Actually, rereading your responses to my three questions I must apologize as it's clearer to me now that you're not 'defending the indefensible' after all; rather, in tRUMPian fashion, you're not offering any (intelligible) defense whatsoever ... except "So what, he did it. Get over it!" Yeah, ditto(head), you effin' betcha, lady.

Ah contrair, mon amie - he's very much mine too! Thus, my visceral - and vociferous - critical reactions to him. But you mistake my rhetorical emphasis for disavowal when really I'm just trying to keep front & center that it's (MAGA-supporters like) you who claim tRUMP (so much more than the majority of Americans - me included) enough to defend his indefensible conduct. Yeah I claim him as "my president", Tiff, and accept my duty, in solidarity with my fellow citizens, to resist (i.e. civilly disobey) tRUMP's pathological perfidy & various abuses of power in the near-term and hold him criminally, constitutionally & electorally accountable in the long-term. So yeah, "my president", my national disgrace, My Cosmopolitan Duty to take out the presidental trash! Care to join me, chère? :flower: — 180 Proof

Such a beautiful opening to an appeal to my emotional side that might just sway me :flower: I shall update my interpretation of your regard for our Commander in Chief.
I would enjoy such a stroll in todays weather with a mind that could feed my intelligent hunger.
But I should tell you in advance that I am of the valition that as long as we keep moving forward as a nation, the resistant trash will remain stagnant and eventually get so aromatic that it begins to compost in place. :fire:
On the bright side it is a renewable form of heat and energy :sparkle:

:smirk: :ok:

Give me an ideologically neutral definition of "terrorist" that you're prepared to test American leaders against and then let's do that.

I've never called him a terrorist. I understand what you're saying here. Let me ask you though: From a moral standpoint, do you think Soleimani deserved what he got, roughly speaking?

The likelihood is he's guilty of execution-worthy human rights abuses, yes.

Bush sent young not well off men to die for well off men's interests. It was less honest, similar results for citizens.

So you warmongers, salivating at the mouth over the possibility of war, wetting yourselves over Trumps error in judgement, once again you look stupid and deranged.

Edit: just look at the name of the OP; “Why do you think the US is going into war with Iran?” Fait accompli. Not “if” but “why”.

I could see the difference between the two and voted appropriately with that knowledge. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I really cannot make out what you mean. Do you mean that in Trump you got what you wanted, that he and his actions are what you wanted? What knowledge did you have that made your vote "appropriate"? And by no means do I think this a mere difference between Republican and Democrat - were it just that, my questions and observations to you would be out-of-court and rude.

But you voted for a man who has made a career out of cheating people, betraying people, hurting people, and now murdering them. What is right or appropriate about that? What are you hoping for? And since you appear to have wanted a man skilled at avoiding and evading consequences, what do you think will protect you if he turns his attention to you or any of yours, the laws and common decency and integrity and character all rendered null by this neo-fascist, pocket proto-mini-Hitler.

this neo-fascist, pocket proto-mini-Hitler. — tim wood

What you and others appear to have done is create a sort of cartoon character of Trump and then imagine him performing in ways that the character would behave; like he’s sitting in the White House eating hamburgers, watching tv, and thinking about attacking another country, then his hamburger goes cold, so he gets angry and assassinates some innocent abroad.

In fact you’re the trigger happy characters that jump up and down, waving your arms about, whenever Trump does something. Just using a little reason here on a philosophy forum, is it likely that everything he does is wrong, that he might not get something right even by chance? When are you going to apply a little reason to your responses to the elected President of the United States?

Obviously “Trump derangement syndrome is a real condition.

is it likely that everything he does is wrong — Brett

Never mind probabilities. What has he done? What has he done right? And I think his record is too awful for one man by himself to accomplish. Somewhere he gets guidance/advice/pressure. Or do you think he mans and manages his boat all by himself. In fact, why do we not try reading your post!

