Straight Dope Message Board

[Intergalactic Gladiator]

The revolving door on the clown car that is this administration spins again.

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/72436...qVfrI70rP-NWLY 1

[ElvisL1ves]

The scary thought is that maybe, once again, the less batshit guy is out. 2

[Richard Parker]

It is just possible that there is actually no worse American to have in that role than John Bolton. Anyone more qualified will be a blessing and anyone less qualified will have even less sway. He was in an uncanny valley of being remotely qualified but also a total nutjob which made him really dangerous. We should count our blessings that he was incapable of being sufficiently sycophantic to persuade Trump to launch any new wars. 3

[iiandyiiii]

Glad he's out. One of the absolute worst people from the Bush administration. 4

[bobot]

And according to each of their Twitter pages, he and Trump have differing things to say about how it ended. So the administration's credibility is where it's always been. 5

[Jonathan Chance]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

The scary thought is that maybe, once again, the less batshit guy is out.

Gonna be hard to find someone more batshit that John "We HAVE an army, why don't we use it?" Bolton. 6

[Lamoral]

I hate him so much I actually don't even care about the circumstances of his departure. It's a huge relief. The guy was really, really horrible. I would take a Trump cabinet with the turnover rate of an Applebee's, over George W. Bush and his very stable and predictable menagerie of stone-cold evil.

I fucking hate, HATE Trump, but if a guy like John Bolton is unable to work with him, that's a point in Trump's favor as far as I'm concerned, loath as I am to say it.

There are a lot of things to hate about Trump. But the Bush era foreign policy was 100x worse. 7

[Aspenglow]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance

Gonna be hard to find someone more batshit that John "We HAVE an army, why don't we use it?" Bolton.

Well... "We HAVE nuclear weapons, why don't we use them?" 8

[Velocity]

So I'm curious. Was Bolton too hawkish for Trump, or not enough? 9

[Jonathan Chance]

Originally Posted by Lamoral

I hate him so much I actually don't even care about the circumstances of his departure. It's a huge relief. The guy was really, really horrible. I would take a Trump cabinet with the turnover rate of an Applebee's, over George W. Bush and his very stable and predictable menagerie of stone-cold evil.

And thus we see the difference in reaction between incompetent evil and very competent disdain. 10

[E-DUB]

I'm torn between being glad that this chicken-hawk nutcase is gone and worried about whatever obsequious toady trump will find to take his place. 11

[ElvisL1ves]

Whoever it is will be on an "acting" basis. He sees no need to bother with Senate confirmations anymore. 12

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by Velocity

So I'm curious. Was Bolton too hawkish for Trump, or not enough?

Trump doesn't have stable views about the world. He doesn't fire people because he disagrees with them. He fires them because they step on his narcissism. Bolton probably didn't behave as Trump wanted for some Fox News segment or refused to stay at Trump properties while traveling.

Trump knew Bolton was a warmonger when he hired him. So all the talk about them diverging on policy is just some post hoc rationalization for what will turn out to be some petty bullshit. 13

[Aspenglow]

Originally Posted by E-DUB

I'm torn between being glad that this chicken-hawk nutcase is gone and worried about whatever obsequious toady trump will find to take his place.

Your statement sums up my feelings exactly.

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Whoever it is will be on an "acting" basis. He sees no need to bother with Senate confirmations anymore.

I see a dual role appointment for Mike Pompeo in the near future. 14

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Velocity

So I'm curious. Was Bolton too hawkish for Trump, or not enough?

He was always being sold in the MSM as the guy who wanted war with Iran, so I am guessing "too hawkish". But who knows? It's not like the press is going to label anything Trump does as a good idea.

Regards,
Shodan 15

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Aspenglow

Well... "We HAVE nuclear weapons, why don't we use them?"

On hurricanes.

And before that,

“Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can’t we use them,” Scarborough said on his “Morning Joe” program.

16

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Shodan

He was always being sold in the MSM as the guy who wanted war with Iran, so I am guessing "too hawkish". But who knows? It's not like the press is going to label anything Trump does as a good idea.

Regards,
Shodan

The press? You mean "The enemy of the people" We all know that Trump is full of fantastic ideas, the best. And it's only "The Press" who talks them down all the time.

