Deeply moving essay from wife of a Trump supporter.

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 5047
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Deeply moving essay from wife of a Trump supporter.

Post by Gadianton »

Morley wrote:I'm a former Army Ranger who volunteered and served in combat in a war much less necessary than WWII. If, at this point, they wanted my wrinkled ass, sure, I'd serve again.
Dr. Shades wrote:Really? You'd sacrifice your life even if there was no reason to do so?
There is no indication Morley believes that there would be no reason for the sacrifice, quite the contrary, therefore you are smuggling an unwarranted assumption into the question.

"Really? You bought a Corvette even though Chevys are ugly, unreliable, and there is no reason to ever own one?"
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 8390
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: Deeply moving essay from wife of a Trump supporter.

Post by Kishkumen »

Morley wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2024 3:19 pm
Then maybe you'll demonstrate some of the knowledge by answering the question as to what the US should have done when Japan took Philippines and bombed Pearl Harbor while Germany declared war on the US. Should the US have just tucked tail and asked the axis powers to spare them? Should the US have just turned the other cheek and handed over her possessions while watching her people being slaughtered? Your suggestion that the Pacific Fleet should not have been in Hawaii is a dodge.
I really wonder how historically literate Shades is, when he suggests through omission that the bombing of Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war on the US were not legitimate reasons to go to war.
I'm a former Army Ranger who volunteered and served in combat in a war much less necessary than WWII. If, at this point, they wanted my wrinkled ass, sure, I'd serve again.
I have not served, but I would serve in any capacity my country needed me for.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7833
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: Deeply moving essay from wife of a Trump supporter.

Post by canpakes »

Morley wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:12 pm
Dr. Shades wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:25 am
Yes, the North should've let the South secede, under the reasoning enumerated within the first three sentences of the Declaration of Independence.
Declaration of Independence wrote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I dunno, Shades. This reads more like a justification for the Union to do whatever is needed to force the end of slavery, than it does for the South to secede in order to maintain it.
canpakes wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2024 1:49 am
Especially since what the South wanted to maintain was against the principles stated in the first three sentences.
Dr. Shades wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2024 10:19 am
As I explained, the slavery that all 13 colonies--which includes the North--wanted to maintain was against the principles stated in the first three sentences.
Against the principles, but they should have been allowed to secede? Would that be merely to maintain the peace?

You probably see the problem with this passage. If Georgia decided tomorrow to re-institute slavery while simultaneously seceding from the union, would they have a right to do so under their claim of an odious and oppressive government not allowing their exercise of free will? Or would the rest of the States, within the understanding of Federal commitment, be right to prevent this from happening?

What good are those words within those first three sentences, if we are unwilling to stand by them for ourselves?
Since I have you here, let me ask you two questions: Should the U.S. military have "boots on the ground" in Ukraine? If not, why not? Your answer to these two questions will get you far closer to understanding my point of view than anything I can type.
I don’t believe that we need ‘boots on the ground’ in Ukraine, although we already have advisors there. We don’t have a treaty in place that requires us to do so.

To the larger question, I have no problem with treaties that could require us to enter battle on foreign soil. The reason is straightforward: (1) cooperation is a necessary component of survival, and (2) not all threats to this nation’s sovereignty and citizens are contained solely within the borders of this nation. And although it’s nice to believe that we can go along to get along and in doing so always be dealing with sensible minds abroad who will respect and choose order and cooperation over conquest and subjugation, that imagined world simply does not exist. This has been demonstrated time and time again for millennia.

One problem with libertarian ideology and isolationism (and the glaring conflict between MAGA isolationist preferences along with their weird adoration of ‘tough guy’ leadership) is that it seems to operate under the premise that what it arguably wants to do can somehow be accomplished while remaining completely isolated and unaffected from detrimental outside forces and intent.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 7405
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Deeply moving essay from wife of a Trump supporter.

Post by Moksha »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:25 am
Moksha wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2024 1:14 am
Once those programs to aid old people are ended, will the Church step up and offer to house the senior citizens in some abandoned warehouses in the Salt Lake Area (with mandatory baptisms and church services, of course)?
Of course it will.
Knowing that those abandoned warehouses will serve some purpose before being consigned to the Telestial Kingdom will comfort TBMs.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Dr. Shades
Founder and Visionary
Posts: 2541
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Deeply moving essay from wife of a Trump supporter.