What you and others appear to have done is create a sort of cartoon character of Trump and then imagine him performing in ways that the character would behave; — Brett

Sorry, that's not me.

like he’s sitting in the White House eating hamburgers, watching tv, and thinking about attacking another country, then his hamburger goes cold, so he gets angry and assassinates some innocent abroad.

Do you have any evidence this is not what he does, because it seems to me that he and others have made it clear that this a fair approximation of what he does. And do you listen to him speak?

In fact you’re the trigger happy characters that jump up and down, waving your arms about, whenever Trump does something.

Nice to know I'm a multitude. But your characterization is just a little enthusiastic, don't you think? Let's go back. What has Trump done right? What has Trump one wrong?

Just using a little reason here on a philosophy forum, is it likely that everything he does is wrong, that he might not get something right even by chance?

Sorry, I've seen Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1&2, and now Trump. I know a scoundrel crook/criminal fraud liar when I see one. How? NIxon, Reagan, Bush 1&2, and now Trump. To be sure, though, Trump by far outdoes all of these - it's the fundamental incompetence, corruption, evil viciousness that's uniquely his.

When are you going to apply a little reason to your responses to the elected President of the United States?

Why don't you try proof-reading your posts. Just in case you hadn't noticed, this is not any kind of response "to the elected" & etc. As to reason, all the time; perhaps when you're feeling able, you might try it.

Obviously “Trump derangement syndrome is a real condition.

Not denied. I wonder, though, how you'll get cured. Me? I'm just angry and I think I have a lot of company, and a lot of justification. But where have I said anything false? Why don't you attempt to post an arguments on merits, instead of propaganda and nonsense.

Simple question: attempt a list of anything that Trump has done right - or stfu.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/26/best-things-trump-has-done/

added that Soleimani and his Quds Force “were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more.” — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Killing military personal who are in occupying countries is hardly befitting of the term "terrorist". Seems that the appellation is simply being used to denote any and all perceived enemies of the US. Additionally, as has been noted, Soleimani was a prominent government official. Should the US consider Putin a terrorist and assassinate him? Kim Jong Un? Maduro? Xi Jinping?

Fair enough, but I cannot open it. Can you render a precis? I give trump credit for commuting the sentence of a woman who should not have been in jail, at the behest of a Kardashian. But there are still a few thousands of others equally deserving, but he clearly does not care. Meanwhile a quick search only turns up this (vox.com):
----
"Some of the Trump agenda is standard for a Republican president. White-collar criminal prosecutions have hit a 33-year low. The Justice Department defends state laws that could kick thousands off the voting rolls. The National Labor Relations Board is now more sympathetic to employers than unions. And military spending is on track to reach the same levels as during the height of the Iraq War.

But he’s gone further. While the media, understandably, focuses on Trump’s many scandals, his administration has quietly enacted a far more aggressive agenda than his Republican predecessors. Big boosts to fossil fuel production have come at the expense of an unprecedented deterioration in air quality. Tens of thousands of people have lost health insurance by administrative fiat, and millions are in the process of losing their nutritional assistance through the same mechanism. He’s remade the judiciary, installing conservative judges at twice Obama’s pace, and he’s consolidated a conservative majority on the Supreme Court that may endure for decades.

Tax changes were Trump’s biggest legislative accomplishment, creating a huge windfall for wealthy shareholders and small gains for the middle class — with revenue losses much larger than initially forecast. He’s also undertaken significant but little-noticed alternations in supervision of Wall Street that increase the riskiness of the banking system, plus drastic changes to immigration policy that go far beyond wall construction.

The immigration changes align with Trump’s main campaign themes, even if they don’t line up in detail with what he promised. But much of this amounts to delivering for big business and the wealthy in a much more dramatic way than his “populist” positioning would indicate. Promises to voters to protect clean air, provide better health care, crack down on banks, and tax the rich have fallen entirely by the wayside.

