Peace deal with Taliban

[Fenring]

@ yossarian22c,

I get what you're saying what I was responding specifically to this post:

We're giving up in Afghanistan, just as we did in Syria and are trying to do in North Korea and most certainly with Russia.  Trump wants to shrivel the US influence in the world, except in the form he does with his investments.  He will sell his name in exchange for acquiescence and support in return.  That's why he's so pissed at Ukraine; they won't give him Biden's head on a platter, so the hell with giving them military assistance.

There is nothing in here about who to blame for the current situation, and the post seems pretty clear that by leaving Afghanistan Trump is shriveling U.S. influence in the world. How is this not blaming Trump for his choice?

Your comment here: "All these same people who thoroughly criticized all those policies seem okay with Trump cutting a deal with the Taliban that didn't include the Afghan government in the negotiations and for agreeing to leave" seems to suggest that there was a better option involving the Afghan government. Hey, fair enough. But I asked Kasandra directly for a reference to a better option and his answer was "In my brief post I said there is no "right plan", so why are you asking me what it would be?" If there is no better option then I don't see how accusing Trump of shriveling U.S. influence makes sense. If staying was the better option then that should have been Kasandra's answer, no?

[Kasandra]

Not to put words in someone else's mouth but if I understood his critique before it wasn't so much a critique of Trump's decision but frustration that after hearing for the last 8 years how Obama is solely responsible for Iraq being screwed up and ISIS forming. All because Obama pulled combat troops out on the schedule set forth by the agreement put in place by Bush. He was also criticized for not leaving his surge of troops in Afghanistan there long enough and for negotiating the release of Birddog with the Taliban. All these same people who thoroughly criticized all those policies seem okay with Trump cutting a deal with the Taliban that didn't include the Afghan government in the negotiations and for agreeing to leave.

You did a hell of a lot better than he did.  My "critique" is balanced between frustration at the utter futility of the war effort in those two countries and the massively misunderestimated unintended consequences of waging those wars, on the one hand, [long sentence warning] and Trump's incredibly shallow comprehension of the direct (but still unintended) consequences of his actions. 

Fenring, if you want to be "fair and balanced", explain:

• How Trump's pre-announced solution in North Korea turned out as intended?
• How about holding Syria's feet to the fire for using chemical weapons and his proud announcement that the US would not stand idly by in the facing of Assad's atrocities?
• How about explaining how announcing the withdrawal of US troops from Syria and abandoning our Kurdish allies led to any semblance of an explainable "victory".
• How about his bold initiative against Iran, where they now are markedly closer to having nuclear weapons than they were under the Obama agreement?
• How about his forceful insistance that Maduro leave Venezuela and his declaration of recognizing Guaidó?

Any good come from any of these things?

[Kasandra]

If staying was the better option then that should have been Kasandra's answer, no?

This is like one of those freshman psychology class tests.  If your brakes fail, would you plow into the 3 older folks or into the 6 year old girl, knowing whoever you hit will die.

The answer is simple: You should have taken the bus, because you wouldn't have been faced with such an impossible choice.

However, to answer your question (more) directly, Trump should have admitted he has no idea how to solve the situation and sought help from our allies and other countries in the region to help figure out a "sustainable" solution.  The answer may have turned out to be that we stay in the country, that other countries would offer to participate, that we cut and run throwing the Afghan government and non-Taliban citizens at the mercy of the Taliban.  Oh, wait, he already decided to do that, so asking for help would have been pointless.

[Fenring]

Kasandra,

I shouldn't need to explicate my position on those things in order to ask you to be consistent about your assessment of Trump's decisions in Syria and Afghanistan. You are treating this like a for/anti-Trump discussion, where I am personally taking neither position but pointing out that you are clearly taking on an anti-Trump position despite also claiming that he could not have done better.

That being said, for the sake of diplomacy, I'll answer those questions, although I don't know what good it will do you since I have no skin in the game of trying to prove that Trump is doing a good job:

-The NK situation is unresolved but as things stand relations are better with NK than before, especially in regards to SK. Trump did not go as far as I hoped but he got further than anyone expected (and further than some wanted him to). In that regard I would call his activity in this area a partial success, closer to being marginal than to being decisive.

