$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 107.62

6,690 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
42.2% of Goal | left

Support:

Recommend
7 
 Thumb up
 Hide
37 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Trump's hook rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: But_Obama_Did_it! [+] [View All]
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
One of my favorite Trump tactics is tossing out a mostly-irrelevant saying or reference that would be horrible if it was meant seriously. A lot of academics, liberals, and media zero in on it as though it's a big deal which a) helps Trump's narrative with his supporters that the world is out to get him (and thus them) and b) sucks away scrutiny from the actually horrible substance of what follows, so he can say absurd things (like that unemployment is maybe 40% or more) and have them go largely unremarked on.

So today I'm listening to him talk about terrorism and the military and he starts out by saying how in the old days to the victory went the spoils, but in our Iraq adventure we just got death, financial loss and other problems.

Now, "to the victor go the spoils" is a horrible worldview. It was mostly a political one, formalized by Jackson Democrats, that meant that since they won the election they were entitled to hand over patronage jobs to friends and family. It was also applied to military adventures, and essentially justified pillaging defeated nations. At home it's corruption, abroad it's a recipe for longlasting geopolitical problems and great personal suffering.

I'm hoping that the media won't make a big deal out of this. Trump isn't awful because he flirts on the edges with bad ideas. He's awful because he has really, really bad ideas, an unstable temperament, an instinct to bullying and strong-man tactics, etc., etc.

tl;dr I shouldn't have written this post.
20 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Okay, I won't thumb it.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
Whoa, hey now.
19 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
One of my favorite Trump tactics is tossing out a mostly-irrelevant saying or reference that would be horrible if it was meant seriously. A lot of academics, liberals, and media zero in on it as though it's a big deal which a) helps Trump's narrative with his supporters that the world is out to get him (and thus them) and b) sucks away scrutiny from the actually horrible substance of what follows, so he can say absurd things (like that unemployment is maybe 40% or more) and have them go largely unremarked on.

So today I'm listening to him talk about terrorism and the military and he starts out by saying how in the old days to the victory went the spoils, but in our Iraq adventure we just got death, financial loss and other problems.

Now, "to the victor go the spoils" is a horrible worldview. It was mostly a political one, formalized by Jackson Democrats, that meant that since they won the election they were entitled to hand over patronage jobs to friends and family. It was also applied to military adventures, and essentially justified pillaging defeated nations. At home it's corruption, abroad it's a recipe for longlasting geopolitical problems and great personal suffering.

I'm hoping that the media won't make a big deal out of this. Trump isn't awful because he flirts on the edges with bad ideas. He's awful because he has really, really bad ideas, an unstable temperament, an instinct to bullying and strong-man tactics, etc., etc.

tl;dr I shouldn't have written this post.


It makes you feel all dirty inside afterwards, doesn't it...?

As much as I hate Hillary (thanks, Chapel, for defining it as Hillary Derangement Syndrome), I think that I hate Trump even more. He just gives me that nasty, icky feeling one gets after having picked up dog crap in your yard. You know, the messy soft stuff that would squirt out of the bag if you squeezed hard enough.

That's Trump - icky soft dog poo.
8 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
Okay, I won't thumb it.


Don't worry, I thumbed it for you.
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
msg tools
Damn. I thought you meant Trump was a pirate.

Aaarrrrggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew
United States
North Dakota
flag msg tools
Thanks for the rent-free space in your head. Would have been nice if you'd cleaned it up a bit before you rented it out, though.
badge
I control your mind.
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
So today I'm listening to him talk about terrorism and the military and he starts out by saying how in the old days to the victory went the spoils, but in our Iraq adventure we just got death, financial loss and other problems.


Is he wrong? We won the war but lost the peace. Or is your whole criticism based on his use of a common phrase?

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
BJ
United States
Eau Claire
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
You are full of poisonous refuse and insane foolishness.
badge
I had not supposed or expected your arrogant spirit to seek such a ridiculous and childish reason for lying; you should have better reasons.
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
Now, "to the victor go the spoils" is a horrible worldview. It was mostly a political one, formalized by Jackson Democrats, that meant that since they won the election they were entitled to hand over patronage jobs to friends and family.


Sounds like Hillary's campaign in a nutshell.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
He got one!

7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
This demonstration is not authorized and is in clear violation of Mall of America policy.
badge
Those who continue to demonstrate will be subject to arrest.
mbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Chad_Ellis wrote:
So today I'm listening to him talk about terrorism and the military and he starts out by saying how in the old days to the victory went the spoils, but in our Iraq adventure we just got death, financial loss and other problems.