As 2020 approaches, Trump’s achievements are a reminder that Trump and his team are doing real things that have real impacts on real lives. His successes explain why the conservative movement is solidly behind him, despite its considerable doubts from four years ago. Regardless of what Trump tweets or says or does during the election, it’s worth remembering there’s more to him than the Trump Show."
------

That is, behind the headlines and behind the scenes, Trump is fucking as many people as possible as fast as possible for the ultimate benefit of himself. For example, he's attacked food-stamps and disability programs. This is actually standard Republican practice. Democrats look out for all of us, or try to. Republican do their best to block that, apparently on the principle that if they do not benefit in particular, then it's no good. And when they're in power, do their best to reverse any good that's been done. Nixon was transparently (relatively) a crook. But his successors find new ways to rip you off, from looting and reversing administrative law, as with, e.g., EPA requirements for clean air and clean water, a specialty of dubyahs, even to the useless fenders on cars - thank you Ronald! - that enrich the car business every time there's even a slo-mo collision.
Wake up!

I think you’re spot on here. Trump derangement syndrome, like religion, makes even normally smart people into dogmatic morons. No middle ground, no room to discuss anything but black and white, no understanding. Rational discussion is not welcome on the topic of Trump.
I think Trump derangement syndrome infects both sides though, not just his opponents. Maybe ww disagree there?

If Iran's response to Soleimani and Trump's follow up speech is any indication, there shouldn't be any further escalation. Fortunately, Trump doesn't have the national support that Bush had for Iraq. Only 39% approve of Trump's actions in Iran, whereas in the leadup to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, up to 60% of the US population were in support.

I think Trump derangement syndrome infects both sides though, not just his opponents. Maybe ww disagree there? — DingoJones

What, exactly, counts as Trump derangement? Derangement implies error in both fact and degree. Where in all the criticism of Trump is there any essential error in either fact or degree? Answer this lest you make it clear that the derangement lies in its being called out, and thereby the derangement being in those who call it out.

I think Trump derangement syndrome infects both sides though, not just his opponents. — DingoJones

That’s very true. It’s a sort of for me or against me position on both sides. Trump’s been accused of polarising people, but it seems to me there are a lot of people who like to indulge in this. It’s an aspect of the times; heated over reaction. Like this OP, everyone ready for war, once again apocalyptic visions. This should be the OP, and I’ve tried to raise this as a discussion, why the rush to apocalypse, what does that mean?

Some of the Trump agenda is standard for a Republican president. — tim wood

I don’t know if Trump really is a Republican. He may not be a Democrat’s but that doesn’t make him a Republican. What he might have done is hijack the Republican Party. A big problem for people, in my view, is that politics has changed, it’s never going back to what it was. And what was it anyway? Two parties sharing the spoils, smooth talking characters talking out of the side of their mouth. Maybe it turns out things can be done differently and a Trump is the first to see that, or has the nerve to do it.

Derangement implies error in both fact and degree. — tim wood

I don’t think it’s reasonable to come up with your own definition so as to argue successfully against it.

From the Collins dictionary and pretty much understood by most:

“Derangement is the state of being mentally ill and unable to think or act in a controlled way.”

I don’t know if Trump really is a Republican. — Brett

Well, this is an interesting question. The Republican party has been infected in a variety of ways since at least the 1920s. Harding was a maybe a crook, but apparently popular. Coolidge a Republican, but not a populist by any stretch, but the economy was good (until it exploded). Hoover also a Republican. In the background religious fundamentalism was looking for a home.

Fast forward to Eisenhower, in my opinion the last Republican (Ford also, but a special case). Eisenhower didn't like Nixon, would have been completely dismissive of Reagan, would not have put either Bush in any position of authority, and would not have allowed Trump anywhere near him in any capacity. Running against Eisenhower was Adlai Stevenson. Both of these, each in his own way, men of the highest scruples.

Nixon (imo) broke the back of the party. After that it was a crippled shadow of its former dignity and honorable purpose. Reagan was the center of a three-ring circus that controlled him, instead of the other way 'round. Bad men smelled opportunity and moved in. Bush 2, with Karl Rove, was a bad joke. Rove a man with no honor, and Bush playing front man, with Cheney lurking. But so far, there is still a basic interest in preserving American interests, even as there is an utterly self-interested motivation in terms of regulations. With Trump the wheels are off.