-This one comes purely down to what intel he was operating under. If, for instance, Assad is guilty but more lives would be saved in the long-run doing as Trump did then it's a lesser of evils situation which I'm not in a position to assess. But let's take the other side: what if, as some claim, the chemical weapon attacks were staged by his opponents or by terrorists trying to take him down, and not done by Assad? In that case it would be good not to assists the terrorists. And maybe it's murkier than either of these. I don't have the intel so I can't say, other than I thought the U.S. had no business being there in the first place.

-I haven't sufficiently studied the Kurdish situation to say what I think.

-I don't really know what to believe about the state of Iran's nuclear program. I have neither spent lots of timing studying the issue, nor am I sure I would get good information without digging deeper than I care to. Iraq 2.0 should teach you that it's hard to know what's really going on in another country where our media and most of our government are antagonistic to them.

-To be fair to Trump, that s***show has been going on since Bush43 and at this point I have no clue what would be right or wrong. From what I do know about South American politics they have gotten so screwed over by outside interests over the years that I find it hard to parse how much of what goes on there is their fault or others' faults; and that determination would be necessary to assess what a current U.S. President's position should be on it. I was reading the other day about the War of the Roses and trying to track the family lineages and the claims to the throne. If you asked some random person which side they supported it would be totally incoherent to answer unless they actually knew the family trees, the marriages, the strengths of the claims, the law and its precedent, and other matters related to it. After knowing all of that backstory you'd be in a position to say what you think of some guy supporting the Lancasters and opposing the Yorks. Absent that backstory, the assessment would be meaningless, as would my commenting on Venezuela.

[Fenring]

However, to answer your question (more) directly, Trump should have admitted he has no idea how to solve the situation and sought help from our allies and other countries in the region to help figure out a "sustainable" solution.  The answer may have turned out to be that we stay in the country, that other countries would offer to participate, that we cut and run throwing the Afghan government and non-Taliban citizens at the mercy of the Taliban.

Do you have evidence that Trump did not do these things using his own diplomatic channels? I am honestly curious. I'm not 100% sure how much the U.S. should have to ask the permission of other countries to withdraw its own troops, but putting that detail aside I'd like to know if you have verification that Trump did this unilaterally without consulting other countries on their opinion.

[rightleft22]

Trump should have admitted he has no idea how to solve the situation and sought help from our allies and other countries in the region

Well know I am not a fan of Trump. Afghanistan is a lose lose and I can't imagine any leader stating bluntly that have no idea how to solve a problem.

Trump style of not seeking advice and the administrations protectionist american first policy perspective... your asking him to do something he wasn't elected to do.

I son't like that and its one one of many of the reasons he would never get my vote, but that doesn't in and of its self make his decision is wrong. At least I can't say that as I don't believe this is a good decision to the Afghanistan problem with or without allies help.

[Kasandra]

Fenring, that was (finally, whew!) a good response.  Many of your answers are sensible, so I'm willing to let it go.

As for...

Do you have evidence that Trump did not do these things using his own diplomatic channels? I am honestly curious. I'm not 100% sure how much the U.S. should have to ask the permission of other countries to withdraw its own troops, but putting that detail aside I'd like to know if you have verification that Trump did this unilaterally without consulting other countries on their opinion.

Really, you think Trump tells me anything?  I'm sure other countries knew what he planned to do at least as far in advance as we did, but maybe not.  I have no idea how much input they were asked to give or whether they were listened to if they gave it.  I can only go on the same evidence that is available to other skollers here, which I gather by plumbing many different online and other media resources and trying to understand and base my thinking on their reporting.  But it wouldn't surprise me if Trump had a Mr. Ed moment and simply announced the new "policy objective" to his senior advisors in the heat of tweet.

[Fenring]

Kasandra,

That's fine, but you seemed to be pretty clear that you don't like how Trump did it, and would have preferred him to have sought the opinions of other nations. But now you seem to be saying you don't really know if he in fact did that or not. What I am trying to do is to track down the root of your criticism of Trump on this point.

[TheDrake]

I can't think of anything worse for a leader to say than "I have no idea how to solve this."

Trump came somewhat close to that when he said:

nobody knew that health care could be so complicated

It's not a good look.