Is he wrong? We won the war but lost the peace. Or is your whole criticism based on his use of a common phrase?



Well, it's based on the meaning of that phrase. We didn't "lose the peace" because we pillaged Iraq too little. "To the victor go the spoils" is very similar to "might makes right" and "history is written by the winners"--it's an encapsulation of the moral nihilism embodied by the behavior of awful people.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Chad_Ellis wrote:
Now, "to the victor go the spoils" is a horrible worldview. It was mostly a political one, formalized by Jackson Democrats, that meant that since they won the election they were entitled to hand over patronage jobs to friends and family.


Sounds like Hillary's campaign in a nutshell.


In comparison to that era modern Pols are pikers.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
This thread is some kind of Trump therapy session.

Chad_Ellis wrote:

Now, "to the victor go the spoils" is a horrible worldview. It was mostly a political one, formalized by Jackson Democrats, that meant that since they won the election they were entitled to hand over patronage jobs to friends and family. It was also applied to military adventures, and essentially justified pillaging defeated nations. At home it's corruption, abroad it's a recipe for longlasting geopolitical problems and great personal suffering.


Dunno, post war Germany and Japan seem to fair well. Heck, even the evil Greeks and Romans seemed to bring a decent level of order and prosperity to the world in their time.

I guess it just depends on who you lose to.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:

Now, "to the victor go the spoils" is a horrible worldview. It was mostly a political one, formalized by Jackson Democrats, that meant that since they won the election they were entitled to hand over patronage jobs to friends and family. It was also applied to military adventures, and essentially justified pillaging defeated nations. At home it's corruption, abroad it's a recipe for longlasting geopolitical problems and great personal suffering.



Huh? What exactly is the winner supposed to get? And why do you think the idea of winning a war/election/kingdom and rewarding your supporters is something that originated with an American political personality? This notion -- that it's terrible that the winner gets power -- demonstrates, to me, a total refusal to even peek at how stuff works and has always worked.

Seriously Chad, what *should* a victor do in your opinion? Let's say Hillary doesn't die, stroke out or get indicted and wins the election. Is it your belief that she should hand over jobs, nominations and positions of power to Trump people? That instead of trying to repeal or overrule the 2nd Amendment she should use her new power to add gun and ammo makers to her staff so they can share in the victory and help mold policy? This is ignorant thinking to me and I'm trying hard to understand what makes you believe that winners shouldn't, well, get the benefits of winning.

What do you think "victors" did with the spoils before Jackson?

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
We won the war but lost the peace.


Correction. War was never declared by Congress which has that responsibility. A constitutional technicality that has been overlooked for quite some time by both parties. Sadly, not enough people bitch about that point. I guess the threshold for that to happen occurs at a few dollars more than the trillions we spent fighting in Iraq.
3 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Isaac Citrom
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
Chad_Ellis wrote:

Now, "to the victor go the spoils" is a horrible worldview. It was mostly a political one, formalized by Jackson Democrats, that meant that since they won the election they were entitled to hand over patronage jobs to friends and family. It was also applied to military adventures, and essentially justified pillaging defeated nations. At home it's corruption, abroad it's a recipe for longlasting geopolitical problems and great personal suffering.



Huh? What exactly is the winner supposed to get? And why do you think the idea of winning a war/election/kingdom and rewarding your supporters is something that originated with an American political personality? This notion -- that it's terrible that the winner gets power -- demonstrates, to me, a total refusal to even peek at how stuff works and has always worked.

Seriously Chad, what *should* a victor do in your opinion? Let's say Hillary doesn't die, stroke out or get indicted and wins the election. Is it your belief that she should hand over jobs, nominations and positions of power to Trump people? That instead of trying to repeal or overrule the 2nd Amendment she should use her new power to add gun and ammo makers to her staff so they can share in the victory and help mold policy? This is ignorant thinking to me and I'm trying hard to understand what makes you believe that winners shouldn't, well, get the benefits of winning.

What do you think "victors" did with the spoils before Jackson?


Yes, exactly.

I won't speak to what Donald Trump actually meant but it is not immoral to expect political capital from a political win nor to expect a strategic benefit from a successful military endeavour. Indeed, it is the reverse. It would be immoral to advocate the expenditure of lives and material assets in a military campaign expecting a priori no national benefit.

You are, I think, confounding rape and pillage with any kind of rational geopolitical benefit. If the UN would strongly invade Somalia and eradicate the current regime, it is not immoral to work for stability and the elimination of famine in that country.