Trump has the best ideas. Everyone says so. Just the other day, a general came up to Trump and said "Sir, Mister President Sir, you have the best ideas, and everyone in America knows it." 17

[FlikTheBlue]

Supposedly this has to do with a planned meeting at Camp David between representatives from the Afghan government and the Taliban. Bolton was against the peace talks.

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/75926...n-is-different

I don’t know enough about the current situation to say whether these talks are a good idea or not, but as a few others have noted I think Bolton almost certainly would prefer war over peace. Trump seems to have lucked into the correct decision this time. 18

[Buck Godot]

Originally Posted by Velocity

So I'm curious. Was Bolton too hawkish for Trump, or not enough?

I would guess too knowledgeable. Bolton was a dangerous, jingoist war monger but he was at least knowledgeable about foreign policy. I would imagine Trump's random shifting pronouncements based on his gut and what he saw last night on Fox and friends must have eventually been too much for Bolton to handle. 19

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by Lamoral

There are a lot of things to hate about Trump. But the Bush era foreign policy was 100x worse.

This is a common sentiment, but I am not sure I agree. Bush's warmongering was at least partly reactionary, and public opinion was much more hawkish than now. Give Trump the same set of circumstances and there's no way he shows restraint.

In fact, note the way Trump casually throws out threats of "fire and fury" and admiration of nuclear weapons. No-one should kid themselves that we're in the safe zone of foreign policy now. 20

[ElvisL1ves]

Bush did it, while Trump so far has not. That's a difference. 21

[Lamoral]

I don't believe that Trump is going to start a war, no.

I think I have a pretty good "read" on public figures and their motivations. My take on Trump is that he knows he only has to maintain the status quo in order to be re-elected (this is something that people might disagree with, but it's what I believe.) As long as the economy, gas prices, and access to the necessities and distractions of life, remain the same on Election Day, I think all Trump will really have to do is campaign the same way he did in 2016, and he can win.

He knows that he has a formula that works, and to throw a war into it would be messing with the formula, and I don't think he'll do it. People have been constantly insisting for the past 3 years that Trump would be throwing us into open military conflict with various parties, but it hasn't materialized and I don't believe it will. 22

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by Shodan

He was always being sold in the MSM as the guy who wanted war with Iran, so I am guessing "too hawkish". But who knows? It's not like the press is going to label anything Trump does as a good idea.

It's not really journalists' place to say whether a given firing is right or not.

But I am sure that the opinion shows will say this is a good thing (though also be nervous about what's coming next).
Majority report, TYT, Pakman etc do give Trump credit for things. It's just rare because he rarely does sensible things. 23

[elucidator]

That is a reasonable position. And therein lies the problem. 24

[FlikTheBlue]

Originally Posted by Lamoral

I don't believe that Trump is going to start a war, no.

I think I have a pretty good "read" on public figures and their motivations. My take on Trump is that he knows he only has to maintain the status quo in order to be re-elected (this is something that people might disagree with, but it's what I believe.) As long as the economy, gas prices, and access to the necessities and distractions of life, remain the same on Election Day, I think all Trump will really have to do is campaign the same way he did in 2016, and he can win.

He knows that he has a formula that works, and to throw a war into it would be messing with the formula, and I don't think he'll do it. People have been constantly insisting for the past 3 years that Trump would be throwing us into open military conflict with various parties, but it hasn't materialized and I don't believe it will.

Trump can "fake news" his way out of things like a trade war with China, the effects of his immigration policy, etc. He wouldn't be able to claim "fake news" if Americans start coming home in body bags from a war that he started, and even he's smart enough to realize that, so I think you're correct that this is what Trump is thinking. 25

[pool]

He probably fired him cause he wouldn't shave that atrocious mustache. 26

[Mijin]

Well, I disagree, but this is one time where I hope I am never proven right.

I would agree that he has no ideology pushing him towards war. But he also doesn't give a shit about other humans.
Imagine some provoking incident happened and a reasonable proportion of his base were pushing for war. Heck, imagine that they cheer at his rallies when he muses sending troops over. You think he'd hesitate?