[Kasandra]

Kasandra,

That's fine, but you seemed to be pretty clear that you don't like how Trump did it, and would have preferred him to have sought the opinions of other nations. But now you seem to be saying you don't really know if he in fact did that or not. What I am trying to do is to track down the root of your criticism of Trump on this point.

It's called an opinion, even more than one, and sometimes my opinions on something are mutually exclusive.  I'm not going to rummage through all of the source material I sifted and gathered my understanding from.  I'll note, however, that they included FOX and MSNBC, the Washington Examiner, Washington Post, Reuters, the Guardian and a host of more far-flung foreign sites I found through Watching America.

[Fenring]

Kasandra,

I didn't ask for a link somehow showing how you come to have opinions. I specifically asked for links to back up the positive claims you have been making, and then backing away from. So you are saying it's only your opinion that Trump did not seek the advice of other nations when making this decision? Or is it based on facts - in which case, what facts? I don't need for you to prove to me why you don't like Trump or his policies, but I think you do need to prove when you assert things like Trump didn't consult anyone.

[Kasandra]

You want me to show you when and how often he didn't do something? Do you think foreign leaders are going to make announcements concerning Trump's inability to decide how to get out of Afghanistan?  Leaders only proclaim things that have some implicit or explicit benefit to themselves.  You'll notice that Trump and Modi didn't hold a farewell conference to tell the world that they couldn't come to an agreement on US-India trade.  If anyone spills the beans to me, I'll let everyone here know.

It might give a little more credibility to some of the points I've been making when you learn that Trump has given 30-days notice to the Korean staff who service US bases in South Korea.  This arrangement has endured for the past 70 years.  It's apparently a cost-saving measure, though I have heard (on the media) many current and former military staff and South Korean political observers point out that US military readiness will be impaired if we follow through on Trump's demands that they contribute a 5-fold increase in their spending on the bases.  Another Trump foreign policy coup in the making?

Would this one be better than all the praise he has heaped on Duterte in the Philippines?  Duterte has announced that he wants to withdraw from his country's 40+ year old security agreement with the US.

Do you see a pattern?  Can you infer anything about how he's approaching Afghanistan from it?

[Crunch]

You do realize, Crunch, that saying "Orange Man Bad" is just another way to dismiss someone else's argument without actually addressing the argument.  Just like accusing them of TDS.

What? No props for the recursive algorithm? Come on, it was pretty good.

The thing is, most of you are not making any argument at all.

[TheDrake]

What? No props for the recursive algorithm? Come on, it was pretty good.

I was trying to come up with something but I could make the "Biden: out of memory error" work into a decent joke.

[Fenring]

You want me to show you when and how often he didn't do something? Do you think foreign leaders are going to make announcements concerning Trump's inability to decide how to get out of Afghanistan?  Leaders only proclaim things that have some implicit or explicit benefit to themselves.

This is a very defensive way of saying "yeah, I have no idea man." Why can't you just say that?

[Wayward Son]

You do realize, Crunch, that saying "Orange Man Bad" is just another way to dismiss someone else's argument without actually addressing the argument.  Just like accusing them of TDS.

What? No props for the recursive algorithm? Come on, it was pretty good.

As Bones would say, "Damnit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a programmer!"  Or something like that.

The thing is, most of you are not making any argument at all.

It would be better to point out and/or explain how it isn't an argument, than to simply dismiss it with a snide comment.  Because a lot of times, you miss the actual argument that was there, and just come off sounding like a jerk who doesn't have a good rebuttal.

[Crunch]

I do. You hate that too.

[Wayward Son]

Better for me to hate you for rebutting an argument than for dismissing it, don't ya think?  If only for everyone else reading these threads.

[Kasandra]

You want me to show you when and how often he didn't do something? Do you think foreign leaders are going to make announcements concerning Trump's inability to decide how to get out of Afghanistan?  Leaders only proclaim things that have some implicit or explicit benefit to themselves.

This is a very defensive way of saying "yeah, I have no idea man." Why can't you just say that?

Put the shoe on the other foot and explain what steps Trump did take, since I can't see evidence of any.  Don't weasel out of it by insisting I'm the only one who has to defend my position since you're not taking one. Or, perhaps, admit that you can't.