Post by Dr. Shades »

Morley wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2024 5:07 pm
Dr. Shades wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2024 10:19 am
It's not a dodge if I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN. WHAT ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN IS A DONE DEAL, SET IN HISTORICAL STONE. I'm only discussing whether what actually did happen could have--and if so, should have--been avoided; NOTHING MORE.
It is indeed a dodge. When you speculate that Japan would never have attacked US territory if the Pacific Fleet had not been in Hawaii, you're positing a hypothetical. You're not discussing what actually did happen.
??? That's exactly what I just got finished saying. You're correct, I am NOT discussing what actually did happen, as evidenced by my words "I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN."

I really don't know how to write it plainer than that. I did my best to press those specific characters on my keyboard to create clear, correct, and straightforward American English. If those words are too vague or murky, then please tell me how I can make them any clearer, 'cause I can't think of anything else.
You're theorizing about what you think might have happened.
YES, I'm very solidly theorizing about what would most likely have happened, as I already pointed out and as should've been incredibly obvious. The reason my "theory" is so solid is because if there was no fleet at Pearl Harbor to bomb, then the Japanese most likely wouldn't have bombed an empty harbor. If you disagree, then by all means, share your reasoning.
Morley wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2024 5:07 pm
You claim that the fleet being there forced Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor. You seem to be saying that Japan was 100% responsible, but not really, since they were 'forced' into bombing.
??? I claim Japan was forced to bomb Pearl Harbor? Let's review the sentences in question, with blue text entered for clarity:
Dr. Shades wrote:
Chap wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:38 am
The US did not enter WWII because it was a kind elder brother who could have perfectly well stayed out of the whole business, but altruistically decided to help the poor little Europeans and Chinese. It entered the war because the Axis powers forced it to, by ruthlessly and very effectively attacking it.
And if the U.S. had kept its fleet on the West Coast, as any sane leader would've done, the Axis powers wouldn't have forced it [the United States] to [enter the war], ruthlessly and very effectively or otherwise.
Now, please explain how "the Axis powers" forcing the United States to enter the war means the United States forced Japan to attack it.
Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and then declared war on the US. Germany declared war on the US. Japan began her invasion of the US territory of Philippines. All of these happened before Congress voted to get involved in WWII. But you say that the US shouldn't have entered the war.
It shouldn't have parked the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, which convinced the Japanese that it was a dagger aimed at the home country. Had it left the fleet on the West Coast, Japan would most likely have been convinced that the U.S.A. had no intent to enter the war, thus making it unnecessary (from their perspective) to neutralize the bases in the Philippines. It should have de-escalated the situation so entering the war would've remained unnecessary.
Given that, it makes sense that I might ask "Whenever someone threatens the US, should she just roll over and beg for mercy?"
No. I've already answered this, plainly and clearly. I don't know how many more times you need me to say "no" before you learn that I really, truly, and honestly mean "no."
Kishkumen wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2024 7:52 pm
I really wonder how historically literate Shades is, when he suggests through omission that the bombing of Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war on the US were not legitimate reasons to go to war.
*sigh* Here we go again. Let's examine what I actually DID say, not something you baselessly (and falsely) speculate that I suggested (through omission, no less!). Emphasis added:
Dr. Shades wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2024 10:19 am
Morley wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2024 3:19 pm
Then maybe you'll demonstrate some of the knowledge by answering the question as to what the US should have done when Japan took Philippines and bombed Pearl Harbor while Germany declared war on the US.
It should have declared war, which is exactly what it did.
Now, please explain how the words "it should have declared war" magically transform into "suggest[ing] through omission that the bombing of Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war on the US were not legitimate reasons to go to war."

The reason I ask for that explanation is because, as with Morley, I tried very, very hard to press the specific characters on my keyboard that would show up as clear, correct, and straightforward American English on your computer monitor.