The fact it hasn't happened yet is just luck 27

[squeegee]

I think the obvious reason Bolton is gone is that canceling the Taliban talks on an impetuous whim was Trump's decision, and that decision makes him look like an idiot, so he had to lash out at someone rather than blame himself (all but impossible). 28

[Velocity]

The CNN coverage I'm seeing right now makes it sound like Trump made a bad decision by firing Bolton. 29

[joebuck20]

Cue Nelson Muntz laugh:

Ha Ha!

What a dumbass, what a maroon you were, John Bolton, for thinking you could trust or have any real influence on Trump. Glad to see him on his ass. 30

[FlikTheBlue]

Originally Posted by Mijin

Well, I disagree, but this is one time where I hope I am never proven right.

I would agree that he has no ideology pushing him towards war. But he also doesn't give a shit about other humans.
Imagine some provoking incident happened and a reasonable proportion of his base were pushing for war. Heck, imagine that they cheer at his rallies when he muses sending troops over. You think he'd hesitate?

The fact it hasn't happened yet is just luck

As the old saying goes, sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. 31

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Mijin

It's not really journalists' place to say whether a given firing is right or not.

But I am sure that the opinion shows will say this is a good thing (though also be nervous about what's coming next).
Majority report, TYT, Pakman etc do give Trump credit for things. It's just rare because he rarely does sensible things.

No no no. Get with the program! The press is "the enemy of the people", all they want is to Destroy America And It's Hopes For Greatness. 32

[Euphonious Polemic]

Trump Tweet, 10:49 AM - 9 Sep 2019

The Dishonest Media likes to create the look of turmoil in the White House, of which there is none.

Trump Tweet, 8:58 AM - 10 Sep 2019
I informed John Bolton last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House. I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration...

You see? No turmoil! Nothing to see! Dishonest media! 33

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue

Trump can "fake news" his way out of things like a trade war with China, the effects of his immigration policy, etc. He wouldn't be able to claim "fake news" if Americans start coming home in body bags from a war that he started, and even he's smart enough to realize that, so I think you're correct that this is what Trump is thinking.

Trump does not give his supporters enough credit then. If hundreds of dead soldiers, marines and airforce were coming home in body bags, the Trumpistas would claim that they were actually crisis actors, and the fake news was making it all up. 34

[FlikTheBlue]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

Trump does not give his supporters enough credit then. If hundreds of dead soldiers, marines and airforce were coming home in body bags, the Trumpistas would claim that they were actually crisis actors, and the fake news was making it all up.

Easy enough to do when the dead are people you don't know. When it's you own brother, sister, husband, or wife, it's a lot harder to pretend. 35

[Icarus]

Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue

Trump can "fake news" his way out of things like a trade war with China, the effects of his immigration policy, etc. He wouldn't be able to claim "fake news" if Americans start coming home in body bags from a war that he started, and even he's smart enough to realize that, so I think you're correct that this is what Trump is thinking.

Nah, Trump really really REALLY wants a Nobel Peace Prize. After all, that awful nasty man Obama has one, so Trump has to one-up him. He thought he could get one with North Korea, but yeah, not so much. So, let's try with the Taliban?

But bottom line, on the one hand I think he would gladly nuke Iran, but on the other hand he wants the Nobel, and IMHO that is a bigger motivator for him. So, no wars! Yay! (And we all KNOW Hillary would have started wars all over the place, right?)

Regarding Bolton, once Trump figured out that he was going to stand in his way getting the Nobel, well, that's an easy decision. 36

[QuickSilver]

Surely Jarred must have achieved peace in the ME by now. I'm sure he's got time to spare for the NSA position. 37

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Bush did it, while Trump so far has not. That's a difference.

Trump would never start a nuclear war until after he's been re-elected. He wouldn't want the world to end with him as a one-term President. 38

[Lamoral]

I just really don't think Donald Trump wants to be involved in war, full stop. He surely likes the fact that he can order the military around (or so he thinks) but no, I do not believe he is a warmonger at all. Trump is a hedonist. He has always been a hedonist at his core. He is interested primarily in enriching himself, promoting himself, and being the center of attention.

He may not be an intelligent or thoughtful man, but he knows damn well that starting a real, honest to God shooting war would be a gigantic headache. For himself. And so that's why he won't do it. Not because he cares about world peace or any higher purpose, just because he knows that it would disrupt his own life's work, which is: being Donald Trump.

A war during his first term would jeopardize his re-election. A war during his second term would jeopardize his "yuge" legacy.