[Crunch]

Better for me to hate you for rebutting an argument than for dismissing it, don't ya think?  If only for everyone else reading these threads.

No, it’s just a waste of time.

[Kasandra]

Better for me to hate you for rebutting an argument than for dismissing it, don't ya think?  If only for everyone else reading these threads.

No, it’s just a waste of time.

Then why bother posting at all?  Everyone knows what you're going to say.  It's already been encapsulated into a function.

[Fenring]

Put the shoe on the other foot and explain what steps Trump did take, since I can't see evidence of any.  Don't weasel out of it by insisting I'm the only one who has to defend my position since you're not taking one. Or, perhaps, admit that you can't.

Why are you burden shifting instead of just admitting what I'm asking? This is not an inquisition, it's you making specific positive factual claims and then defying me to prove the opposite when you're asked for evidence. For heaven's sake, can you just give a simple answer instead of trying to wriggle out out every time?

[TheDeamon]

You want me to show you when and how often he didn't do something? Do you think foreign leaders are going to make announcements concerning Trump's inability to decide how to get out of Afghanistan?  Leaders only proclaim things that have some implicit or explicit benefit to themselves.

This is a very defensive way of saying "yeah, I have no idea man." Why can't you just say that?

Put the shoe on the other foot and explain what steps Trump did take, since I can't see evidence of any.  Don't weasel out of it by insisting I'm the only one who has to defend my position since you're not taking one. Or, perhaps, admit that you can't.

I have concerns about what may be in the agreement that was reached, but I haven't even seen any in depth look at its contents, and I haven't seen you offer any analysis of it, or links to it, either. Without knowing what was agreed to, its hard to condemn it on principle.

I hope there are measures in place to ensure we're not going back in there, in force, 4 years from now for example. But as nobody seems bothered to offer anything beyond "an agreement exists" its hard to condemn anything in it.

[Kasandra]

That being said, for the sake of diplomacy, I'll answer those questions, although I don't know what good it will do you since I have no skin in the game of trying to prove that Trump is doing a good job:

I am here for a discussion, not to be interrogated by a supposedly, but not really, neutral moderator.  If you have no opinion just stay out of the conversation rather than chase me to provide ever more exacting details for how I formed my opinion.  I've given you more than enough background for you to understand why I hold the opinions that I do.  You only deign to provide your own opinions out of a sense of "diplomacy"?  Seriously, engage or disengage, don't pretend to take some sort of higher ground that doesn't require you to do either.

[Fenring]

That being said, for the sake of diplomacy, I'll answer those questions, although I don't know what good it will do you since I have no skin in the game of trying to prove that Trump is doing a good job:

I am here for a discussion, not to be interrogated by a supposedly, but not really, neutral moderator.  If you have no opinion just stay out of the conversation rather than chase me to provide ever more exacting details for how I formed my opinion.  I've given you more than enough background for you to understand why I hold the opinions that I do.  You only deign to provide your own opinions out of a sense of "diplomacy"?  Seriously, engage or disengage, don't pretend to take some sort of higher ground that doesn't require you to do either.

If you're going to make a statement of fact on a forum, I think anyone here is entitled to inquire about whether it is in fact information rather than disinformation. And no, we do not need to "add out own opinion" in order to entitle us to ask you to back up factual claims with facts. I was happy to add my opinion because you asked for it, but again, my doing so should not be a requirement of you backing up your own statements of fact. I think Seriati once mentioned something to the effect of there being a sort of civic duty to refute or question claims of fact that may be inaccurate, and I sort of feel the same way. Not perhaps to the extent that Seriati does, and in a way I'm way of "someone on the internet is wrong! to the Batmobile!" attitude, but all the same we are entitled to ask for verification of a so-called fact. And if you value media as a source of information you should value fact-checking as an important part of the discussion. Imagine a major paper printed an article with a questionable fact, and when asked to verify the fact they answered with "well I don't see you adding anything to the discussion!" That's a ridiculous retort, if you see what I'm saying.

I don't think anyone here resists saying what they think in order to contribute to the discussion, and there ought to be no provision of quid pro quo here where you'll only reply to questions if the interlocutor pays you back with information of their own.

