Author Topic: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)  (Read 25943 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13890
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #595 on: June 04, 2018, 11:40:12 PM »
Could have said the same about the Austrian who was giving speeches in beer halls in the 70's. #yesijustwentfullarnold

And yet now he's one of America's treasures.



Also, if wanting to be a fascist dictator made you a fascist dictator, then every leader in the world and every CEO on the planet, and probably Stadler, is a fascist dictator.


Good Cage man, you're making me defend Trump! Do you know how dirty this feels? WHAT DID I EVER DO TO YOU?!?!


Wait, what? 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13890
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #596 on: June 04, 2018, 11:41:57 PM »
And at the risk of repeating myself, the comment trail on a tweet?   You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27016
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #597 on: June 05, 2018, 12:20:21 AM »
Could have said the same about the Austrian who was giving speeches in beer halls in the 70's. #yesijustwentfullarnold

And yet now he's one of America's treasures.



Also, if wanting to be a fascist dictator made you a fascist dictator, then every leader in the world and every CEO on the planet, and probably Stadler, is a fascist dictator.


Good Cage man, you're making me defend Trump! Do you know how dirty this feels? WHAT DID I EVER DO TO YOU?!?!


Wait, what?


You'll have to be more specific than that.

Was it my changing the Hitler reference to an Arnold one? Was it my use of Cage? Was it my implication that you'd be a fascist dictator?

fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13890
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #598 on: June 05, 2018, 08:15:01 AM »
Haha.  Yes.   

:)  ;)

Offline RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1512
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #599 on: June 05, 2018, 08:46:59 AM »
The president announces in an official statement (as they declared his Twitter to be) that he has the authority to pardon himself of any crime.

The same president also recently stated he has "absolute authority" to direct the justice department however he chooses.

His legal spokesman was just recently making the point that the president could have shot and killed one of his top law enforcement officials if he wasn't happy with him and couldn't be indicted.

These things are not at the same level on the "facist-meter" as "Guy fantazises about banging celebrity". The problem comparing this to "But isn't this just the same as any example of someone thinking they can do something" is those people aren't in position where they are the head of an extremely powerful executive branch that is putting out a steady stream of intent to want to hold even more absolute power. The position of the person making these statements matters. And another note is it is statements, not just thoughts, or else we wouldn't be talking about it. A random guy Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!" gets an eye-roll. If the producer of her next film Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!", then that discussion is probably getting shipped to the Harvey Weinstein thread. The position and the level of power available to someone matters greatly when they state their belief or intention to overreach or abuse it. It shouldn't need to be explained that random man on the street says he intends to take away all guns it's probably not worth worrying about, president of the country announces he intends to use everything at his disposal to take away all guns it's maybe a cause for concern.

Let's put it this way - murder in Washington D.C is a federal crime. Donald Trump could murder every member of Congress that might vote to impeach him (or at least enough to send a message to any who might try it). Then he could pardon himself for it.

An extreme hypothetical, maybe, but no more extreme than the hypothetical being used by Trump's own legal team (shooting James Comey in the head instead of firing him) to demonstrate their position that the president can't be indicted, it requires impeachment.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 09:06:37 AM by RuRoRul »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13890
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #600 on: June 05, 2018, 09:16:53 AM »
The president announces in an official statement (as they declared his Twitter to be) that he has the authority to pardon himself of any crime.

The same president also recently stated he has "absolute authority" to direct the justice department however he chooses.

His legal spokesman was just recently making the point that the president could have shot and killed one of his top law enforcement officials if he wasn't happy with him and couldn't be indicted.

These things are not at the same level on the "facist-meter" as "Guy fantazises about banging celebrity". The problem comparing this to "But isn't this just the same as any example of someone thinking they can do something" is those people aren't in position where they are the head of an extremely powerful executive branch that is putting out a steady stream of intent to want to hold even more absolute power. The position of the person making these statements matters. And another note is it is statements, not just thoughts, or else we wouldn't be talking about it. A random guy Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!" gets an eye-roll. If the producer of her next film Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!", then that discussion is probably getting shipped to the Harvey Weinstein thread. The position and the level of power available to someone matters greatly when they state their belief or intention to overreach or abuse it. It shouldn't need to be explained that random man on the street says he intends to take away all guns it's probably not worth worrying about, president of the country announces he intends to use everything at his disposal to take away all guns it's maybe a cause for concern.

Let's put it this way - murder in Washington D.C is a federal crime. Donald Trump could murder every member of Congress that might vote to impeach him (or at least enough to send a message to any who might try it). Then he could pardon himself for it.

An extreme hypothetical, maybe, but no more extreme than the hypothetical being used by Trump's own legal team (shooting James Comey in the head instead of firing him) to demonstrate their position that the president can't be indicted, it requires impeachment.

But you have to apply your own standards to your analysis.  You didn't mention once that the notion of "Presidential immunity" - for lack of a better term - is actually a legitimately debatable topic in Constitutional law.   So rather than jump to conclusions and call him FACIST!, why not err on the side of "Constitutional pundit"?

As for control of the DOJ, well, yeah, he does.   It's a wing of his branch of government.  Again, there is a legitimate and as-yet unsettled debate as to the whether there are limits to that, but your implication that Trump is saying "I am a god, I am Supreme Leader, I am the GRAND POO-BAH!  Bow to me!" is not accurate.   

I'm only vaguely aware of the "Comey" comment - meaning I didn't hear it live - but even that is being misrepresented.  He said "...and not face charges before being impeached".   That very clearly is saying that the penal process for the President involves CONGRESS, not a Department in his own branch of government.   That's not the same as "I can do anything I want".  In fact, I might argue that if you're really "ANTI-TRUMP", you WANT it that way.   You WANT an independent branch of government evaluating his conduct, not a group that reports to him.  THAT'S far more "fascist" than the reality.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 09:26:30 AM by Stadler »

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20879
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #601 on: June 05, 2018, 09:35:24 AM »
The president announces in an official statement (as they declared his Twitter to be) that he has the authority to pardon himself of any crime.

The same president also recently stated he has "absolute authority" to direct the justice department however he chooses.

His legal spokesman was just recently making the point that the president could have shot and killed one of his top law enforcement officials if he wasn't happy with him and couldn't be indicted.

