The Donald Trump Thread

The whole of the Western world could easily vanish in a fire ball (with unbelievable suffering around the edges). The actual event might start with a miscalculation or a purely technical blunder - the result would be the same. I don't see anything wrong with President Trump trying to get closer to the Russians, to try to avert that tragedy.

I don't know if the US electoral system is hackable - that charge seems to be without foundation. I wish they would leave the president alone to get on with the job he was elected to do!

David
 
I am interested in trying to overcome my biases and motivated reasoning.

This article seems like an interesting attempt.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/sometimes-facts-can-actually-trump-ideology/
In fact, those who view a politician positively and learn negative information about that candidate on average actually increase their positive evaluation of that politician.

Specific, science-based strategies can be used to help address politically-informed motivated reasoning and get people to update their beliefs to match reality, as I showed recently in a conversation with a conservative radio host
 
It takes two to tango.

Trump's own contributions to the quagmire developing rapidly around his presidency are quite significant. This is why cartoon characters shouldn't run for or be elected to serious leadership positions let alone POTUS.
I think there are so many people in Washington who hate his guts - basically because he would divert money towards things that will help the poor in the US, and because he doesn't see the need for the endless, and intensely dangerous stand-off with Russia - and neither do I.

One commentator over at Fox News suggested that the investigation will have a number of effects:

1) It will shut off any further leaks about collusion with Russia - the special prosecutor isn't going to tolerate leaks from his investigation.

2) The President won't need to respond to all that fluff, so he can concentrate on doing his job.

3) A special prosecutor has wide powers of investigation, and he may end up investigating just exactly who has been doing the leaking - something that may come uncomfortably close to the Democrats.

4) The time-scale will be such that the end result - hopefully nothing - will emerge as the Democrats are preparing for the mid-term elections - they may end up wishing they never started this.

All that assumes the special prosecutor is honest - if he is not, something bad may come of it.

It is curious that nobody here seems interested in avoiding nuclear war.

David
 
Last edited:
I'm not as interested in the people who "hate" Trump. Just as I'm not as interested in people who "love" him.

I am struck simply by my complete inability to take him at his word on, literally, anything. He seems to contradict himself on a regular basis. His own spokespeople seem unable to relay accurately what he's doing or what he's thinking. I take no confidence from all this that he's competent. Why should I? The basics of running any organization and dealing with people are consistency, honesty, integrity, etc. You know, the common sense stuff that I'd wager all of us rely upon in our daily lives to effectively move our respective needles.

You'd have me presume his dealings with Russia are fully aligned with the populace's best interests? Why, because only those who "hate" are interested in learning more about his activities with the Russians?

Same question could be asked of this noble concept you put forth regarding his motivation toward helping the poor.
 
It is curious that nobody here seems interested in avoiding nuclear war.

Sorry David but that's a crock. Trump has demonstrated that he's incapable of telling the truth and that he's so vain and thin skinned that he lets that vanity influence his decisions: decisions that can affect the lives of billions. So, if Putin were to upset Trump (and he will), I can see the two narcissists flexing their military muscle like a couple of cage fighters. And you think that will keep us safe from nuclear war?
 
DAGy3znUwAAfeEj.jpg:large
 
What I think is that the American people wanted change. The only real choice they had was between Hillary, whom lots of them hated, and Trump, whom lots also hated, but hoped would bring that change. However, he hasn't so far adjusted to the presidency. He's unused to not having absolute power in a system where power is divided between executive, legislative and judiciary branches. Maybe he will eventually get impeached, maybe not if he manages to make the adjustment. Or maybe, at some time, he will get fed up and voluntarily resign: the constitution sits uneasily with a president who has obvious autocratic tendencies. If he makes the adjustment, and isn't impeached, then maybe he'll improve.

He has tons of ego, a thin skin, and blundering inexperience. He's hardly alone in having the first two (Nixon, anyone?), but the third is his real Achilles' heel. He hasn't yet learnt how to play the system. But if he had known from the beginning, the irony is that I have my doubts he'd have been elected. He'd have appeared to be your typical slippery politician, and the fact that he didn't is what offered the hope of change.

The real problem is how the system has come to offer only a general feeling of hopelessness because people can only vote for one rogue, or another. There seems no way to vote for change except by risking the election of a potential blunderer. Thing is, the constitution, which has served America so well, doesn't change the nature of politics and most politicians. However, time moves on and society changes whether or not politicians change; whether the constitution can survive in its present form and accommodate such change, is anyone's guess.

I don't think that nuclear war is any more likely than it has always has been. Those who think so, if they're old enough, might remember the Cuba crisis in 1962. People genuinely didn't know whether the Russians would blink first or not. I can remember our last teacher of the day sending us home with a reminder to pray we'd all still be around the day after. I was 12 at the time and wondered what he meant, as I wasn't really aware of what specifically was going on, but I certainly lived in mortal fear of nuclear war even at that age. The Russians so easily might not have backed down, but sometime after that last class of the day, thankfully, they did.
 
I can see the two narcissists flexing their military muscle like a couple of cage fighters.

I really don't see Putin being as being as narcissistic as Trump at all, sure he likes to display his 'machoness', but for me, it feels very different from Trump. He always appears calm and deliberate, and in interviews I have seen, talks more sense than the vast majority of Western politicians.

As I've said before, I think that when we look back in the cold light of day at Putin, we will recognise him as a man that we were lucky to have in charge of Russia at a time when so many were so hostile to them. All this aggression for very little real evidence of doing anything wrong, apart from really holding their ground and flexing muscles a bit. They are far from innocent, but I think that if we were to compare their aggression to the USs,(and Britain's historically) in terms of foreign policy, they'd win any court case. Well, any that were judged by someone totally neutral!

