture another photo-op summit that does nothing but mask the real problems?! Tune into Twitter to find out! Like everything he touches, Trump has turned America’s Iran policy into a farce, while increasing the likelihood of tragedy."

 

I am glad that we both can agree that after being directly responsible for the deaths of over 600 Americans, nobody is shedding a tear for Soleimani's death. I can also understand your concern about unintended consequences. When assessing the situation, I think that it is important to look at the recent history of Iran's overtures toward the United States and its allies...

May 2019 Iran attacks oil tankers in the Gulf
June 2019 Iran shoots down US drone
July 2019 Iran seizes British Oil Tanker
Sep 2019 Iran Attacks Saudi State run Oil Company
Dec 2019 Iran attacks US military bases in Iraq
Dec 2019 Iran storms the US embassy in Iraq

With the above fact pattern as the undeniable backdrop to the attack on Soleimani, the question that I would have is what are the unintended consequences of INACTION? It seems to me that we have been trying inaction, and the unintended consequence of that inaction has been frequent attacks that were increasing in their boldness and subsequent danger. While you can legitimately argue that there could be bad unintended consequences from attacking Soleimani, you also have to acknowledge that there are inarguably unintended consequences of inaction. There is not a clear cut answer as to what is the best response, but inaction over the last 40 years was undoubtedly not working. A legitimate argument can be made that a strong response is what is most likely to serve us best in the long run, and that in the long run going forward, the boundaries to which Iran is likely to push their luck have gotten a lot smaller.

 

Russia worked with Hillary and the DNC to dig up dirt on Trump. No, Russia working with the DNC on a failed dossier is nowhere near the equivalent of Pearl Harbor.

 

True.

Before Soleimani's death:

Death to America!

After Soleimani's death:

Death to America!

Nothing's changed except we have a President that is not sitting on his hands afraid of confronting Iran's evil. Oh, and democrats siding with Iran.

 

Does approval of the strike make one a Trumper? Does disapproval of the strike make one an anti Trumper?

 

Same as debating any topic with them, really. They're not interested in debate. They just want to pick fights. Just like Trump himself, really. He never discusses or debates anything, either. He makes proclamations and gets angry if anyone disagrees with him.

These people are deeply invested in a deeply flawed ideology at this point. It's like trying to reason with a bible-thumping Christian or a conspiracy theorist. In fact, there is a helluva lot of overlap between these groups.

 

In other words, Just more anti-Trump flame baiting.

 

^ That is flame-baiting. The OP is complaining about the fact that trumpers deflect and make personal attacks rather than admit even once that Trump is a retard.

 

Deindividuation
“This behavior is quite interesting to psychologists. They want to know why humans follow a crowd so easily. One reason for this behavior can be understood if we look at the crowd not as a bunch of random people joined together, but rather as a mob that has literally lost its mind."

"When an individual joins a mob, they experience a phenomenon known as deindividuation. Deindividuation is the loss of self-awareness and restraint.”

 

I can only imagine if I made a thread like this about neo-communist...

 

That "process" is important to Republicans only when it comes to impeachment and not when it's related to national security and the Constitution?

 

And you don't?

 

I'll admit when I agree with something Trump does, and I've never been one to defend a US politician the way trumpers do Trump. I don't want our politics to be a team sport that places party over country or figurehead over Constitution.

 

Are you speaking of "mobs" mike this?