Out of curiosity, did I wake up in some bizarre parallel universe wherein all English words mean the opposite of what they do in my universe? Or did I perhaps slip into a weird alternate reality in which all readers interpret all sentences as having the opposite meaning of what those sentences actually convey? Help me out here.
canpakes wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:58 pm
I don’t believe that we need ‘boots on the ground’ in Ukraine, although we already have advisors there. We don’t have a treaty in place that requires us to do so.
We didn't have a treaty in place that required the U.S. Pacific fleet to be in Pearl Harbor, either. So should we post soldiers in Ukraine where they can get shot by Russians?
To the larger question, I have no problem with treaties that could require us to enter battle on foreign soil. The reason is straightforward: (1) cooperation is a necessary component of survival, and (2) not all threats to this nation’s sovereignty and citizens are contained solely within the borders of this nation. And although it’s nice to believe that we can go along to get along and in doing so always be dealing with sensible minds abroad who will respect and choose order and cooperation over conquest and subjugation, that imagined world simply does not exist. This has been demonstrated time and time again for millennia.
It has also been demonstrated--twice!--that fatal alliances lead to fatal outcomes.
One problem with libertarian ideology and isolationism (and the glaring conflict between MAGA isolationist preferences along with their weird adoration of ‘tough guy’ leadership) is that it seems to operate under the premise that what it arguably wants to do can somehow be accomplished while remaining completely isolated and unaffected from detrimental outside forces and intent.
If it is possible to avoid antagonizing detrimental outside forces, is it advisable to do so? For example, if one goes to the zoo and passes by a Tiger's cage, should one put one's hand into the cage?
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 8390
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: Deeply moving essay from wife of a Trump supporter.

Post by Kishkumen »

Now, please explain how the words "it should have declared war" magically transform into "suggest[ing] through omission that the bombing of Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war on the US were not legitimate reasons to go to war."

The reason I ask for that explanation is because, as with Morley, I tried very, very hard to press the specific characters on my keyboard that would show up as clear, correct, and straightforward American English on your computer monitor.

Out of curiosity, did I wake up in some bizarre parallel universe wherein all English words mean the opposite of what they do in my universe? Or did I perhaps slip into a weird alternate reality in which all readers interpret all sentences as having the opposite meaning of what those sentences actually convey? Help me out here.
My apologies, Shades. Clearly I missed something. I still find your views on the fleet at Pearl Harbor to be without merit. Blaming the US for Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor is bizarre. I felt threatened so I punched you is not a real justification. Similarly, I have no patience with Putin apologists. The US shouldn’t have courted Ukraine? OK. But that doesn’t justify invading Ukraine and killing untold numbers of Ukrainians and Russians in the process. Both imperial Japan and Putin’s Russia were/are hyper-aggressive expansionist powers that require(d) hemming in by international alliances that were/are willing to stand up to them.
User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 2085
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: In tribute to Walter Robinson: Jealous (2011). May he rest in peace.

Re: Deeply moving essay from wife of a Trump supporter.

Post by Morley »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2024 1:17 pm

My apologies, Shades. Clearly I missed something. I still find your views on the fleet at Pearl Harbor to be without merit. Blaming the US for Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor is bizarre. I felt threatened so I punched you is not a real justification. Similarly, I have no patience with Putin apologists. The US shouldn’t have courted Ukraine? OK. But that doesn’t justify invading Ukraine and killing untold numbers of Ukrainians and Russians in the process. Both imperial Japan and Putin’s Russia were/are hyper-aggressive expansionist powers that require(d) hemming in by international alliances that were/are willing to stand up to them.
Shades, I'll join Kish here, in acknowledging that I apparently misread some of what you intended. Still, other things that you did write amount to the construction of an alternate history that's not backed by facts. The US and Japan had been on a collision course over US possessions in the Pacific for years. When you say, with no evidence but your gut feelings, that if the US fleet hadn't been in Pearl Harbor, that Philippines would have been safe, you have to expect some pushback.

Let me review to see if I get this right. Correct me if I'm wrong. You said that the US should not have entered the war. Then you acknowledge that the US needed to enter the war when they were attacked--but that they could have avoided being attacked by not putting the fleet in Hawaii. So, the US de facto entered the war by placing the fleet in Hawaii--because the provocation was too great for the Japanese to resist. You also say that you're sure that Philippines would have been safe if there had been no fleet and thusly no attack on Pearl Harbor.