It's long been my belief that real Republicans constitutes a wing of the Democrat Party, perhaps not even identifying themselves as Republican. But as corrupt individuals like Newt Gingrich, together with the influence of the tea party have had sway, real Republicans have been forced out.

In short - this is just a subjective sketch - Trump is no Republican in any valid historical sense, but those who owned the name have surrendered it to him, and in many cases sold their own souls in the bargain. The Democrat's fight, then, properly understood, is not merely a Democrat v. Republican political campaign, but real American v. anti-American corruption. There's a fair chance that if Trump wins, he will hurt almost everyone somehow. Of course one can argue that if he wins again, America deserves whatever it gets!

Of course one can argue that if he wins again, America deserves whatever it gets! — tim wood

Well certainly what they want.

APPARENTLY, THERE WASN'T AN "IMMINENT THREAT" JUSTIFYING THE VIOLATION OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF ONE (ALLY) STATE IN ORDER TO ASSASSINATE THE 2ND HIGHEST OFFICIAL OF ANOTHER (ENEMY) STATE, ACCORDING TO (AT LEAST 2) GOP SENATORS ...

Salt Lake Tribune, excerpts of statement after GOP & Democratic Senators were "briefed" by the WH today:

What I found so distressing about that briefing was that one of the messages we received from the briefers was, 'Do not debate. Do not discuss the issue of the appropriateness of further military intervention against Iran. And then if you do, you'll be emboldening Iran'.

The implication [from the briefers] being that we would somehow be making America less safe by having a debate or a discussion about the appropriateness of further military involvement against the government of Iran. Now, I find this insulting and demeaning, not personally, but to the office that each of the 100 senators in this building happens to hold.

It is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch of government — I don’t care whether they’re with the CIA, with the Department of Defense or otherwise — to come in and tell us that we can’t debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran. It’s un-American. It’s unconstitutional, and it’s wrong. — Sen. Mike Lee, R-UT

Again I refer you (@ArguingWAristotleTiff) to my question (b) from a prior thread. GOP - otherwise loyal tRUMPkins - Senator Lee, R-UT & Senator Paul, R-KY (so far) seemed to have answered. Nakedly shameful wreckless disregard for U.S. national security by your president, Tiff (et al). Is this shitshow what you 'voted' for? :roll:

:clap: Well said, sir.

Again, I think you have it right on the money. Indulging the outrage, leaning into the division with selective reasoning and shamelessly mischaracterising everything Trump says and does are the hallmarks of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). The cherry on top of defining TDS is how unnecessary it is to lie and misrepresent Trump, of all people. Not just letting his actual characteristics speak for themselves they pile on more and more made up or skewed assessments and has the exact opposite intended effect. It empowers him and makes it easier to get away with the shenanigans he DOES actually commit. Every time they exaggerate, every time they lie, every time they act like Trump essentially, they give Trump something to point at and say “see? Fake news” and be 100% correct. It makes him look better to his fans, and has zero effect on those who already hate him.
Another trait Ive noticed with TDS is how Trump voters are viewed. Those suffering from TDS cannot admit, or see, that there is actual logic and coherency to voting for Trump if the voter is operating under certain premises such as the country is so corrupt it has to be burned down and rebuilt, or that only someone who cannot be bought (on account of already having tons of money) can break the status quo or even that a straight talker is whats needed over a mouthy, pandering politician, then a vote for Trump makes sense. I dont think any of those things are true and its clear to me Trump is NOT a straight talker but if I did think those things Then Trump just might be my guy. To someone with TDS its simply the worst people voting for the worst guy cuz they are all just the worst.

It's long been my belief that real Republicans constitutes a wing of the Democrat Party, perhaps not even identifying themselves as Republican. — tim wood

Thanks for you sketch, Tim. It just shows how the whole political discourse has evolved. And I think of Trump's antics will be taken by the Party even when he leaves.

