Do you finally regret supporting Donald Trump?

During the campaigns, I'm thinking if Trump described in detail his his first year in office, he probably wouldn't have won the nomination.

weird time to start this thread when he just did the second useful thing of his presidency and the fact the most active thread is already about him

Which part of tanking the stock market while sending oil into a price squeeze while threatening global stagflation and sending US citizens to die while costing taxpayers billions is the useful thing?

The part where brown people die

Do you support the billions spent on the Ukraine war . That seems to be another countries war as well

1. Whatabout

2. Whatabout

3. Whatabout

4. Obummer

5. Kamabla woulda done it worse

6. Whatabout

7. Whatabout

its actually the part where brown peoples lives are saved. don't get me wrong this is not out of the goodness of his heart. its not even his idea. the popular conspiracy is its to protect he petro dollar. I also find the "costing tax payers billions" line hilariously funny . Like I did some of the math your going to spend a stupid amount anyway. This small increase of spending is like a Pennie in a bucket. its probably already in the budget. Like your line starts at 1 trillion dollars a year? Your a little late. You can afford it apparently.

It would actually be more insane to spend a trillion dollars a year and not spend a couple more billion the actual times its needed to save lives.

Do you spend 40 grand on a brand new car and go like ahh man... I really can't afford that 1 dollar in gas to go to my buddys house 4 blocks away

are Persians considered brown? anyway, you didnt care much when Biden and Obama killed 100s of thousands of Arabs. kinda hard to believe you care now as anything other than a cudgel to go at Repubs.

Lol at the Trump bar lowering is always so crazy. Just completely night and day shift when he is in power. Now an extra buck a gallon..... small price to pay for whatever the hell they are trying to accomplish in Iran.

I use classical logic, not Aristotelean logic as I believe that Aristotelean logic has lots of problems.

But setting that aside, the term I am using “man” I would say is not synonymous with the biological definition of man, so I see no hidden category distinction here.

If someone sees that argument and makes the assumptions that I’m using the biological definition of the word “man” then they would be equivocating on the way that I’m using the word. If they agree that they are equivocating on how I’m using the word but they think the way I’m using the word is “wrong” in some way, that’s a separate issue, but it would also be them acknowledging that when I say “some men can get pregnant” that I don’t mean the same thing as the connotation of them saying “it’s crazy that they believe some men can get pregnant”. That definition they are using when they refer to my statement “some men can get pregnant” is equivocating on how I’m using the word man because they are representing me as saying “biological males can get pregnant” (via term substitution) which is not true at this point in time (potentially it is physically possible with future technology).

So in classical logic and using the terms the way I mean the terms the conclusion pretty clearly follows from the premises, unless someone can point out a flaw in one of the premises such that the conclusion is no longer ambliative.

I'm going to imagine that with this generation, a legit recession is going to lead to the biggest bull trap in US history. SPY could drop 50% and it would only put it down to 2020 highs. It's been a while since anyone has experienced something like that and the perceived fire sales might not actually be so.

P1 If it is possible for some straw men to be formal fallacies, then it is possible for some men to be formal fallacies.
P2 It is possible for some straw men to be formal fallacies.
C Therefore it is possible for some men to be formal fallacies.

Not only is that valid under your framework, it’s also sound a priori because the classical framework assumes that the adjective preserves the category.

What you’re actually doing when you deny P1 is appealing to natural-language reasoning to bypass a hidden flaw in your logical schema; a flaw that later analytic philosophers like Wittgenstein and Geach highlighted.

It’s equivocation, I’m not equivocating. Strawman is one term, trans men are a subset of the gender men. Straw men are not a subset of the category men, but trans men are.

The argument ending in negation P therefore Q of the first premise is

P1 If it is not the case that straw men are men, then it is not the case that “If it is possible for some straw men to be formal fallacies, then it is possible for some men to be formal fallacies”
P2 It is not the case that straw men are men.
C it is not the case that “If it is possible for some straw men to be formal fallacies, then it is possible for some men to be formal fallacies”

If you tried to substitute the term “trans” for “straw” in the above argument. then I would deny P2 by analytic entailment of the definition of the term men which by definition does include trans men but does not include straw men in the sense that I am using it.

In general, no I do not support billions being spent on foreign wars.

However, the reality of it is it's nuanced and not cut and dried. There's the humanitarian side of things, the quid pro quo side of things, and the international law side of things.

With Ukraine, you have a dictator that is invading another country in order to annex it. Russia is an adversary of NATO while Ukraine is an ally of NATO. That takes care of the first and last parts. Ukraine has critical minerals the US desires, therefore helping an ally to defend against an adversary can benefit the US.

In this conflict, you have the US military invading another country for bullshit reasons with widespread ramifications. There's a big difference between providing a NATO ally assistance against a NATO adversary, without ever deploying any US military, and initiating a war against a NATO adversary. You trying to paint them as the same thing is disingenuous at best.

Wait until MAGA is paying $200+ per week to tank up their F150's for months and groceries skyrocket due to transportation costs. We'll see how committed they are to the cult.

Bullshit reasons? Iran the last 50 years has killed more folks or sponsored terrorists that have done the killing . If folks are going to complain about the cost of a billion $ a day than do the same with Ukraine which now sits at 188 billion bucks .

Funny it sure seems like many folks here with TDS actually hopes the USA fails in the war. Anyone that says its not a war is delusional .

what are you even talking about? what terrorist attacks has Iran ever done?

Essentially lozen's undertitle.

So, more than half the administration?

Do you just mainline meth and four loko while listening to kid rock before you start your day of truly god awful shitposting or is that something you do during?

Reason 1: Iran is an imminent threat to the US

- Trump's own intelligence agency in a report stated that Iran is 10 years away from developing an ICBM that could reach the US if they so choose to continue its development

Reason 2: We need to free the Iranian people

- Trump is carpet bombing the shiit out of the areas where these people live. If this were the reason, he wouldn't be turning their neighborhoods into rubble

It's pretty obvious Israel wants to expand its power and found a useful idiot to accomplish it by stroking his cock and promising him oil.

That said, over the last 50 years, who do you think has killed more people, Iran or the US? Is this where you tell us that we had to level Iraq because WMDs and whoopsies, it's better to be safe than sorry so it doesn't count?

I already explained that in detail. The slow and skinny of it is if negotiations are equitable in making a deal, it makes sense to do it. I'm not steeped enough in this to have an opinion on whether protecting access to rare minerals was equitable or not.

As far as I know, the US has failed in every war since WWII. Just because they pull out and claim victory doesn't change this, so we already know it's going to fail and American bodies are going to pile up.

So far, 8 US soldiers. That is according to the Trump administration. If we can't even rely on them for accurate employment numbers, then we certainly can't rely on them for accurate body counts.

The question is what are the other ramifications going to be. They are most certainly going to be far worse than the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts caused.

State sponsored I said. You know the attack on Israel and the list is long

Id say even more just as the the Dems denied Obama attack on Libya was a war.

I never said I agreed to the war . Ask me after the 60 days has expired and Trump needs to go to congress .

I mean, if the list was so long then you should be able to name a few more than the Oct 7th that a)wasnt terrorism and b) wasnt "sponsored" by Iran. has Iran ever, for instance, blown up school full of girls to "terrorize" someone?

Trump is not going to Congress and they will do nothing.

Once again, which government has killed more people, the US or Iran?

saw a clip where Mearsheimer recently said that the USA had killed 38 million people since 1971.