[Kasandra]

You're free to ask anything you want without offering your own opinions, but recall that your first post on this topic wasn't to explore the basis for my stated view, but instead to assert pejoratively:

Man, it is so sad to see how neo-liberalism is the new normal.

I challenged you repeatedly to back up that condescending statement, and you repeatedly responded by asking me to give more details about my position instead.  You came through only once - grudgingly, not "happ[ily]" - when I pushed you on specific topics and I acknowledged that you had done so. Then you reverted back to this duck-and-weave defense.  As I said to Crunch for the opposite reason, why do you bother posting if you have nothing to add?

[Fenring]

I challenged you repeatedly to back up that condescending statement, and you repeatedly responded by asking me to give more details about my position instead.

No, what actually happened is I repeatedly responded trying to explain how you failed to comprehend the literal content of my post.

[Kasandra]

It is equally sad to see how neo-know-nothing is a new normal.

[Crunch]

Better for me to hate you for rebutting an argument than for dismissing it, don't ya think?  If only for everyone else reading these threads.

No, it’s just a waste of time.

Then why bother posting at all?  Everyone knows what you're going to say.  It's already been encapsulated into a function.

Right back at ya, dude.

[Kasandra]

Right back at ya, dude.

Deep, very deep.

[Crunch]

I’m....quoting you. 

[Kasandra]

?

[wmLambert]

...It's called an opinion, even more than one, and sometimes my opinions on something are mutually exclusive.  I'm not going to rummage through all of the source material I sifted and gathered my understanding from.  I'll note, however, that they included FOX and MSNBC, the Washington Examiner, Washington Post, Reuters, the Guardian and a host of more far-flung foreign sites I found through Watching America.

It is good to have multiple sources to generate what you believe. However; from my experience in debate, there is a fallacy in using the source itself as the point in contention, rather than the content of that source. Most people who have incorrect preconceived notions look for only those things that may support their beliefs. Any contrary data is just noise in the system, neh? IOW, the more sources you skim through only allows more possibility of finding disinformation repeated as a circular argument. What needs to be posted are the facts that may inspire new beliefs, not moot arguments.

[Kasandra]

So, how's the Taliban peace deal doing now?

At least 88 pro-government forces and 13 civilians were killed in Afghanistan during the past week. After a week of reduced violence on account of the peace agreement struck between the Americans and the Taliban, the insurgent group resumed its attacks on Afghan forces on Monday. The deadliest attack took place in Kunduz Province, where a Taliban red unit equipped with night-vision goggles attacked a military base in the Third Police District of Kunduz City, killing 15 soldiers and wounding another. In Uruzgan Province, the Taliban attacked a security outpost in the Niche area of Tarin Kot, the provincial capital, killing nine police officers before the outpost was recaptured with the help of reinforcements.

Trump's response:

On Friday, the president offered the verbal equivalent of a shrug when asked whether the Taliban might overrun the country and reestablish its harsh dictatorship. “It’s not supposed to happen that way but it possibly will,” he answered. “Countries have to take care of themselves.”

Is anyone here surprised?

[Crunch]

I’m still amazed to see the same group that got all lathered up and celebrated things like the iraq body count project suddenly becoming pro war. Is Cindy Sheehan a warhawk now, too?

[Kasandra]

I’m still amazed to see the same group that got all lathered up and celebrated things like the iraq body count project suddenly becoming pro war. Is Cindy Sheehan a warhawk now, too?

You don't know the difference between strategic withdrawal and a drunkard's walk?

[Fenring]

I’m still amazed to see the same group that got all lathered up and celebrated things like the iraq body count project suddenly becoming pro war. Is Cindy Sheehan a warhawk now, too?

You don't know the difference between strategic withdrawal and a drunkard's walk?

I thought you said there was no strategic way to withdraw that you could think of?

[Kasandra]

I thought you said there was no strategic way to withdraw that you could think of?

You're still chasing me?  What do you think would be a good strategic plan?