These things are not at the same level on the "facist-meter" as "Guy fantazises about banging celebrity". The problem comparing this to "But isn't this just the same as any example of someone thinking they can do something" is those people aren't in position where they are the head of an extremely powerful executive branch that is putting out a steady stream of intent to want to hold even more absolute power. The position of the person making these statements matters. And another note is it is statements, not just thoughts, or else we wouldn't be talking about it. A random guy Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!" gets an eye-roll. If the producer of her next film Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!", then that discussion is probably getting shipped to the Harvey Weinstein thread. The position and the level of power available to someone matters greatly when they state their belief or intention to overreach or abuse it. It shouldn't need to be explained that random man on the street says he intends to take away all guns it's probably not worth worrying about, president of the country announces he intends to use everything at his disposal to take away all guns it's maybe a cause for concern.

Let's put it this way - murder in Washington D.C is a federal crime. Donald Trump could murder every member of Congress that might vote to impeach him (or at least enough to send a message to any who might try it). Then he could pardon himself for it.

An extreme hypothetical, maybe, but no more extreme than the hypothetical being used by Trump's own legal team (shooting James Comey in the head instead of firing him) to demonstrate their position that the president can't be indicted, it requires impeachment.

But you have to apply your own standards to your analysis.  You didn't mention once that the notion of "Presidential immunity" - for lack of a better term - is actually a legitimately debatable topic in Constitutional law.   So rather than jump to conclusions and call him FACIST!, why not err on the side of "Constitutional pundit"?

As for control of the DOJ, well, yeah, he does.   It's a wing of his branch of government.  Again, there is a legitimate and as-yet unsettled debate as to the whether there are limits to that, but your implication that Trump is saying "I am a god, I am Supreme Leader, I am the GRAND POO-BAH!  Bow to me!" is not accurate.   


I'm only vaguely aware of the "Comey" comment - meaning I didn't hear it live - but even that is being misrepresented.  He said "...and not face charges before being impeached".   That very clearly is saying that the penal process for the President involves CONGRESS, not a Department in his own branch of government.   That's not the same as "I can do anything I want".  In fact, I might argue that if you're really "ANTI-TRUMP", you WANT it that way.   You WANT an independent branch of government evaluating his conduct, not a group that reports to him.  THAT'S far more "fascist" than the reality.
It is very definitely a point of debate that's never really been resolved. I think you're missing the point, though. The problem is that Trump thinks he is God, supreme leader, and grand poobah. Has he ever given you any real indication that he understands the difference between being president and being king? He sure hasn't given me that idea.

There's also the second problem that I don't think this congress can adequately check a rogue president. Giuliani said that if Trump pardoned himself Monday he'd be impeached Tuesday. I don't think for a second that would happen. If he cut Melania's head off and displayed in on a pike in the rose garden they'd let it slide.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13890
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #602 on: June 05, 2018, 09:59:50 AM »
Well, I'll be honest; I wrestle with this pretty regularly (to the extent I'm thinking about it).    One of the things that really soured me on Hillary - though not enough for me to not vote for her - and keeps me from even higher praise of Bill is their sense of "entitlement".  It's been scrubbed from the record by Winston Smith, apparently, but while First Lady, Hillary gave a speech/interview where she bluntly said that it was her and Bill's birthright and entitlement to lead.   She couched it as an obligation to lead, a requirement to lead and while she didn't mention "god", the implication is that they were "anointed".   It's an odious attitude, be it with Hillary or Donald or anyone else.  Where I get confused is, Trump's policies don't really reflect that mindset in the way that Clinton's did/do.   Yeah, there's a sort of isolationism that I really don't like (and that isn't manageable in our global economy) but within the borders, there's not a really significant amount of "us vs. them".*


* No, I don't think some of the social policies are "us vs. them".  There's a really strong argument - enforced by the results of the election - that the notion of "identity politics" have CREATED an "us vs. them" and Trump is merely correcting. 

Offline RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1512
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #603 on: June 05, 2018, 10:31:49 AM »
The president announces in an official statement (as they declared his Twitter to be) that he has the authority to pardon himself of any crime.

The same president also recently stated he has "absolute authority" to direct the justice department however he chooses.

His legal spokesman was just recently making the point that the president could have shot and killed one of his top law enforcement officials if he wasn't happy with him and couldn't be indicted.

These things are not at the same level on the "facist-meter" as "Guy fantazises about banging celebrity". The problem comparing this to "But isn't this just the same as any example of someone thinking they can do something" is those people aren't in position where they are the head of an extremely powerful executive branch that is putting out a steady stream of intent to want to hold even more absolute power. The position of the person making these statements matters. And another note is it is statements, not just thoughts, or else we wouldn't be talking about it. A random guy Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!" gets an eye-roll. If the producer of her next film Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!", then that discussion is probably getting shipped to the Harvey Weinstein thread. The position and the level of power available to someone matters greatly when they state their belief or intention to overreach or abuse it. It shouldn't need to be explained that random man on the street says he intends to take away all guns it's probably not worth worrying about, president of the country announces he intends to use everything at his disposal to take away all guns it's maybe a cause for concern.

Let's put it this way - murder in Washington D.C is a federal crime. Donald Trump could murder every member of Congress that might vote to impeach him (or at least enough to send a message to any who might try it). Then he could pardon himself for it.

An extreme hypothetical, maybe, but no more extreme than the hypothetical being used by Trump's own legal team (shooting James Comey in the head instead of firing him) to demonstrate their position that the president can't be indicted, it requires impeachment.

But you have to apply your own standards to your analysis.  You didn't mention once that the notion of "Presidential immunity" - for lack of a better term - is actually a legitimately debatable topic in Constitutional law.   So rather than jump to conclusions and call him FACIST!, why not err on the side of "Constitutional pundit"?

As for control of the DOJ, well, yeah, he does.   It's a wing of his branch of government.  Again, there is a legitimate and as-yet unsettled debate as to the whether there are limits to that, but your implication that Trump is saying "I am a god, I am Supreme Leader, I am the GRAND POO-BAH!  Bow to me!" is not accurate.   