"The spoils" of WWII were stable and highly successful liberal democracies in Germany and Japan, and they were both forced at gunpoint by an occupying army deriving its authority from military victory.



One of the issues in the Middle East is the continual encouragement of strife by the regressive Left. It's common sense. If a people are free to wage aggressive war, sue for peace when they lose, expect lost territory immediately returned, to be treated as moral equals during negotiation, then there is no disincentive to waging war. i.e., 'sure, let's roll the dice. What's there to lose.'

I point to the legal principle ex injuria non oritur jus. In essence, this is about the principle of not being able to capture territory through the use of aggressive war à la Nazi Germany.

Professor Julius Stone makes the important point about land the was acquired on the grounds of defensive operations:

"...when the force is used to stop an aggressor, for the effect of such prohibition would be to guarantee all potential aggressors that, even if their aggression failed, all territory lost in the attempt would be automatically returned to them. Such a rule would be absurd to the point of lunacy."

[Professor stone is the Challis Professor of International Law and Jurisprudence at the University of Sydney, received the award of the American Society of International Law in 1956, and was made an honorary life member of the Society in 1962. In 1965, he received the World Law Research Award of the Washington Conference on World Peace Through Law. He was also Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence and International Law at Hastings College of Law, University of California. The Julius Stone institute of Jurisprudence was established in 1999 at the University of Sydney. He was, and is, recognized internationally as one of the premier legal theorists.]

Of course the spoils go to the victor. In addition to the actions of aggressors, how many millions have died this century due to the childish notions of the regressive Left that serve to embolden aggressors and to prolong military conflicts (see the Peace Ballot of 1934 and North Vietnamese generals' explanations of how the American peace movement encouraged them to struggle on).
.
6 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
This demonstration is not authorized and is in clear violation of Mall of America policy.
badge
Those who continue to demonstrate will be subject to arrest.
mbmb
isaacc wrote:
You are, I think, confounding rape and pillage with any kind of rational geopolitical benefit. If the UN would strongly invade Somalia and eradicate the current regime, it is not immoral to work for stability and the elimination of famine in that country.

"The spoils" of WWII were stable and highly successful liberal democracies in Germany and Japan, and they were both forced at gunpoint by an occupying army deriving its authority from military victory.


I respect you and your views, Isaac, but your understanding of the word "spoils" strikes me as really unusual. Here's the relevant definition I get when I google "define:spoils":

Quote:
goods stolen or taken forcibly from a person or place.


Not only does that not cover "stable and highly successful liberal democracies", it doesn't even cover rape, just pillage (except, presumably, when women are taken as slaves). That's all I've ever seen it used to mean, so, to me, your comment reads like a bizarre whitewashing of the concept, and one which imputes to others the position that winners don't get any benefit (which you take to be an argument against their view rather than a sign that you've misinterpreted, understandably but, I think, mistakenly).

Trump seems to me to be suggesting we should have pillaged Iraq more. Does anyone think that the peace would have been more complete or lasting had we done so?

EDIT: That said, your point about stable democracies does serve as a potential partial answer to Tripp's question about what a winner is supposed to get. Generally, it's a lot of influence over the political system of the loser. In a just war, part of the reason for the war is to stop the injustice. The reason for the war is a moral imperative, not the expected value to you.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
"It would be immoral to advocate the expenditure of lives and material assets in a military campaign expecting a priori no national benefit."

The people who were supposed to benefit benefitted, others did the work , the bleeding and the dieing.

Why are you grumbling? It's the tried and true method for all of the wars in history - conservatives with a small 'c' should know this.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
mbmbmbmbmb
I guess the gains from a war are somewhat vitiated when it turns out the primary premise was bullshit, and the promised benefits (democracy sweeps the middle east!) didn't materialize.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Isaac Citrom
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
wifwendell wrote:
I guess the gains from a war are somewhat vitiated when it turns out the primary premise was bullshit, and the promised benefits (democracy sweeps the middle east!) didn't materialize.


Well yes, but I'm not sure what your point is. I too would like the definitive 100% guaranteed outcome formula for geopolitical moves.

I too was wholly taken in by the expectation for democracy across the Middle East. We thought back on Japan and Germany. We thought that handing over on a silver platter the opportunity for a liberal democracy, that it would naturally just take. We understand now that the basic cultural prerequisites are simply not there right across the Middle East. Frustratingly, the Left simultaneously keep promoting the fiction that there is no clash of civilizations, neither there nor here in the West.
.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
How about one of you spineless, weak-willed, whiny-baby leftards just answer the fucking question?