I've said several times already that I don't see any good solution.  My comment is meant to suggest that the Taliban peace deal is an absurd capitulation to the Taliban that has already proven to be meaningless.  The plan seems almost random to me (hence a drunkard's walk) because (you can find resources online for all of these points yourself):

* The other major party to any resolution of the ongoing hostilities in the country (aka the legitimate government) was not consulted or included in the promulgation of the plan

* The US reportedly revealed to the Taliban the locations of US armed forces in the country with an agreement that the Taliban wouldn't attack them

* One of the key provisions of the deal would require the government to give up 1000's of Taliban prisoners (which the Taliban refer to as "fighters" so as not to suggest that they had failed in their mission), which it has steadfastly refused to do

* The Taliban have a long-standing avowed objective to oust the government and institute their version of Islam as the controlling authority over the population

* The US has not revealed any mechanism in the plan to ensure that it will be adhered to by the Taliban

Last, Trump tipped his hand the other day:

The U.S. government has collected persuasive intelligence that the Taliban do not intend to honor the promises they have made in the recently signed deal with the United States, three American officials tell NBC News, undercutting what has been days of hopeful talk by President Donald Trump and his top aides.

"They have no intention of abiding by their agreement," said one official briefed on the intelligence, which two others described as explicit evidence shedding light on the Taliban's intentions.

Trump himself acknowledged that reality in extraordinary comments Friday, saying the Taliban could "possibly" overrun the Afghan government after U.S. troops withdraw.

"Countries have to take care of themselves," Trump told reporters at the White House. "You can only hold someone's hand for so long." Asked if the Taliban could eventually seize power, Trump said it's "not supposed to happen that way, but it possibly will."

[Fenring]

I thought you said there was no strategic way to withdraw that you could think of?

You're still chasing me?  What do you think would be a good strategic plan?

I've said several times already that I don't see any good solution.  My comment is meant to suggest that the Taliban peace deal is an absurd capitulation to the Taliban that has already proven to be meaningless.

I'm not so much arguing with you, so much as trying to hold up a mirror to show you're essentially arguing with yourself. You've been alternatively claiming that this decision to pull out is both a mistake, and also that there's no good solution. So your objection is countered by your own view on the subject. I'm just pointing it out...repeatedly. Sorry if this feels like dogged pursuit, but I find it difficult to let it stand. Whatever else your intention is, it ends up reading as just Trump-hate IMO.

Btw I'll also repeat again that I would have had no problem compiling reasons to complain about Trump myself, except for the manner in which the Trump-hate has manifested itself since he was elected. It's been so over-the-top that I feel constrained to avoid participating in it even though in a vacuum I would have certain complaints to make. So this isn't about Trump's infallibility, but rather about trying to counter the "Trump can do no good by definition" position. I view partisan animosity as being a bigger enemy to battle than any one President's foibles.

[Kasandra]

I'm not so much arguing with you, so much as trying to hold up a mirror to show you're essentially arguing with yourself.

The mirror's crack'd.  There's no contradiction arguing that a bad plan is worse than no plan.

Btw I'll also repeat again that I would have had no problem compiling reasons to complain about Trump myself, except for the manner in which the Trump-hate has manifested itself since he was elected. It's been so over-the-top that I feel constrained to avoid participating in it even though in a vacuum I would have certain complaints to make. So this isn't about Trump's infallibility, but rather about trying to counter the "Trump can do no good by definition" position. I view partisan animosity as being a bigger enemy to battle than any one President's foibles.

That sounds like the "good soldier" defense.  If I understand you, so many people have criticized him for so many things for so long that you are being somehow respectful by not saying anything.  Rather than a good soldier, it could be construed as a "cowardly citizen".  That is, if you really have anything to criticize and aren't just deflecting from saying what you really think.

[yossarian22c]

I’m still amazed to see the same group that got all lathered up and celebrated things like the iraq body count project suddenly becoming pro war. Is Cindy Sheehan a warhawk now, too?

You don't know the difference between strategic withdrawal and a drunkard's walk?

I thought you said there was no strategic way to withdraw that you could think of?

I thought the trade war with China was/is a good policy and I still criticized its execution. The same can be said here. Making the decision to withdrawal isn't in itself a worse policy than our other options in Afghanistan. Negotiating our withdrawal solely with the Taliban is bad policy execution. 3 party talks that included an extended cease fire would have been preferable.