I'm only vaguely aware of the "Comey" comment - meaning I didn't hear it live - but even that is being misrepresented.  He said "...and not face charges before being impeached".   That very clearly is saying that the penal process for the President involves CONGRESS, not a Department in his own branch of government.   That's not the same as "I can do anything I want".  In fact, I might argue that if you're really "ANTI-TRUMP", you WANT it that way.   You WANT an independent branch of government evaluating his conduct, not a group that reports to him.  THAT'S far more "fascist" than the reality.
I think that using the word fascist leads people to look around and think "Does this look exactly like Nazi Germany in the late 1930s? No. So it's bullshit." For that reason I don't think it is usually that helpful for people to make the jump to that term, even if they are arguably correct in terms of discussing the concepts of fascism in theory - it has a connotation with real life history that makes people have an emotional reaction to drive them one way or another (either "Yeah, this is the worst!" or "No, this just shows people are being ridiculous!") rather than considering the topic on its merit. I'd rather look at whether people see something as problematic or not and if so why, and if not, why not.

As for complete control of the Department of Justice, honestly I am not sure exactly where the line is but I didn't think it worked that way - or it least, it wasn't supposed to. The president can appoint certain positions and can remove people from certain positions but while they are there they are supposed to act somewhat independently. If it were true that the president had complete authority over the DOJ, then the Trump team's accusations of "politicising the DOJ" or "spying" that they throw at Obama (even if in that case they aren't true) wouldn't even matter, as it would mean it would be completely fine for Obama to order people to investigate or put surveillance on whoever he wanted just for his own personal reasons. The DOJ must have some degree of independence in its processes, even if it's part of the executive branch, if it's to be able to do its job - especially when it comes to investigations of corruption involving figures close to the president.

I didn't misrepresent the comment from Giuliani, the last sentence of my post says that it was to demonstrate their position that it requires the president to be impeached before being indicted (which, if we're being Constitutional Pundits, is also up for debate as well). But I think it is a good comment to include because it shows that it's not just in discussion on a forum that extreme hypotheticals are being used to make arguments or to draw the lines clearly - Giuliani's comment was actually pretty effective at demonstrating his position. It's also the case that when it comes to codifying the rules or the checks and balances that are supposed to keep things from breaking in extreme pressure, it's necessary to consider hypotheticals that subject them to extreme pressure.

It is very definitely a point of debate that's never really been resolved. I think you're missing the point, though. The problem is that Trump thinks he is God, supreme leader, and grand poobah. Has he ever given you any real indication that he understands the difference between being president and being king? He sure hasn't given me that idea.

There's also the second problem that I don't think this congress can adequately check a rogue president. Giuliani said that if Trump pardoned himself Monday he'd be impeached Tuesday. I don't think for a second that would happen. If he cut Melania's head off and displayed in on a pike in the rose garden they'd let it slide.
This post follows up some of the other points I'd want to say more effectively than I probably could here.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 01:00:35 PM by RuRoRul »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13890
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #604 on: June 05, 2018, 01:43:33 PM »
I think that using the word fascist leads people to look around and think "Does this look exactly like Nazi Germany in the late 1930s? No. So it's bullshit." For that reason I don't think it is usually that helpful for people to make the jump to that term, even if they are arguably correct in terms of discussing the concepts of fascism in theory - it has a connotation with real life history that makes people have an emotional reaction to drive them one way or another (either "Yeah, this is the worst!" or "No, this just shows people are being ridiculous!") rather than considering the topic on its merit. I'd rather look at whether people see something as problematic or not and if so why, and if not, why not.

I don't disagree, but I'm not even using "Germany circa 1938" as the standard.  For me, I tend to look at it in terms of a personal liberty issue.  I'm pretty hard core when it comes to that.   I don't at all believe it's government's job to protect us, either from ourselves or from others.   I don't need Hitler to remind me to be skeptical when government is trying to tell me what I can and can't do/think/say. 

Quote
As for complete control of the Department of Justice, honestly I am not sure exactly where the line is but I didn't think it worked that way - or it least, it wasn't supposed to. The president can appoint certain positions and can remove people from certain positions but while they are there they are supposed to act somewhat independently. If it were true that the president had complete authority over the DOJ, then the Trump team's accusations of "politicising the DOJ" or "spying" that they throw at Obama (even if in that case they aren't true) wouldn't even matter, as it would mean it would be completely fine for Obama to order people to investigate or put surveillance on whoever he wanted just for his own personal reasons. The DOJ must have some degree of independence in its processes, even if it's part of the executive branch, if it's to be able to do its job - especially when it comes to investigations of corruption involving figures close to the president.

Welcome to "Advanced Concepts in Constitutional Law, 104" with your professor, Achilles Stadler.   First, it should  be accepted at this point that just because Trump asserts a claim, it is in no way usable as evidence as to the veracity of that claim.  I believe if it was convenient to do so, Trump would accuse Obama of "politicizing" the annual Easter Egg Roll on the South Lawn.  The  DOJ reports to the President.   Whatever that means to "if it's to be able to do it's job" is subject to discussion.   There are other avenues to provide integrity to investigations; Independent Counsel (which report to the Attorney General or Congress as need be, though I believe the legislation has been changed so that it's only the AG), the Office of Independent Counsel (the AG), Office of Special Counsel (which  has oversight from Congress, providing a check and a balance) and independent counsel, small I, small C, which is what Mueller is, which is simply a dedicated investigator used by Attorney's General to investigate specific matters.    All of this is subject to debate, as none of it is set out in clear black and white, and in fact, may be established by conflicting laws (I think there are three piece of legislation that govern the Office of Special Counsel, for example). 

Quote
I didn't misrepresent the comment from Giuliani, the last sentence of my post says that it was to demonstrate their position that it requires the president to be impeached before being indicted (which, if we're being Constitutional Pundits, is also up for debate as well). But I think it is a good comment to include because it shows that it's not just in discussion on a forum that extreme hypotheticals are being used to make arguments or to draw the lines clearly - Giuliani's comment was actually pretty effective at demonstrating his position. It's also the case that when it comes to codifying the rules or the checks and balances that are supposed to keep things from breaking in extreme pressure, it's necessary to consider hypotheticals that subject them to extreme pressure.

Well, I go both ways on Giuliani.   He's done some remarkable things, and I know for me, personally (living as I do near NYC) I've seen him rise to greatness.   But there are other times when he's downright baffling, to the point that I think he's either SOOOOO much smarter than me that I can't follow, or he's lost his marbles.  I think at least in this specific role, you have to take Giuliani with a grain of (public relations) salt when using his words to parse out legal and strategic positions.    I would not at all be surprised if his role is simply to obfuscate. 