Especially now the Republican party is a mess. Many Republican politicians are now walking on eggshells thanks to the petulant yet popular Trump.

What is more likely? All the representatives of government, the military and all that advises them are complete morons who want to destroy the USA.

Or...

Perhaps we don't have all the information and probably aren't as smart as we think we are?

I described some of what defines TDS in my post to Brett, but Im choosing not to directly answer your charge because A) Its a plain attempt to put words in my mouth and dishonestly control the use of the term TDS and B) I have these little notes to myself regarding people ive interacted with on this forum and yours reads “dishonest and stupid, clarifying questions only, discussion pointless”.
Since you immediately proved my note correct by essentially using a “whoever smelled it dealt it” argument, Ill heed my note. Good day sir.

Perhaps we don't have all the information and probably aren't as smart as we think we are? — Tzeentch

Oh, finally.

Watching Trump's victory speech, it was classic electioneering. He is claiming the kudos of a war hero, without having the war, a smart move, it will work in deflecting from the impeachment scandal and empowering his base.

But to the intelligent onlooker it's just more populism on steroids. It achieves its aim to keep a showman in charge of the show, " The Greatest Show on Earth", behold the mighty Kong, KING KONG.

But it's not a show, is it? The show is just a fascade.

In reality it's an office, perhaps the most important office in the world, with great responsibilities, an office supposed to be showing great statesmanship in its careful and considered governance of the most influential state in the world which over the last century has been showing leadership across the world.

Such a great office reduced to a sideshow, it's like Penguin in Batman has won and now controls Gotham City.

The tragedy is that it is betraying this high office, the country and the world for a sop, it's not even the spectacle of King Kong, it's The King of Comedy, Rupert Pupkin.

What is more likely? All the representatives of government, the military and all that advises them are complete morons who want to destroy the USA. — Tzeentch

Perhaps someone has that position, but it seems like an extreme one. IOW one can be critical of the recent choices made without remotely assuming anything like this. Administrations can pressure a non-unified military to take certain steps, steps which than lead to situations where it becomes much harder to take a step back. The military can also consider itself NOT a policy maker, but rather the one who carries out the policies of administrations or Congress (remember when they used to be the ones who declared wars?). And so their intelligence is aimed at carrying out policy, which is seems, in this case, they managed extremely well, killing the target. And while they also killed others, including Iraquis, these people were fine targets and within the policy.

I think we can judge that an act was decided upon that would be considered an act of war by the united states, were the roles reversed. That is if someone high up in power in the US was in another country and a third country assassinated that person - say, Kissinger, not long after the Vietnam war, and the incursions into Laos and Cambodia - was killed while visiting France, for his crimes, by one of those asian countries.

We can certainly judge that the admistration has taken steps to start a war without going through due process. However much we may have gotten used to not going through due process. And that no coincidentally, the administration has been made up from the beginning by hawks who want to invade Iran. This is something we can have already known.

And none of this is dependent on thinking even those people are stupid, let alone that the military is or 'all representatives of government'.

Nor does it mean we have to assume they want to destroy the usa. The small fraction of the government that developed this action could be too willing to risk things that have a negative impact on the US, for example, without them wanting to destroy the US. They might be people who are happy to risk the lives of the soldiers right now flying into various bases in that region in large numbers, a region where their lives will be in more danger even if a war does not start. They might be people who aren't really thinking about how this approach might lead to more terrorism, more refugees, more hatred, more disruption in that region. Let alone possible increased and truly dangerous tensions with Russia and China. Again, that smaller subset of the government that can, unfortunately, make decisions like this, and need not be of low IQ. Nor do the experts on the military side who carry out the mission need to be of low IQ or have any of these motives.

So, to present the issue as if all of them must have those motives and levels of stupidty is to frame the issue in such binary and sweeping terms as to make any opponent seems necessarily idiotic, when in fact it is not remotely even implicit in most of the critics positions. Nor do we have to wait to know more. There are many things we already know, some mentioned above. And we have the last few decades of confused policies in the Middle East to look at where similar patterns have taken place.