The News Thread

Like at least the two presidents before him, Trump appears to provide the indirect benefit of an ego boost for that portion of the public who viscerally dislike him. It is rather amusing to watch.
 
I'll let you know when us plebs have made our way out of the cave ;)

One can not like Trump without reacting to every tweet containing a metaphor or a misspelling. I just don't get the widespread hysteria every other day in the news and on social media. It has to be exhausting.
 
Last edited:
I definitely think many people have an unquenchable thirst for drama. That's what most of this shit is, beating around the bush. The media's only goal is money, and drama creates viewers which creates revenue. Thats my opinion.
 
I don't think this is accurate
who, you?!

tenor.gif
 
Well which president do you think killed less people than Donald Trump in their first year?

Okaaaay, so I'm not sure if you're just making this up because obviously Obama killed more citizens during his first year in office...

I just recall reading this a while back:

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-has-already-killed-more-civilians-obama-us-fight-against-isis-653564

The U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) has killed more civilians during President Donald Trump's first seven months in office than in the three years it existed under his predecessor, according to the latest estimate by a U.K.-based monitor.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/11/16/16666628/iraq-nyt-casualties-civilian

The Pentagon claims that its air war against ISIS is one of the most accurate in history and that it is so careful in who it targets that the 14,000 US airstrikes in Iraq have killed just 89 civilians.

It turns out that the military’s assertion is a stunning underestimation of the true human cost of Washington’s three-year-old war against ISIS. An 18-month-long investigation by the New York Times has found that the US-led military coalition is killing civilians in Iraq at a rate 31 times higher than it’s admitting.
 
I actually wouldn't personally count the deaths that happened under Obama that should actually be credited to Bush, because Obama inherited a war. What I do credit Obama with is his increasing of the UAV program which is an action that can be directly attributed to Obama.

Also, not sure how the findings of an 18 month long investigation's findings can be used to condemn the first 7 months of a president, the investigation started well before he was even in power.

Regardless, Obama's UAV deathtoll alone between 2009 and 2010 is 1398 kills in Pakistan alone.
 
Okay, sure--but Trump isn't neglecting the UAV program. He's using it in all its glory. So again, why do you think Trump has killed fewer civilians than Obama?

Or do you equate the mere creation of the program with some abstract number of potential dead?
 
Also, not sure how the findings of an 18 month long investigation's findings can be used to condemn the first 7 months of a president, the investigation started well before he was even in power.

Um, because they kept records of civilian deaths and found that more occurred once Trump entered office? And I thought we're only talking about first years, so it makes even more sense in that regard.

Regardless, Obama's UAV deathtoll alone between 2009 and 2010 is 1398 kills in Pakistan alone.

According to research from the nonprofit monitoring group Airwars, the first seven months of the Trump administration have already resulted in more civilian deaths than under the entirety of the Obama administration. Airwars reports that under Obama’s leadership, the fight against IS led to approximately 2,300 to 3,400 civilian deaths. Through the first seven months of the Trump administration, they estimate that coalition air strikes have killed between 2,800 and 4,500 civilians.

http://theconversation.com/under-th...s-airstrikes-are-killing-more-civilians-85154

Again, I'm not sure where your numbers are from or the context.
 
And how many civilians was ISIS killing? How many civilians were captives? Etc. etc.? It's a fucking war. War is nasty and brutal and people who should and shouldn't die, die. Swift, brutal action reduces overall casualties. Obama called ISIS the "JV squad", and dicked around with the problem for a couple of years.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/isis-years-jv-team-international-killers/story?id=40214844

A little more than a year ago, Obama acknowledged that the fight against ISIS would “not be quick," either abroad or at home.

“This is a long-term campaign,” he said then. “[ISIS] is opportunistic and it is nimble … As with any military effort, there will be periods of progress, but there are also going to be some setbacks.”

Until Trump put competent people in charge at the Pentagon and didn't meddle with their decisions:

https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...e-u-s-is-beating-back-isis-so-what-comes-next

President Trump said he would let his generals manage the fight against the Islamic State. And so far, he's done that.

The U.S. and its coalition partners carried out more than 5,000 airstrikes in Syria and Iraq combined in August. That's the highest monthly figure since the air campaign began three years ago.

Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, with the Council on Foreign Relations, visited the front line of the Syrian war last month in Raqqa, where the U.S. and its allies are pounding the Islamic State in its last major stronghold.

But of course, there are cons to this approach:

"What we saw in Raqqa was absolute devastation. And we met families who fled ISIS and got caught in the coalition airstrikes," said Lemmon.

What bleeding hearts forget is the "fleeing ISIS part", and only focus on "getting caught in airstrikes" part. It's the sad reality of war. The actions that free Y from X can also hurt some of Y in the short term. It's like no one has heard of chemotherapy/ radiation for cancer. Not only might it not work, even if it does work, you might get other serious problems from the treatment.
 
Um, because they kept records of civilian deaths and found that more occurred once Trump entered office? And I thought we're only talking about first years, so it makes even more sense in that regard.





http://theconversation.com/under-th...s-airstrikes-are-killing-more-civilians-85154

Again, I'm not sure where your numbers are from or the context.

These stats are limited to Iraq and Syria, you didn't catch that? Include Obama's Pakistan stats and it puts Obama ahead of Trump.

I went through your link thoroughly as well as all links to sources provided within and it all seemed to be focused on Iraq and Syria.
 
These stats are limited to Iraq and Syria, you didn't catch that? Include Obama's Pakistan stats and it puts Obama ahead of Trump.

I went through your link thoroughly as well as all links to sources provided within and it all seemed to be focused on Iraq and Syria.
lets not forget about Afghanistan. And we don't even have to count the numerous civilians that were killed by his drone strikes out there.