Quote
It is very definitely a point of debate that's never really been resolved. I think you're missing the point, though. The problem is that Trump thinks he is God, supreme leader, and grand poobah. Has he ever given you any real indication that he understands the difference between being president and being king? He sure hasn't given me that idea.

There's also the second problem that I don't think this congress can adequately check a rogue president. Giuliani said that if Trump pardoned himself Monday he'd be impeached Tuesday. I don't think for a second that would happen. If he cut Melania's head off and displayed in on a pike in the rose garden they'd let it slide.
This post follows up some of the other points I'd want to say more effectively than I probably could here.

And  I don't know whether you're right or wrong.  I do know that partisanship has become a quagmire for any real discussion or real illumination of truth.    Not just Trump - and I dont' think he's either the first or the worst when it comes to this, though he's top tier on the latter - but all of politics has become a game of "say it enough times and it will eventually, magically, come true".   

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20879
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #605 on: June 05, 2018, 02:08:10 PM »
Re: Constitutional law 104, I think it says a great deal that all presidents have gone far out of their way to keep themselves removed from Justice. You do that to avoid the appearance of corruption. Trump not only doesn't know or care about crossing this line, but out of sheer hubris he obliterated it by smearing his own bullshit all over it. He wants everybody to know that he doesn't give a damn about the appearance of impropriety, which is a fine attitude if impropriety is your game.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13890
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #606 on: June 06, 2018, 10:14:58 AM »
Re: Constitutional law 104, I think it says a great deal that all presidents have gone far out of their way to keep themselves removed from Justice. You do that to avoid the appearance of corruption. Trump not only doesn't know or care about crossing this line, but out of sheer hubris he obliterated it by smearing his own bullshit all over it. He wants everybody to know that he doesn't give a damn about the appearance of impropriety, which is a fine attitude if impropriety is your game.

I won't argue that one bit.  There was always a degree of temperance, a measure of restraint, that is missing from Trump - and all politics frankly; I'm going to repeat that Trump is neither the first nor the worst here either - that I for one sorely miss. 

I'm honestly torn; I don't expect my leaders to be exactly what I want them to be - that's not democracy - but personally?  In my heart?   I wish for a greater level of "transcendence" from my Presidents; some measure that they recognize the weight and importance of the office in the grand scheme of things, not just as a means to get their pet objectives in play.    Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy...  I think maybe perhaps Reagan was the last to really show that.   Glimpses here and there from Bush and Obama, but too many missteps from both that undermine it to say they really meant it.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20879
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #607 on: June 06, 2018, 01:09:40 PM »
Re: Constitutional law 104, I think it says a great deal that all presidents have gone far out of their way to keep themselves removed from Justice. You do that to avoid the appearance of corruption. Trump not only doesn't know or care about crossing this line, but out of sheer hubris he obliterated it by smearing his own bullshit all over it. He wants everybody to know that he doesn't give a damn about the appearance of impropriety, which is a fine attitude if impropriety is your game.

I won't argue that one bit.  There was always a degree of temperance, a measure of restraint, that is missing from Trump - and all politics frankly; I'm going to repeat that Trump is neither the first nor the worst here either - that I for one sorely miss. 

I'm honestly torn; I don't expect my leaders to be exactly what I want them to be - that's not democracy - but personally?  In my heart?   I wish for a greater level of "transcendence" from my Presidents; some measure that they recognize the weight and importance of the office in the grand scheme of things, not just as a means to get their pet objectives in play.    Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy...  I think maybe perhaps Reagan was the last to really show that.   Glimpses here and there from Bush and Obama, but too many missteps from both that undermine it to say they really meant it.
I never got the impression Reagan had that quality. At least no more than Carter/GHWB bookending him. I think Obama, a constitutional scholar, did get that. You attribute his actions more to ego than I. I think Dumbass figured it out, but certainly didn't start that way. In his final years he really did try to be more than the lackey he was intended to be, and deserves some credit for that.

However, not only does Trump lack that quality, it's a repugnant attitude to him. That's not what the presidency is to him, and he's quite proud to flaunt that belief.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline lonestar

  • DTF Executive Head Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 16615
  • Gender: Male
  • First Follower
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #608 on: July 24, 2018, 07:18:04 PM »
Aaaaaaaand from Bizarro world Trump...

Quote from: nightmare_cinema
So should lonestar and I have babies or something now, is that how this works?
Dang, you're easily the coolest fogey I know of

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27016
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #609 on: July 24, 2018, 07:21:58 PM »
Did I miss something? I thought he and Putin were BFFs?

I admit I don't follow it too closely, but I feel like Putin hasn't responded Trump's texts for a few days or something.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Online jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25061
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #610 on: July 24, 2018, 07:57:41 PM »
My only guess is that he got an intel briefing this morning revealing that the Russians were "meddling" to get Democrats elected in the mid-terms
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Offline lonestar

  • DTF Executive Head Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 16615
  • Gender: Male
  • First Follower
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #611 on: July 24, 2018, 08:11:51 PM »
This is a real tweet folks. Not the onion, not a fake.


I've read it many, many times and I still can't wrap my head around it.
Quote from: nightmare_cinema
So should lonestar and I have babies or something now, is that how this works?
Dang, you're easily the coolest fogey I know of

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20879
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #612 on: July 24, 2018, 08:54:56 PM »
Why is this surprising? You guys expecting consistency or something? The man has no core values and simply says whatever works for him in the moment.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27016
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #613 on: July 24, 2018, 08:56:54 PM »
Why is this surprising? You guys expecting consistency or something? The man has no core values and simply says whatever works for him in the moment.

I know for me, since I said I don't follow this, is less about consistency but more about intrigue behind the drama. Like....what happened? What caused the switch? I guess it's the same kind of interest you'd show to a soap opera or something.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 28106
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #614 on: July 24, 2018, 09:28:06 PM »
Tweets like that make me think he is just trying to make heads explode all over the nation.  And they are probably are.

Or he probably just is that delusional.

Offline lonestar

  • DTF Executive Head Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 16615
  • Gender: Male
  • First Follower
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #615 on: July 24, 2018, 10:07:32 PM »
Tweets like that make me think he is just trying to make heads explode all over the nation.  And they are probably are.

Or he probably just is that delusional.