[Fenring]

That sounds like the "good soldier" defense.  If I understand you, so many people have criticized him for so many things for so long that you are being somehow respectful by not saying anything.

You do not understand me. That is not at all what I said; you have warped what I said into something that bolsters your position. That is not a good faith way to read the position of others.

[Kasandra]

Dive in and explain yourself then, since I am so easily unable to understand what you're trying to say.

[rightleft22]

Btw I'll also repeat again that I would have had no problem compiling reasons to complain about Trump myself, except for the manner in which the Trump-hate has manifested itself since he was elected. It's been so over-the-top that I feel constrained to avoid participating in it even though in a vacuum I would have certain complaints to make.

I am reading this similar to Kasandra. That because the 'Trump-Hate' has been over the top (I agree much has been over the top) you are constrained to criticize anything..

IMO this this is intentional to 'Trumpism' communication practice. Confuse, distort, anger, bully, truthful hyperbole....  Eventually all criticism = 'trump hate' or explained away as 'trump hate' and both sides of any debate is silenced.  Its very effective.

Just as you have decided to constrain yourself in participating in criticism so have I and many others.

Kasandra for the most part appears to be the last hold out. Still pushing back. Without Kasandra the the forum would be pretty dead. As most of us have realized their is no point to engage in debate   

[Fenring]

Dive in and explain yourself then, since I am so easily unable to understand what you're trying to say.

I already said it: "I view partisan animosity as being a bigger enemy to battle than any one President's foibles."

[Kasandra]

Dive in and explain yourself then, since I am so easily unable to understand what you're trying to say.

I already said it: "I view partisan animosity as being a bigger enemy to battle than any one President's foibles."

I don't understand how you think it should be battled.  Is that something that you think you are doing by staying silent?  Or are you addressing it some other way?

[Fenring]

I don't understand how you think it should be battled.  Is that something that you think you are doing by staying silent?  Or are you addressing it some other way?

I am staying silent about partisan animosity? Have you read my posts? Or are you trying to shoehorn your idea that I'm respectfully staying silent about Trump into my point that partisanship is the real enemy?

[yossarian22c]

Dive in and explain yourself then, since I am so easily unable to understand what you're trying to say.

I already said it: "I view partisan animosity as being a bigger enemy to battle than any one President's foibles."

I agree its an issue. Which is why I try to post when I agree with a Trump policy, even though I have significant issues with his presidency. Republicans need to feel free to criticize Trump, just like Democrats should be able to agree with him on issues when he gets something correct. We're posting here in the internet backwaters - no one is "winning" or "losing" elections based on quoting us and making "our side" look bad. I just like it as a place to expose myself to other points of view that aren't simply social media emotional appeal extremes or media talking heads. I can't imagine a place where the stakes are actually much lower for posting criticisms of "your side" or agreeing with the "other side," if we can't muster up the resolve to do that in a forum like this what hope is there in higher stakes places/conversations.

[Kasandra]

I don't understand how you think it should be battled.  Is that something that you think you are doing by staying silent?  Or are you addressing it some other way?

I am staying silent about partisan animosity? Have you read my posts? Or are you trying to shoehorn your idea that I'm respectfully staying silent about Trump into my point that partisanship is the real enemy?

Not that I can tell since I've been back here.  Point me to a few examples so I don't have to get out a shovel to dig for them.

[Edit: However, you did say:

Btw I'll also repeat again that I would have had no problem compiling reasons to complain about Trump myself, except for the manner in which the Trump-hate has manifested itself since he was elected. It's been so over-the-top that I feel constrained to avoid participating in it even though in a vacuum I would have certain complaints to make.

That sounds to me like you're staying silent, but once again I'm probably misunderstanding what you are saying.]

[Fenring]

Not that I can tell since I've been back here.  Point me to a few examples so I don't have to get out a shovel to dig for them.

Well in a nutshell I try to contest unsubstantiated claims made by either side against the other when I can, or to combat views that I feel are fueled by trying to defeat the other side rather than trying to get at the truth. Lately this has turned me into a bit of a goalie regarding claims made about Trump, but in the past I've taken the defense against various issues including foreign wars, media manipulation, and identity politics. That's not all I do when posting here, but I do try to do it sometimes.