I think that population in the west has been propaganda'a to destruction over Russia, and we now foolishly believe it. We really are in desperate need of a mirror, some self reflection about basically everything is urgently needed.
 
I don't think that nuclear war is any more likely than it has always has been. Those who think so, if they're old enough, might remember the Cuba crisis in 1962. People genuinely didn't know whether the Russians would blink first or not. I can remember our last teacher of the day sending us home with a reminder to pray we'd all still be around the day after. I was 12 at the time and wondered what he meant, as I wasn't really aware of what specifically was going on, but I certainly lived in mortal fear of nuclear war even at that age. The Russians so easily might not have backed down, but sometime after that last class of the day, thankfully, they did.
I also remember the Cuban Missile crisis, and I don't want to see another one. I think both sides backed down a bit - the Americans a bit more quietly when they moved missiles out of Turkey. The deal that they did is exactly the sort of thing Trump might want to do, and he would be opposed all the way.

I think he was right originally about NATO - it really has ceased to have a function (whether it ever had one is debatable) and it has become a source of danger. The president has had to shelve those ideas for now, but if he can get through this period, I hope he will follow through those ideas. Self evidently, Russia feels threatened right now, they are surrounded by military might and regimes that have varying degrees of hostility, it is a very dangerous time - lets not fool ourselves. Also, while we are on the subject, let us remember that a typical ICBM missile carries multiple warheads, each with approximately 1000 times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb (15 kilotons vs many megatons), and thousands of missiles are ready to fly as we speak.

I see positive hope in Trump's approach to Syria because despite two incidents, he is not proposing that the US involve itself more heavily in that country - he is content to leave it to the Russians within certain limits (no chemical weapons, and the remaining Western bases must not be attacked).

Yes Trump lacks experience, but the absolutely unforgivable thing is that the Democrats and the MSM are simply bullying him - there is no other word for it. The media right now (including the BBC) are disgusting, they are behaving like kids that watch the new boy carrying a tray of food, and trip him up and then jeer at him struggling in the mess - the identical instinct.

David
 
The media right now (including the BBC) are disgusting, they are behaving like kids that watch the new boy carrying a tray of food, and trip him up and then jeer at him struggling in the mess - the identical instinct.

Forgive me if I don't shed a tear for poor old Donald. I mean, isn't he the man who constantly attacked the media during his campaign? The man who used Alt-Right media outlets to jeer at the MSM? And isn't he continuing that now he's in office?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/04/24/trump-conservative-media-briefing-237549

Around 50 attendees from the likes of Breitbart, the Washington Free Beacon, Daily Caller, Christian Broadcast Network, Catholic-focused The Eternal Word Television Network, as well conservative radio hosts like Laura Ingraham, Larry O’Connor and John Fredericks mingled with senior administration officials and the president over light snacks, fruit and candy in the White House's Roosevelt room.

All this after a campaign where he vilified other journalists:

https://cpj.org/2016/10/cpj-chairman-says-trump-is-threat-to-press-freedom.php

Since the beginning of his candidacy, Trump has insulted and vilified the press and has made his opposition to the media a centerpiece of his campaign. Trump has routinely labeled the press as "dishonest" and "scum" and singled out individual news organizations and journalists.

He has mocked a disabled New York Times journalist and called an ABC News reporter a "sleaze" in a press conference. He expelled Univision anchor Jorge Ramos from a campaign press conference because he asked an "impertinent" question, and has publicly demeaned other journalists.

Trump has refused to condemn attacks on journalists by his supporters. His campaign has also systematically denied press credentials to outlets that have covered him critically, including The Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, TheHuffington Post, The Daily Beast, Univision, and The Des Moines Register.

So, who is the real bully here?
 
I really don't see Putin being as being as narcissistic as Trump at all, sure he likes to display his 'machoness', but for me, it feels very different from Trump. He always appears calm and deliberate, and in interviews I have seen, talks more sense than the vast majority of Western politicians.

As I've said before, I think that when we look back in the cold light of day at Putin, we will recognise him as a man that we were lucky to have in charge of Russia at a time when so many were so hostile to them. All this aggression for very little real evidence of doing anything wrong, apart from really holding their ground and flexing muscles a bit. They are far from innocent, but I think that if we were to compare their aggression to the USs,(and Britain's historically) in terms of foreign policy, they'd win any court case. Well, any that were judged by someone totally neutral!

I think that population in the west has been propaganda'a to destruction over Russia, and we now foolishly believe it. We really are in desperate need of a mirror, some self reflection about basically everything is urgently needed.
I don't think Putin is especially more narcissistic than the average world leader, but definitely more authoritarian. But I don't see the panic over how a nuclear WWIII would start with Putin - he doesn't sound unhinged to want to destroy the planet. I'm more weary of someone like the North Korean leader, or fanatical religious leaders getting the bomb.

Trump seems more unreflecting, self-unaware, impulsive and immature - though that doesn't mean he would start a nuclear war either.
 
Portraying Trump as a victim is an act of desperation. The only other thing to call it would be pathetic.

The analogy of the boy being tripped with his lunch tray is outlandishly poor. The better one is the bully getting the tables turned on him and subsequently playing the victim.

Trump has gone to extreme lengths to alienate almost every one. Expecting a long leash for him under the "he's inexperienced; he's learning" tag is pretty funny.
 
Back
Top