3 ms·

He presided over the years responsible for the withdrawal and influenced the process, which is what matters.

by beaner 5y ago

selimthegrim 5y ago
As President?
- beaner 5y ago
  Yes, the year 2021.
Hamuko 5y ago
I'm not sure if the withdrawal is the thing that matters most in a 20-year waste of time and money. Unless the idea is to stay in Afganistan forever.
- beaner 5y ago
  I'm not sure that it matters most either. But it certainly matters somewhat. The point is that if the "other side" were in power at the time and executed the process exactly the same with the same results, the way it would be covered by our influential newsmedia would be very different. How and why it would be different is important to observe. Being able to see it allows you to interpret the world around you more intelligently, and make smarter decisions.
oblio 5y ago
This logic is utterly ridiculous. Sunken cost fallacy: if you're making a mistake, don't keep making it because you've lost a ton already. Stop making the mistake. The person executing the withdrawal is not to blame.
- beaner 5y ago
  No, it's perfectly reasonable. I don't disagree with you, or more accurately, I'm not even presenting an opinion on whether the US should have stayed or left. But given that leaving was the choice, and perhaps the rational choice, the act of leaving is itself something that requires management and competence. It is possible to be done in a way that minimizes or maximizes destruction, loss of human life, any remaining moral philosophy or disposition for democracy in the area, hope generally, etc. The US president has a direct influence on how the exit happens. The point I'm actually making though is that even if you are right, if the "other guy" were in power right now, the newsmedia would be presenting it very differently, and it's important to be aware of it and be able to see it when it happens.
  - oblio 5y ago
    The problem is, one of the most important roles of a politician is to be liked and to be influential, in short, to have friends. Ideally, to not be very divisive. Some wounds are self inflicted and I have little pity for them.
    - AwaAwa 5y ago
      I'm not clear on what you mean by this as a response. Are you saying the President needs to be friends with journalists for them to be objective?
      - oblio 5y ago
        I'm saying that if you make someone hate your guts, it will be very hard for them to be objective. And Trump didn't even need to be friends with them, just somewhat neutral. He just couldn't help himself. After an entire life with a flawed personality, as we say in Romania: "only the casket straightens the hunchback". Not even scientists are 100% objective, it's just a fact of life. At the end of day, we're all human (and also emotional).

He presided over the years responsible for the withdrawal and influenced the process, which is what matters.

by beaner 5y ago

He presided over the years responsible for the withdrawal and influenced the process, which is what matters.

selimthegrim 5y ago

As President?

beaner 5y ago
Yes, the year 2021.

Hamuko 5y ago

I'm not sure if the withdrawal is the thing that matters most in a 20-year waste of time and money. Unless the idea is to stay in Afganistan forever.

beaner 5y ago
I'm not sure that it matters most either. But it certainly matters somewhat. The point is that if the "other side" were in power at the time and executed the process exactly the same with the same results, the way it would be covered by our influential newsmedia would be very different. How and why it would be different is important to observe. Being able to see it allows you to interpret the world around you more intelligently, and make smarter decisions.

oblio 5y ago

This logic is utterly ridiculous. Sunken cost fallacy: if you're making a mistake, don't keep making it because you've lost a ton already. Stop making the mistake. The person executing the withdrawal is not to blame.

beaner 5y ago
No, it's perfectly reasonable. I don't disagree with you, or more accurately, I'm not even presenting an opinion on whether the US should have stayed or left. But given that leaving was the choice, and perhaps the rational choice, the act of leaving is itself something that requires management and competence. It is possible to be done in a way that minimizes or maximizes destruction, loss of human life, any remaining moral philosophy or disposition for democracy in the area, hope generally, etc. The US president has a direct influence on how the exit happens. The point I'm actually making though is that even if you are right, if the "other guy" were in power right now, the newsmedia would be presenting it very differently, and it's important to be aware of it and be able to see it when it happens.
- oblio 5y ago
  The problem is, one of the most important roles of a politician is to be liked and to be influential, in short, to have friends. Ideally, to not be very divisive. Some wounds are self inflicted and I have little pity for them.
  - AwaAwa 5y ago
    I'm not clear on what you mean by this as a response. Are you saying the President needs to be friends with journalists for them to be objective?
    - oblio 5y ago
      I'm saying that if you make someone hate your guts, it will be very hard for them to be objective. And Trump didn't even need to be friends with them, just somewhat neutral. He just couldn't help himself. After an entire life with a flawed personality, as we say in Romania: "only the casket straightens the hunchback". Not even scientists are 100% objective, it's just a fact of life. At the end of day, we're all human (and also emotional).