• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Groupthink Republican or Democrat trait? - derail from Mueller thread

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist

I guess you missed these parts (the opening paragraph iow):

Groupthink occurs when a group of well-intentioned people make irrational or non-optimal decisions that are spurred by the urge to conform or the discouragement of dissent.

So, Republicans. Dems typically are not "spurred by the urge to conform" and certainly do not make "irrational or non-optimal decisions" just to discourage dissent. We make rational arguments for why someone else's dissenting argument fails or is otherwise detrimental, but that is the nature of rational argumentation. You make your argument; others counter it with their own argument; you make your rebuttal; they make theirs and in the end what is supposed to happen is the superior argument (buttressed by its robust and cogent rebuttal defense) "wins" and everyone acknowledges that.

Unfortunately, what all too often happens is the losing side eschews rationality and instead turns irrational and obstinate and refuses to concede their argument has been rendered false, but all of that is the precise opposite of "groupthink."

This problematic or premature consensus may be fueled by a particular agenda or simply because group members value harmony and coherence above rational thinking.

As I just delineated, Dems very clearly value rational thinking above "harmony and coherence." 100% at all times? Obviously not, yet I must always make that qualification whenever these idiotic binary propositions get posted.

In a groupthink situation, group members refrain from expressing doubts and judgments or disagreeing with the consensus.

Dems are all about expressing--to the nth fucking degree no less--all doubts and jugements and relish in disagreeing with the consensus. It arguably cost us the WH ffs. Republicans, otoh, typically goose-step in harmony to the consensus.

In the interest of making a decision that furthers their group cause, members may ignore any ethical or moral consequences.

Nearly every argument I have ever seen between Dems has been expressly about whether or not various candidates are cognizant of ethical and/or moral consequences. Conversely, nearly everything any Republican in power has ever advocated (within my lifetime at least) has expressly ignored--flaunted even--any ethical or moral consequences.

This whole fucking thing applies almost exclusively to Republicans, not Dems. Even the examples they present:

Risky or disastrous military maneuvers, such as the escalation of the Vietnam War or the invasion of Iraq are commonly cited as instances of groupthink.

Dems famously and openly opposed both (yes, even Iraq and yes even Hillary Clinton).

Far from affirming your assertion, you have just negated it.
 
Agreed, Koy. It's why so much of LP's BS 'both sides' stinks so bad. Sure, there are a few GOP who barely qualify as freethinkers or independents, and there are some Dems who just go along with what the party says.

However, there's a reason the GOP are so often described as sheep, and dems are likened to herding cats.
 
Agreed, Koy. It's why so much of LP's BS 'both sides' stinks so bad. Sure, there are a few GOP who barely qualify as freethinkers or independents, and there are some Dems who just go along with what the party says.

However, there's a reason the GOP are so often described as sheep, and dems are likened to herding cats.

Our disastrous civil war primary demonstrated that in spades.
 
Lol yeah Hillary Clinton opposed the war in Iraq so much she voted for it.

Another bullshit meme used by right-wingers to smear Hillary.

A big part of the resolution was this:

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

 Iraq Resolution

Bush did NOT follow the diplomatic efforts, pulled inspectors unnecessarily, sent Colin Powell to the UN to lie to them, and lied to the American people, continually conflating the 9/11 attack to the "threat" from Iraq.

That bullshit was on Bush and his administration. Blaming anyone else completely misrepresenting history.
 
Another bullshit meme used by right-wingers to smear Hillary.

Hardly.

She voted to allow GW Bush to decide and whatever he decided had the written consent of the congress.

Which is exactly as it played out. History will say Bush had the support of the Senate.

She was played in other words.

And she had no moral core to not be played.
 
Another bullshit meme used by right-wingers to smear Hillary.

Hardly.

She voted to allow GW Bush to decide and whatever he decided had the written consent of the congress.

Not exactly. Among other things, she said:

”Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”

She added, “This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” A vote for the resolution, she argued, “is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”

That was in October of 2002. A month earlier, Bush had gone to the UN to plead his case and then in November of 2002, the UN passed Resolution 1441, which is essentially what ended up being the excuse for Bush to invade.

Iow, Bush did exactly what Clinton (and Sanders, btw) argued he should do as a condition of using military force. It was actually the fault of Hans Blix giving reports that confirmed violation of UN 1441 that lead directly to Bush in turn justifying the invasion:

Debate about Resolution 1441 therefore turns on whether, despite the absence of WMDs and the acceptance of inspections, Iraq failed to comply with the terms of the Resolution, and whether an invasion was justified in the absence of any further UN Security resolutions on the subject.

On 7 December 2002, Iraq filed its 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The five permanent members of the Security Council received unedited versions of the report, while an edited version was made available for other UN Member States. On 19 December, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq's 7 December report (unedited version): "During the period 1991–1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the 7 December report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light.

Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there.

Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441.[8][9][10] On 27 January 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Blix addressed the UN Security Council and stated "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance–not even today–of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[8] Blix went on to state that the Iraqi regime had allegedly misplaced "1,000 tonnes" of VX nerve agent—one of the most toxic ever developed.[8]

By mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. Blix's 7 March report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections."

Blix's report also stated:

What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January. This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear. Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:

The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3–4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.

At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441...etc
 
Lol yeah Hillary Clinton opposed the war in Iraq so much she voted for it.

No, actually, she did not, but don’t let facts bother you.

- - - Updated - - -

If the Democrats are so free of group-think, why did the Anti-war movement die on January 20, 2009?

Out of shear morbid curiousity, what are you talking about?
 
Not exactly. Among other things, she...

...I take the president at his word...

It's either being played or really supporting the attack but looking for political points.

That was in October of 2002. A month earlier, Bush had gone to the UN to plead his case and then in November of 2002, the UN passed Resolution 1441, which is essentially what ended up being the excuse for Bush to invade.

Bush had no authority to act on his own in that manner. It became a UN matter when Bush brought the matter to the UN.

When Powell lied at the UN the matter was transferred from a US matter to a UN matter.

Then when Bush invaded he did it in violation of the UN Charter and of international law.

He is a major war criminal slash American celebrity.

You can imagine if the Nazi's had won a lot of war criminals would be highly respected in Berlin.

And Bush didn't even win.
 
It's either being played or really supporting the attack but looking for political points.

Or taking the President of the United States at his word, which he kept.

That was in October of 2002. A month earlier, Bush had gone to the UN to plead his case and then in November of 2002, the UN passed Resolution 1441, which is essentially what ended up being the excuse for Bush to invade.

Bush had no authority to act on his own in that manner.

He didn’t.

It became a UN matter when Bush brought the matter to the UN.

Which is when they passed 1441.

Then when Bush invaded he did it in violation of the UN Charter and of international law.

Still being debated. The US and Britain argued that, as members of the UN Council, military action was justified by 1441 and previous UN resolutions (or, rather, by the fact that Iraq was in violation of 1441 and previous resolutions). Other members of the UN Council argued that individual members could not make that decision on their own.

Regardless, none of this had anything to do with the 2002 vote.

He is a major war criminal slash American celebrity.

Fully agree. That, however, likewise has nothing to do with what was going on in 2002.
 
No, actually, she did not, but don’t let facts bother you.

- - - Updated - - -



Out of shear morbid curiousity, what are you talking about?

Let me ask you something, who did vote for the war?

No one, technically, as there was never a declared war. The vote in 2002 was the:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
 
Or taking the President of the United States at his word, which he kept.

He exhausted all peaceful means?

Bush had no authority to act on his own in that manner.

He didn’t.

He did. He ordered the invasion on his own volition. Actually he said his god told him to do it.

The UN Security Council refused to authorize war, they never authorized war.

That was a violation of the UN Charter.

It became a UN matter when Bush brought the matter to the UN.

Which is when they passed 1441.

It did not authorize an invasion.

The UN explicitly refused to authorize an invasion.

Then when Bush invaded he did it in violation of the UN Charter and of international law.

Still being debated.

By who?

Americans?
 
If the Democrats are so free of group-think, why did the Anti-war movement die on January 20, 2009?

Out of shear morbid curiousity, what are you talking about?

When Obama took office, the entire anti-war left disappeared at once. To the individual. Anti-war libertarians (like me) were left looking around saying "Where'd everybody go?" We thought that once a Republican held the White House they might come back, the way anti-spending Republicans only come out of hibernation to oppose Democrats, but they didn't. Instead Trump said "pull out of Syria" and the Democrats responded with "the Neocons are our friends."

I call myself a survivor of the death of the anti-war movement. I oppose US troops in the Middle East because I oppose war. This makes me quite different from untermensche who opposes US troops in the Middle East because he thinks the US is the epitome of all that is wrong with the world. I guess technically we are accidentally on the same side on this issue.
 
No one, technically, as there was never a declared war. The vote in 2002 was the:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Oh, I see. No one voted for the war. They only voted to authorize the president - in a non-war way - to use the armed forces as he determines to be necessary and appropriate.

Gotcha.


God lord, this apologia is something ripped out of 1984, cooked up by the Ministry of Truth.

Of course Hillary didn't vote for the war! She voted to authorize George W. Bush to conduct a war, but she did it to avoid a war.

Yeah. OK buddy.
 
Lol yeah Hillary Clinton opposed the war in Iraq so much she voted for it.

Another bullshit meme used by right-wingers to smear Hillary.

A big part of the resolution was this:

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

 Iraq Resolution

Bush did NOT follow the diplomatic efforts, pulled inspectors unnecessarily, sent Colin Powell to the UN to lie to them, and lied to the American people, continually conflating the 9/11 attack to the "threat" from Iraq.

That bullshit was on Bush and his administration. Blaming anyone else completely misrepresenting history.