When a person or nation or group wins what would you rather they do with the things they gained? It's not a moral question or a political one or an ideological one it's a simple human one - since you're butt-thumbing the "oh gaining anything from strife is arful" bit, then what do you suggest? Should Hillary share power with the people who lose if she is victorious? If Trump wins should he open his loving arms and start giving key positions to Hillary people? The only way you can even sustain the ignorant fiction that only bad people keep shit they win is by speaking only to bad wars, from a modern western perspective.

What should a winner do with the gains if not use, hold or activate them for his or her supporters benefit?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
This demonstration is not authorized and is in clear violation of Mall of America policy.
badge
Those who continue to demonstrate will be subject to arrest.
mbmb
DWTripp wrote:
What should a winner do with the gains if not use, hold or activate them for his or her supporters benefit?


You can't seriously expect any of us to believe you don't already know that the leftists' answer to that question, like every other question, is "It depends".
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Chad_Ellis wrote:
So today I'm listening to him talk about terrorism and the military and he starts out by saying how in the old days to the victory went the spoils, but in our Iraq adventure we just got death, financial loss and other problems.


Is he wrong? We won the war but lost the peace. Or is your whole criticism based on his use of a common phrase?



I'm not criticizing him at all for this. I'm praising (in a cynical way) his effective use of a rhetorical tactic to manipulate the opposition into attacking something of no real importance.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
How about one of you spineless, weak-willed, whiny-baby leftards just answer the fucking question?

When a person or nation or group wins what would you rather they do with the things they gained? It's not a moral question or a political one or an ideological one it's a simple human one - since you're butt-thumbing the "oh gaining anything from strife is arful" bit, then what do you suggest? Should Hillary share power with the people who lose if she is victorious? If Trump wins should he open his loving arms and start giving key positions to Hillary people? The only way you can even sustain the ignorant fiction that only bad people keep shit they win is by speaking only to bad wars, from a modern western perspective.

What should a winner do with the gains if not use, hold or activate them for his or her supporters benefit?

I'm not a leftard, but I'd say that if a politician wins with less than 90% of the vote they should realize that there are a very large number of people in this country that disagree with them. In the current political environment where politicians are winning 52% to 48%, that is not enough support to start making major changes without compromising with the other party. That goes for Democrats as well as Republicans, by the way.

That, of course, assumes the other party is willing to compromise. If they aren't, then you have to govern without them the best you can.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
isaacc wrote:


I won't speak to what Donald Trump actually meant but it is not immoral to expect political capital from a political win nor to expect a strategic benefit from a successful military endeavour. Indeed, it is the reverse. It would be immoral to advocate the expenditure of lives and material assets in a military campaign expecting a priori no national benefit.

You are, I think, confounding rape and pillage with any kind of rational geopolitical benefit. If the UN would strongly invade Somalia and eradicate the current regime, it is not immoral to work for stability and the elimination of famine in that country.


Isaacc, I mean this sincerely. I think you care about truth and accuracy but when it comes to anyone you view as liberal your inferences are incredibly inaccurate. How you get from what I was talking about to confusing rape and pillage with any kind of rational geopolitical benefit is beyond me, but you would (I think) do much better to ask clarifying questions than to run with your assumptions.

"To the victory go the spoils" has nothing to do with creating stability after WWII or working for stability and famine elimination.
6 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
How about one of you spineless, weak-willed, whiny-baby leftards just answer the fucking question?


Sure, I'll answer it.

You're engaging in a rather sad and obvious game of false dichotomy, where one alternative is the Jacksonian "let's give everything we can to our friends" or the blatant nepotism familiar in many countries and the other is "gee, let's share power with our enemies".

The answer is that the victors should govern well (in politics) and should behave well in victory in war. That doesn't mean they have to be Isaacc's caricature of, "Gee, you attacked us but it would be wrong for there to be any consequence" but the world war that followed the "spoils" approach was WWI, where the vanquished nations were left in such desperation that the seeds for the next war were already sown. WWII saw a very different approach; instead of the victors focusing on their own (short-term) interests they took responsibility for enabling their defeated enemies to rebuild. This involved significant cost but resulted in modern Germany and Japan being strong contributors both to the global economy and to global stability.

If Clinton wins I don't want her to share with Trump's people. But I would want her to choose her team based on competence and dedication rather than simply to repay favors. Will I be disappointed? Of course...that's why I'm a Trump opponent rather than a Clinton supporter.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.