I personally think he's that delusional. He thinks he's kicking ass, and he knows his base will eat up anything he tweets. Shit, just look at the trainwreck he's made out of the kneeling issue with his tweets. But with this one, he completely left the reservation, I almost respect how batshit he went with this one.
Quote from: nightmare_cinema
So should lonestar and I have babies or something now, is that how this works?
Dang, you're easily the coolest fogey I know of

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4604
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #616 on: July 24, 2018, 11:05:11 PM »
I believe that Donald Trump has perfected a unique strategy.  At this point in time, anyone who is remotely interested in supporting Donald Trump has long since swallowed the pill that the media is fake news biased against him, and they can't be trusted to accurately report his words.  Even if the media is literally just posting his Tweet, his followers are trained to expect the media to take his Tweets out of context and overreact, and as a counter, his followers are always ready to spin whatever he says to fit their narrative.

And now that the Fake News umbrella is in full effect, it's very easy for him to hide under it.  He can take as many contradictory positions as he wants, and his followers will just ignore whichever ones they don't like.  They'll focus on the bits and pieces that speak to their own personal opinion, and the rest is fake news.

In the span of about three days, he took the following positions:

1. I trust U.S. Intel when they say Russia meddled in the election.
2. Putin says Russia didn't meddle in the election, so Russia obviously didn't meddle in the election, and I don't know why they would.
3. Number 2 was a typo.  I meant I don't know why they wouldn't.  Obviously they meddled.
4. It doesn't matter if they meddled.  We can't dwell on the past if we want to form a better relationship in the future.
5. Somebody definitely meddled.  I don't know why you're so obsessed with Russia. 
6. I won without anyone's help. 

As far as I can tell, this is every possible position on whether or not Russia meddled.  They did, they didn't, they did, they may or may not have so let bygones be bygones, someone did but not necessarily Russia, it was all me baby. 

And all along, he's been doing an impressive juggling act of 'Under my leadership, we can have a healthy relationship with Russia and isn't that better for everyone' and 'I'm tougher on Russia than anyone, why would they want me to be president when they could have Crooked Hillary in their pocket'.  This Tweet doesn't seem to be anything new in that regard.  It's another effective step in the process of emboldening his supporters to ignore his critics.  It gets the left up in arms, and right now, the more the left gets up in arms, the more the right rolls their eyes and doubles down. 

The would/wouldn't thing is a great example to me. 

After Trump came forward with the explanation that he just misspoke, both sides started bickering about it.  Are you kidding me, says the left.  Don't make such a big deal out of a slip of the tongue, says the right.  You actually believe this, says the left.  Why wouldn't we, says the right.  He doubled down on it, says the left.  Fake news, says the right, and so on.  Meanwhile, the internet gets to work making a meme out of the whole thing, and twenty seconds later there's a new scandal to focus on. 

But let's go back to Helsinki for a moment and look at what Trump actually said: "I have President Putin. He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this. I don’t see any reason why it would be..."  Now, I'm not inclined to take Trump at his word, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt here.  Let's assume he actually did mean to say wouldn't, and the whole thing was just a slip of the tongue.  It's certainly not outside of the realm of possibility for him to have a slip of the tongue. 

The thing is, what he 'meant' to say might actually be worse than what he said.  If he meant 'wouldn't,' then the implication is that the President of the United States doesn't see any reason why a foreign tyrant wouldn't interfere in the election that put said President in power.  I don't know about anyone else, but that notion is profoundly disturbing to me.  Yet we aren't talking about it, because he's buried it in so many layers of obfuscation that it becomes impossible to figure out what he really meant, much less address it.  Meanwhile, we've got two new executive orders, and I don't even know what they are because my head is spinning over yet another Tweet.

In some way, it's kinda brilliant. 
« Last Edit: July 24, 2018, 11:38:20 PM by Jaffa »
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20214
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #617 on: July 25, 2018, 06:17:11 AM »
Jul 25, 2018 06:20:28 AM - China is targeting our farmers, who they know I love & respect, as a way of getting me to continue allowing them to take advantage of the U.S. They are being vicious in what will be their failed attempt. We were being nice - until now! China made $517 Billion on us last year.


Costco made over $7k dollars off of me last year and I didn't see a dime from them. What assholes! No more Mr. Nice Guy! 

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 28106
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #618 on: July 25, 2018, 06:26:26 AM »
I believe that Donald Trump has perfected a unique strategy.  At this point in time, anyone who is remotely interested in supporting Donald Trump has long since swallowed the pill that the media is fake news biased against him, and they can't be trusted to accurately report his words.  Even if the media is literally just posting his Tweet, his followers are trained to expect the media to take his Tweets out of context and overreact, and as a counter, his followers are always ready to spin whatever he says to fit their narrative.

And now that the Fake News umbrella is in full effect, it's very easy for him to hide under it.  He can take as many contradictory positions as he wants, and his followers will just ignore whichever ones they don't like.  They'll focus on the bits and pieces that speak to their own personal opinion, and the rest is fake news.

The worst part is that there are plenty of people, like me, who have long held the belief that the news media is mostly trash, but now if you say it, many automatically assume you are a Trump fan and are trashing the media because "Fake news!!"

Let's face it, while Trump being an utter disaster and total clown show is a given at this point, he is throwing red meat to his supporters who are tired of the TV news media being so liberal (Fox News being the exception). 

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 775
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #619 on: July 25, 2018, 07:48:47 AM »
I believe...[snip]

This was a very good post and all I'd add to it is that Trump's almost literally insane Tweet about Russia wanting the Democrats to win (trust me we don't) is part of his strategy of making sure he can never be blamed for anything he ever does. If the GOP do well in November he will say it's because he clamped down on Russian interference, unlike that weak coward Obama. And if the Dems win, it'll be because Russia was rooting for the Dems all along, just as Trump told everyone they were. In Scenario A he's a big tough strongman who makes Putin shit himself and in Scenario B he's a prescient genius.

All his life Trump has used his wealth to bully or buy people into falling in line, and at his former pissant level it worked. Now he is playing at an entirely different level and he has absolutely no idea how to negotiate his way around. He is trying to use on China (for example) the same bullying tactics that worked in the Manhattan real estate business. Just now on Twitter he is blaming China for "targeting American farmers, who they know I love and respect...", neglecting to remind everyone of who started this stupid trade war in the first place, and who declared it would be "easy to win!" Trump, like every dim-witted bully, has no idea what to do when someone pushes back. He is crying like a baby on Twitter about China because he doesn't realise that this is how the game works. He thought stamping his feet and issuing threats on Twitter would be enough. He targeted China's interests and most vulnerable political assets, so they targeted his. Did he honestly think they would roll over for him? I can't wait to see what he will do when China deliberately drives down the value of their currency to really fuck him over (they have already started doing this by the way).