This is ridiculous. It is not a smear that Hillary Clinton voted for the War in Iraq. I don't see how any of these alternative facts change that simple proposition. The War in Iraq is the responsibility of all Americans really, since this is supposed to be a democracy. But it is especially the responsibility of the Bush Administration, and the Congress that approved it.

Oh, right, she actually voted to authorize the use of the military because she thought that would be an effective way to counter it. Apparently, Hillary Clinton is a naive, political dilettante.

And I guess, as Koy pointed out, since there was no actual war declaration, there was no war! It never happened!

War is Peace.

And the United States hasn't been at war since the 1940s. I'm sorry, you are totally right! How stupid of me.
 
God lord, this apologia is something ripped out of 1984, cooked up by the Ministry of Truth.

Of course Hillary didn't vote for the war! She voted to authorize George W. Bush to conduct a war, but she did it to avoid a war.

Yeah. OK buddy.

I really really wanted to prevent him from shooting somebody.

So I gave him a loaded gun.
 
She added, “This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” A vote for the resolution, she argued, “is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”
And yet, since then:

Pakistan: In 2007 and 2008, Clinton strongly disagreed with then-Sen. Barack Obama about striking al Qaeda targets inside of Pakistan. Obama called such attacks “just common sense” if there were “actionable intelligence.” Clinton referred to the 1998 cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan that failed to kill Osama bin Laden and warned that “we have to be very conscious of all the consequences,” particularly anything that would destabilize Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Obama would go on to authorize 407 drone strikes in Pakistan, killing 3,089 people. Nearly 300 of these occurred while Clinton was secretary of state, during which time U.S. diplomats opposed only one or two of the strikes. Whatever hesitation Clinton once had in attacking militants in Pakistan vanished upon being confirmed as secretary of state.

Afghanistan: In 2009, Clinton supported three-quarters of the Afghanistan surge. When Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, requested four brigades of additional U.S. troops in the summer of 2009, Clinton endorsed deploying three of them (equaling roughly 30,000 troops). Reportedly, “Clinton usually favored sending even more [troops] than [Secretary of Defense Robert] Gates did.” Obama eventually deployed 33,000 extra troops. It is hard to identify any enduring political or security gains in Afghanistan that have resulted from the surge. Moreover, more than three-quarters of all U.S. troop casualties in that country since 9/11 were killed or wounded in the four years after the surge was initiated.

Libya: In 2011, Clinton was a strong proponent of regime change in Libya (as was Trump). It is forgotten today that a primary justification she offered for the U.S. military role in Libya was to pay back allies for Afghanistan. As she stated in late March 2011: “We asked our allies, our NATO allies, to go into Afghanistan with us 10 years ago. They have been there, and a lot of them have been there despite the fact they were not attacked.… When it comes to Libya, we started hearing from the U.K., France, Italy, other of our NATO allies. This was in their vital national interest.” Academic research shows that great powers enjoy freedom of action to avoid becoming dragged into wars involving allies, but the Libya regime change intervention was, unfortunately, one that the Obama administration chose to fully support, despite misleading the American people at the time that it was not the goal. Obama correctly labeled not planning for the postwar scenario his “worst mistake” and correctly described Libya as a “mess.”

Osama bin Laden: In 2011, she endorsed the Navy SEAL raid into Abbottabad, Pakistan, that killed Osama bin Laden, even while recognizing that it would likely poison diplomatic relations with Pakistan for a short time. According to Vice President Joe Biden — who opposed it — every other official (including Clinton) was “51-49” in supporting the raid. Before the news broke, Obama called Bill Clinton (who, as president, signed three covert findings authorizing bin Laden’s killing) to let him know the al Qaeda leader was finally dead. “I assume Hillary’s already told you,” Obama said to an unaware Clinton. As Hillary Clinton later wrote in her memoir: “They told me not to tell anyone, so I didn’t tell anyone. Bill later joked with me, ‘No one will ever doubt you can keep a secret!’”

Syria: In 2012, she reportedly proposed to the White House — along with CIA Director David Petraeus — a covert program (apparently larger than the one later authorized) to provide arms to vetted Syrian rebel groups fighting Bashar al-Assad’s government. Obama opposed this proposal on the grounds that there could be no guarantees of where the weapons would ultimately end up and that CIA analysts determined they would not have “materially” hastened the removal of Assad from power. It is difficult to assess the CIA-led train-and-equip program’s effectiveness, compared to larger Defense Department-led efforts, but there remains no collection of U.S.-backed rebel groups that has threatened the existence of the Assad government, which is now backed by indiscriminate Russian air power.
She's a war monger plain and simple.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/2...-2016-military-intervention-libya-iraq-syria/
 
Last edited:
If the Democrats are so free of group-think, why did the Anti-war movement die on January 20, 2009?
It didn't. Thanks for playing.

Interstingly, if you google 'anti-war protests during Obama', the first few articles are, coincidentally, I'm sure, from conservative or conservative leaning websites making this same claim. However, when one goes to Wikipedia and looks for actual dates and facts, it doesn't seem to be the case.

Just another data point about 'libertarian' news sources?
 
Back
Top Bottom