He knows goddamn good and well that George W. Bush's legacy was utterly ruined by his war - indeed, he campaigned on it himself. And while he may SAY that he could fight a war better than his predecessors, there is no way in hell that he's going to try, because he knows the consequences of failure would be too damaging to his own ego. 39

[JKellyMap]

True. I think it’s more a logical part of his overall lack of interest in ANYTHING beyond the US borders. 99 times out of 100, this means bad things (immigration, trade, ripping up pacts right and left...), but it also means one good thing: truly not wanting to get entangled in foreign places militarily, either. So, Bolton gone. 40

[BobLibDem]

Love the Huffington Post headline: QUACK HAWK DOWN

It will be difficult, even for Donald, to find someone worse. Bolton has an ideology: he fucking loves war. Especially against Muslims. I don't think Donald has an ideology. Foreign policy is just an avenue to get more attention for himself. Bring the troops home, send more away, bomb some non-white people, he honestly doesn't give a shit. But publicly disagree with him- them's fightin' words. 41

[Boycott]

Originally Posted by Icarus

Nah, Trump really really REALLY wants a Nobel Peace Prize. After all, that awful nasty man Obama has one, so Trump has to one-up him. He thought he could get one with North Korea, but yeah, not so much. So, let's try with the Taliban?

But bottom line, on the one hand I think he would gladly nuke Iran, but on the other hand he wants the Nobel, and IMHO that is a bigger motivator for him. So, no wars! Yay! (And we all KNOW Hillary would have started wars all over the place, right?)

Regarding Bolton, once Trump figured out that he was going to stand in his way getting the Nobel, well, that's an easy decision.

That probably explains why Trump revoked the instruction on counts of civillian deaths by US drone strikes being published. Don't want to let everyone know he's beaten Obama on that count.

Ron Paul in 2017 reported this:

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/...did-in-8-years 42

[Kent Clark]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance

Gonna be hard to find someone more batshit that John "We HAVE an army, why don't we use it?" Bolton.

At least Bolton never suggested using the Army to fight a hurricane that he insisted was headed for Alabama. 43

[Icarus]

Originally Posted by Lamoral

He knows goddamn good and well that George W. Bush's legacy was utterly ruined by his war - indeed, he campaigned on it himself. And while he may SAY that he could fight a war better than his predecessors, there is no way in hell that he's going to try, because he knows the consequences of failure would be too damaging to his own ego.

That is another good point. Trump campaigned on isolationism, so a desire to avoid wars is consistent with that philosophy. 44

[Sherrerd]

Originally Posted by pool

He probably fired him cause he wouldn't shave that atrocious mustache.

That actually probably was a good 65% of it. Trump is very fixated on "out of Central Casting" appearances for all those associated with him.

The other 35% was some combination of 'not sycophantic enough' and 'actually criticized ME!!!1!' and 'I won't get the Nobel with this guy urging war all the time.'

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

Trump has the best ideas. Everyone says so. Just the other day, a general came up to Trump and said "Sir, Mister President Sir, you have the best ideas, and everyone in America knows it."

Was the general crying manly tears? I bet he was crying manly tears.

Originally Posted by Aspenglow

I see a dual role appointment for Mike Pompeo in the near future.

Yes, I think this is the most likely development. There's precedent: Henry Kissinger was both SoS and NSA.

And Pompeo gives Trump the exact brand of toadying flattery* Trump likes. More of that will be just to Trump's taste.



*the kind with religious underpinnings: Trump being The Chosen One, etc. 45

[Pork Rind]

I figure given the trajectory that Trump with trot out Erik Prince next. 46

[cutman74]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

The press? You mean "The enemy of the people" We all know that Trump is full of fantastic ideas, the best. And it's only "The Press" who talks them down all the time.

Trump has the best ideas. Everyone says so. Just the other day, a general came up to Trump and said "Sir, Mister President Sir, you have the best ideas, and everyone in America knows it."

And his eyes were brimming with tears while he said this. Great big guy. Believe me. 47

[cutman74]

Fuck! ninja'd by EP 48

[cutman74]

Sorry ninja'd by Sherrerd. Been drinkin' 49

[HMS Irruncible]

Originally Posted by boblibdem

love the huffington post headline: Quack hawk down

nice 50