There are two basic strategies I've noticed Trump uses - one is what I just said, he makes sure he can never be blamed for anything bad that happens, while also taking the credit for anything good that happens. He even admitted this when he said on camera that if he was proven wrong about North Korea he would make up some excuse anyway. He thought he was being funny. It wasn't funny. The American president was telling his people that he will simply lie to them if he makes a mistake. I didn't find that funny or cute, but whatever, his base did. 

His second strategy is to shit on language. To make words meaningless. Last week was a turning point for me. When Trump said "I meant to say wouldn't, not would", this was him testing just how much he can get away with. And he got away with it. 2 days later the story was buried. We're onto another porn star story now apparently. Yesterday it was the all-caps threat of nuclear war with Iran (who immediately laughed at him by the way). Tomorrow he'll pick a fight with Turkey. Nothing ever has time to stick, and that's a deliberate strategy from him. Where do you go from there? When a president can say "I meant the exact opposite of what I said, even though it was about the 800th time I'd said it up to that point so clearly I'm bullshitting you all now"? That is the point we are at now. The president can lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and there will never be any consequences, because the moment a lie starts to become problematic, he simply fires off a "DEAR IRAN, DON'T YOU EVER THREATEN MY AMERICAN CHILDREN EVER AGAIN..."

I don't know what you can do now over there in America. Language - that thing we use to fix meanings to things and to hold people to account - has become meaningless. If tomorrow Trump says "The fucking Jews deserved everything they got in the Holocaust and I only regret we don't do the same here", there will be a momentary outcry. Then the next day Trump will say he meant the opposite. Then he'll threaten Turkey or Iran or Mexico or the Palestinian Territories on Twitter. Then CNN will publish a tape about a porn model. Then he'll trash Angela Merkel. Nothing will ever stick. Think I'm exagerrating? Who here remembers when the American president re-tweeted propaganda from a British fascist party? Because I do. And how long did that scandal last? All of 2 days before he started threatening "Little Rocket Man" with fire and fury like the world had never seen (spot the similiarity in phrasing between that North Korean threat and his Iran tweet by the way).     

Anyway, that rambled more than even my usual standards. I only came in to say: good post, Jaffa.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.

Online jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25061
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #620 on: July 25, 2018, 08:54:30 AM »
Anyway, that rambled more than even my usual standards.

Not really.   ;D  But a read-worthy post none-the-less.
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Offline ?

  • Apparently the best username
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11567
  • Gender: Male
  • Less=Moore, Even Less=Wilson
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #621 on: July 25, 2018, 09:14:03 AM »
I believe...[snip]

This was a very good post and all I'd add to it is that Trump's almost literally insane Tweet about Russia wanting the Democrats to win (trust me we don't) is part of his strategy of making sure he can never be blamed for anything he ever does.
I wouldn't be so sure about that, because in the UK, Russia first interfered in the Brexit referendum to help the "Leave" side win, but then in the following parliamentary election they tried to swing the results in Labour's favor. Now May and the Tories have a smaller majority and her government has a weaker position in the Brexit negotiations. If the Dems winning the majority (or gaining a critical number of seats) and slowing down the decision-making process by shooting Trump down on everything hypothetically helped Russia, I could see the Kremlin attempting to influence the election in the Dems' favor, if only to sow more division in the US.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13890
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #622 on: July 25, 2018, 06:08:41 PM »
I believe...[snip]

This was a very good post and all I'd add to it is that Trump's almost literally insane Tweet about Russia wanting the Democrats to win (trust me we don't) is part of his strategy of making sure he can never be blamed for anything he ever does. If the GOP do well in November he will say it's because he clamped down on Russian interference, unlike that weak coward Obama. And if the Dems win, it'll be because Russia was rooting for the Dems all along, just as Trump told everyone they were. In Scenario A he's a big tough strongman who makes Putin shit himself and in Scenario B he's a prescient genius.

All his life Trump has used his wealth to bully or buy people into falling in line, and at his former pissant level it worked. Now he is playing at an entirely different level and he has absolutely no idea how to negotiate his way around. He is trying to use on China (for example) the same bullying tactics that worked in the Manhattan real estate business. Just now on Twitter he is blaming China for "targeting American farmers, who they know I love and respect...", neglecting to remind everyone of who started this stupid trade war in the first place, and who declared it would be "easy to win!" Trump, like every dim-witted bully, has no idea what to do when someone pushes back. He is crying like a baby on Twitter about China because he doesn't realise that this is how the game works. He thought stamping his feet and issuing threats on Twitter would be enough. He targeted China's interests and most vulnerable political assets, so they targeted his. Did he honestly think they would roll over for him? I can't wait to see what he will do when China deliberately drives down the value of their currency to really fuck him over (they have already started doing this by the way).

There are two basic strategies I've noticed Trump uses - one is what I just said, he makes sure he can never be blamed for anything bad that happens, while also taking the credit for anything good that happens. He even admitted this when he said on camera that if he was proven wrong about North Korea he would make up some excuse anyway. He thought he was being funny. It wasn't funny. The American president was telling his people that he will simply lie to them if he makes a mistake. I didn't find that funny or cute, but whatever, his base did. 

His second strategy is to shit on language. To make words meaningless. Last week was a turning point for me. When Trump said "I meant to say wouldn't, not would", this was him testing just how much he can get away with. And he got away with it. 2 days later the story was buried. We're onto another porn star story now apparently. Yesterday it was the all-caps threat of nuclear war with Iran (who immediately laughed at him by the way). Tomorrow he'll pick a fight with Turkey. Nothing ever has time to stick, and that's a deliberate strategy from him. Where do you go from there? When a president can say "I meant the exact opposite of what I said, even though it was about the 800th time I'd said it up to that point so clearly I'm bullshitting you all now"? That is the point we are at now. The president can lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and there will never be any consequences, because the moment a lie starts to become problematic, he simply fires off a "DEAR IRAN, DON'T YOU EVER THREATEN MY AMERICAN CHILDREN EVER AGAIN..."