This speculation isn't backed up by the facts. By 1940, the US had broken Japan's diplomatic code for the communications they'd been monitoring. From these, the US knew that Japan was going to attack US possessions in the Pacific--they just didn't know where, or when, or how to stop it from happening. There's no evidence that an alternate placement of the fleet would have prevented this. I seems to be just your guess.

Am I wrong? Is there some historical account you're reading that informs your theory? I've not read another historian who believes this to be the case. Sure, as you say, history is written by the victors--but not wholly. We have access other sources that inform us. Though they were on the losing side, I've not read of any Japanese WWII historian defending the Emperor by writing that Japan would not have declared war on the US--or that Philippines would have been safe--without the provocation the US placing ships at Pearl Harbor.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7833
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: Deeply moving essay from wife of a Trump supporter.

Post by canpakes »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2024 1:00 pm
canpakes wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:58 pm
I don’t believe that we need ‘boots on the ground’ in Ukraine, although we already have advisors there. We don’t have a treaty in place that requires us to do so.
We didn't have a treaty in place that required the U.S. Pacific fleet to be in Pearl Harbor, either. So should we post soldiers in Ukraine where they can get shot by Russians?
Considering my opinion just above, might this question be meant for someone else?
To the larger question, I have no problem with treaties that could require us to enter battle on foreign soil. The reason is straightforward: (1) cooperation is a necessary component of survival, and (2) not all threats to this nation’s sovereignty and citizens are contained solely within the borders of this nation. And although it’s nice to believe that we can go along to get along and in doing so always be dealing with sensible minds abroad who will respect and choose order and cooperation over conquest and subjugation, that imagined world simply does not exist. This has been demonstrated time and time again for millennia.
It has also been demonstrated--twice!--that fatal alliances lead to fatal outcomes!
Yes, sometimes fatalities occur in the midst of alliances.

Sometimes much wider death and destruction occurs in the absence of alliances.
One problem with libertarian ideology and isolationism (and the glaring conflict between MAGA isolationist preferences along with their weird adoration of ‘tough guy’ leadership) is that it seems to operate under the premise that what it arguably wants to do can somehow be accomplished while remaining completely isolated and unaffected from detrimental outside forces and intent.
If it is possible to avoid antagonizing detrimental outside forces, is it advisable to do so? For example, if one goes to the zoo and passes by a Tiger's cage, should one put one's hand into the cage?
Except that in this case, the tiger jumped out of its cage and is now busy eating the zoo patrons. Should we just ignore it and hope that it feels full at some point?
User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 2085
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: In tribute to Walter Robinson: Jealous (2011). May he rest in peace.

Re: Deeply moving essay from wife of a Trump supporter.

Post by Morley »

Dr Shades wrote: And if the U.S. had kept its fleet on the West Coast, as any sane leader would've done, the Axis powers wouldn't have forced it [the United States] to [enter the war], ruthlessly and very effectively or otherwise.
Your antecedents weren't clear. Thanks for the clarification.
Over and over again, in reply to various posters, Dr Shades wrote:The words I myself write will appear as small black characters on your computer monitor. They will be arranged in clear, straightforward American English.
You claim that all you can do is type the words, and then it's up to everyone else to understand you. Sometimes, if others aren't understanding, the fault might not be that every one of them is either careless or stupid. It might be that you're not doing a very good job in crafting your sentences to be as clear as you obviously think they are.
User avatar
Dr. Shades
Founder and Visionary
Posts: 2541
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Deeply moving essay from wife of a Trump supporter.

Post by Dr. Shades »

Morley wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2024 8:53 pm
Dr Shades wrote:And if the U.S. had kept its fleet on the West Coast, as any sane leader would've done, the Axis powers wouldn't have forced it [the United States] to [enter the war], ruthlessly and very effectively or otherwise.
Sometimes, if others aren't understanding, the fault might not be that every one of them is either careless or stupid. It might be that you're not doing a very good job in crafting your sentences to be as clear as you obviously think they are.
When I wrote “the Axis powers wouldn’t have forced,” I was referring to the Axis powers. I don’t know how to indicate the Axis powers any more clearly than by typing “the Axis powers.”

If you do, then by all means, please share.
Post Reply