I don't know what you can do now over there in America. Language - that thing we use to fix meanings to things and to hold people to account - has become meaningless. If tomorrow Trump says "The fucking Jews deserved everything they got in the Holocaust and I only regret we don't do the same here", there will be a momentary outcry. Then the next day Trump will say he meant the opposite. Then he'll threaten Turkey or Iran or Mexico or the Palestinian Territories on Twitter. Then CNN will publish a tape about a porn model. Then he'll trash Angela Merkel. Nothing will ever stick. Think I'm exagerrating? Who here remembers when the American president re-tweeted propaganda from a British fascist party? Because I do. And how long did that scandal last? All of 2 days before he started threatening "Little Rocket Man" with fire and fury like the world had never seen (spot the similiarity in phrasing between that North Korean threat and his Iran tweet by the way).     

Anyway, that rambled more than even my usual standards. I only came in to say: good post, Jaffa.

Good post; I like the analysis about the use of tactics in one situation and the attempt to use the same tactics in a very different situation.  I don't think Trump is a one-trick pony, but he's not more than a three or four trick pony and that doesn't cut it on the world stage with 195-some-odd other countries to deal with.

But two observations (one I've made before):
- I'm skeptical of some of the analyses by Trump, since people - not you - are not clean enough with their analysis.  They let their personal feelings get in the way.   To hear most tell it, he's the dumbest guy to ever walk the earth, Lloyd Christmas dumb... except when he has to be basically the sharpest guy to ever work in government to execute the plans and strategies to rejuvenate the Reich.   

- I'm repeating myself, but Trump is but the latest and greatest manifestation of the assault on language.    This  started a while ago, when people decided that "biosolids" was better than "shit" to describe, well, shit.   We've gone through twenty-plus years of gerrymandering the language so we don't ofofend, so we don't say what we really mean, so we back-door facts in where they would otherwise not be welcome... and we wonder why it's being abused on a more broad level?    We can't expect to just "turn on" and "turn off" the precision we need to make the points we have to make.   Sure, he's taken it to Yngwie levels, but the RESIST! crowd is throwing their gasoline on the fire, and the press isn't exactly manning the fire extinguishers. 

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 775
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #623 on: July 26, 2018, 07:34:34 AM »
Good post; I like the analysis about the use of tactics in one situation and the attempt to use the same tactics in a very different situation.  I don't think Trump is a one-trick pony, but he's not more than a three or four trick pony and that doesn't cut it on the world stage with 195-some-odd other countries to deal with.

But two observations (one I've made before):
- I'm skeptical of some of the analyses by Trump, since people - not you - are not clean enough with their analysis.  They let their personal feelings get in the way.   To hear most tell it, he's the dumbest guy to ever walk the earth, Lloyd Christmas dumb... except when he has to be basically the sharpest guy to ever work in government to execute the plans and strategies to rejuvenate the Reich.   

Re: his 3 or 4 tricks. I think one of Trump's biggest mistakes has been to overuse his tactic of deliberately raising the tension of a situation to its peak level in order to force the 'other side' to come to his table. I've seen businesses use this trick in certain situations, and it can be effective, but Trump is relying on it far too much in politics and it's weakening him. Once upon a time his messianic promises of 'fire and fury' to 'Little Rocket Man' were enough to make the world very nervous. Now, everyone is simply laughing at him. Iran's response to his all-caps rage tweet was to openly mock him. Think about where we are now as a civilisation - an American president makes direct threats of nuclear annihilation against countries, and the world just laughs at him. Trump imagines himself to be an intimidating political strongman, cut from the same cloth as Genghis Khan, and the rest of the world sees him as the senile old loon who rants and raves at the bus shelter. The worst thing you can do at that level of geopolitics is to let it be known your words and threats are completely meaningless, and that's what he's done.   

I keep describing him as a bully, and I think that's the best single word to sum him up. He uses aggression to get his way, and that will generally work if you're trying to get your way with weak people, but he's dealing now with the likes of Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin (Putin is mentioned only because he has the backs of Syria and Iran, both of which Trump keeps threatening). I encourage everyone to really study how Xi became the most powerful man in China since Chairman Mao. This is not a man who is going to be intimidated by a crazy old political novice squawking away on Twitter. This is a man who reads a Tweet like "China is being vicious because they are targeting our wonderful farmers, who they know I love!" and only laughs hysterically along with the rest of us.       

That is the danger of Trump's method. He uses dumb and obvious bullying tactics against entities that simply cannot be bullied. He uses bone-headed kindergarten-level intimidation techniques against people who can't be intimidated. Not only this, but they are experienced experts in effortlessly dealing with bullies. Trump is now dealing with (among others) a former director of the KGB, and a man who brought the entire Communist Party of China under his near-total control. Trump imagines he is at that level. He isn't. He is so painfully out of his depth in the game that he seems to want to play that it's grimly fascinating watching him embarrass himself like this with his various Tweets and apocalyptic vows. He thinks he is the most powerful man in the room because of his nuclear button. He isn't. He's actually very weak. And if you're weak, you need to use intelligence and guile to overcome your enemies. 'Intelligence' and 'guile' are not words most commonly used in association with the political method of Donald Trump.

Finally (and since this is the Trump Tweets thread), we see today yet another of his tricks, this time after having Juncker walk him through the ABCs of international trade. 2 days ago, Trump wrote on Twitter: "Tariffs are the greatest!" (he actually wrote that), and then went on to give a disturbingly idiotic overview of why he thinks this. Then yesterday, less than 24 hours later, he was demanding on Twitter that the EU stop this harmful imposition of tariffs. Donald - fucking make up your mind, are they "the greatest" or are they harmful?? Because it was YOU who started these bullshit tit-for-tat tariffs in the first place, because you declared on March 2nd of this year that "trade wars are good, and easy to win!" 

It's an established pattern by now. Trump charges off around the world like a bull in a china shop making all sorts of ludicrous threats and claims. Then he meets an actual politician who quickly fobs him off by reminding him of long-term commitments that have already been made, prompting Trump to immediately call a press conference to tell the world about his "victory" and his "great deal". The MAGA crowd swallow it whole while the rest of the world sees yet another example of a president being made to look weak, silly and dangerously naive about the rules of the game he's now playing.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2018, 07:53:11 AM by Dave_Manchester »
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.

Offline Kattelox

  • Cart Corral Crusader
  • Posts: 4941
RYM || Last.FM
"No Christ, God, nor religion gave me the answers I was looking for" - Timo Tolkki

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4938
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #625 on: July 26, 2018, 11:07:19 AM »
Also, if wanting to be a fascist dictator made you a fascist dictator, then every leader in the world and every CEO on the planet, and probably Stadler, is a fascist dictator.

Bro, what about me??
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13890
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #626 on: July 26, 2018, 11:32:21 AM »
That is the danger of Trump's method. He uses dumb and obvious bullying tactics against entities that simply cannot be bullied. He uses bone-headed kindergarten-level intimidation techniques against people who can't be intimidated. Not only this, but they are experienced experts in effortlessly dealing with bullies. Trump is now dealing with (among others) a former director of the KGB, and a man who brought the entire Communist Party of China under his near-total control. Trump imagines he is at that level. He isn't. He is so painfully out of his depth in the game that he seems to want to play that it's grimly fascinating watching him embarrass himself like this with his various Tweets and apocalyptic vows. He thinks he is the most powerful man in the room because of his nuclear button. He isn't. He's actually very weak. And if you're weak, you need to use intelligence and guile to overcome your enemies. 'Intelligence' and 'guile' are not words most commonly used in association with the political method of Donald Trump.

I want to stay away from "weak" and "strong", because it's far too situational to assess on a blanket level.  Even in a singular situation - say, a meeting with Putin - there are moments of weakness - he's likely woefully underprepared psychologically to engage with Putin - and moments of strength - Putin likely doesn't like some of the NATO discussions, or the tariff discussions that make it less likely that someone might buy Russian oil.    Plus, none of us have ever been in a room with him, and we don't have any idea to what degree his public demeanor is tailored to the lights and cameras.   It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there was some element of "don't believe everything you see" to some of his conversations.

But I did highlight a couple words above that are, to me, relevant.   Some - a good part - of negotiating is "emotional", in quotes because it's not really legitimate emotion, but more "non-factual interpersonal communication".   I was in a meeting room not too long ago, and in the prep session we were talking about how our "opponent" had a culture of "win".  So it was less about getting what we wanted in an absolute sense, than it was about  packaging what we wanted in a way that allowed them to go back and say, internally, "win".  In a negotiation, nothing is left to chance (at least by good negotiators).   I will often plan out how I want a conversation to start.   On this issue, I will initiate the discussion, because I want to position the argument (or I want to gauge their reaction).   On other issues, I will wait until they bring it up to be the one reacting.   My greatest fear in a negotiation is that they come in with something I didn't anticipate.   My wildest dream in a negotiation is that they come in with an approach/position that I've anticipated, role-played and prepared a response.    Trump being "obvious" makes too many of his negotiations a "wildest dream" for the other side.   

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 775
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #627 on: July 26, 2018, 01:30:27 PM »
Yesterday it was the all-caps threat of nuclear war with Iran (who immediately laughed at him by the way). Tomorrow he'll pick a fight with Turkey. Nothing ever has time to stick, and that's a deliberate strategy from him.

Told you. Absolutely right on cue:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1022502465147682817

"The United States will impose large sanctions on Turkey for their long time detainment of Pastor Andrew Brunson, a great Christian, family man and wonderful human being. He is suffering greatly. This innocent man of faith should be released immediately!"
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 775
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #628 on: July 26, 2018, 02:25:57 PM »
And I think that will serve as my reply to your previous post Stadler, about 'strong' and 'weak'. The United States is very strong, no question about that (though if I'm to believe your media your strength is overstated - "the greatest and most advanced technological nation the planet has ever seen" had their precious election system successfully fucked with by a handful of GRU operatives?), but its president is weak, and there is a real danger he is going to irreparably weaken his country with this constant telegraphing of his geopolitical moves. If a very low-level political dogsbody like me can predict with pinpoint precision what, when and why President Trump will do things, imagine what the people far above me are able to do. Imagine what China's Ministry of State Security is able to do. 

Since you've got me on the subject of a country's strengths and weaknesses - Trump needs to understand what America's strengths are, and on what they are based. Trump thinks his military and his beloved and much-vaunted 'red button' is what makes America strong. It isn't. Nuclear weapons are a last line of defence against bullies, not a tool to be used by them, as he seems to think, and for all my ranting over the years about American warmongering and aggression, it actually isn't your weapons that made and make you strong (you generally just beat up kids who can't hope to defend themselves, and when you try to take on a properly armed people the Vietnamese showed us what happens). Your strength is your wealth, and the foundations of that wealth. It is also a kind of political intelligence that made other, more civilised countries put their trust in America to act as their leader on the world stage. In my opinion, Trump is in very real danger of fucking over your economy and your position as centre of the global financial structure, and also of abdicating America's role as 'leader' of the Western nations. I give Trump credit for (correctly) identifying China as the greatest existential threat to America, but he is going about countering that threat in entirely the wrong way. Posting on Twitter (on April 9th of this year) "President Xi and I will always be friends, no matter what happens with our dispute on trade" was such an indescribably fucking stupid thing to write, and it shows he has absolutely no idea what Xi's intentions for America are.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 775
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #629 on: July 26, 2018, 03:51:30 PM »
Sorry for the triple post, but this just conveniently came up on the BBC website 10 minutes ago. An Iranian general issues a warning to Trump:

Major General Qassem Soleimani vowed that if Mr Trump started a war, the Islamic Republic would end it, Iranian news agency Tasnim reported.

It follows Mr Trump's all-caps-lock tweet warning Iran's president to "never, ever" threaten the US.

Maj Gen Soleimani - who leads the Quds Force of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards - was quoted on Thursday as saying: "As a soldier, it is my duty to respond to your threats.

"Talk to me, not to the president [Hassan Rouhani]. It is not in our president's dignity to respond to you.

"We are near you, where you can't even imagine. Come. We are ready.

"If you begin the war, we will end the war. You know that this war will destroy all that you possess."

He also accused the US president of using the language of "night clubs and gambling halls".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44973696


And believe it or not, despite all of America's military, the Iranian general is correct in what he says. America will not and cannot win a war with Iran, because the set of powers that would presently stand against the US in that war can't be matched. Iran knows this. The world knows it. Trump presumably knows it. His base don't, which is why he plays the big tough guy on Twitter to compensate for soiling himself on camera when he was standing next to Putin.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.