:rolleyes:
Lance Turbo said this:
“Sure Donald Trump is weakening NATO, but he’s not weakening weakening NATO.”
I plainly asked him what “weakening weakening” means. I do not understand the distinction between “weakening” and “weakening weakening”. So do me a favor. And I am asking you this nicely. If you can’t read and follow a discussion two other people are having, would it be too much to suggest you just not respond?
Fine. NATO is being weakened because morale is lower under Trump. I don’t know how you actually know that this has happened, but I’ll accept you at your word.
I now acknowledge that NATO has been weakened under Trump.
I thought that was answered.
In any case, insert your favorite affirmative adverb for the first “weakening”. “Really”, “Actually”, “Literally”. If it were spoken, the meaning would be more distinct. In written form, the nuance doesn’t come through as easily.
You had acknowledged that Trump’s actions were harmful to NATO. You also seemed to indicate that it was not harmful enough to NATO to raise to the level you have set for what is an acceptable harm to NATO.
so read it this way “Sure Donald Trump is weakening NATO, but he’s not really weakening NATO.” Would you agree or disagree with that statement?
If you’ve read the whole thread, it will come as no surprise that I agree with your general conclusion. Blackmail is not necessary to get Trump to act as he does, Trump is ignorant of geopolitical affairs, the whole bit. As to what Putin may say to him, who knows, but those seem like reasonable enough guesses.
Thanks for telling me what Lance Turbo meant.
If you remember, I said nations pulling out of NATO would be an example of a weakening. I said it right the fuck up front. Is that a level? If so, yes, I set a level. Happy?
That effectively is worse than having him be blackmailed. He’s an asset to everyone who happens to call him at the right moment.
If only we had a recent example.
I suggest this reply should have gone to Mike Mabes, since I was essentially repeating what he said, but yeah, that makes sense. It’s a lot easier to sweet talk someone, who is susceptible to it, into doing something than having to go out and dig up actual, real-life dirt on him.
It applies perfectly to the notion that the President of the US acts under control of a foreign power because -insert nefarious reason here-.
In fact it fits to a T with the definition shared not long ago.
On post #208 you listed a number of reasons and concluded, regarding Trump actions “Blackmail can do it. I can’t think of anything else that does.”
I’m going to quote Sherlock again:* “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”
*
There are other things that would explain the things you said besides Trump being blackmailed, that you couldn’t think of them means that either you really can’t (even though some were already given in this thread) or, more probably, you don’t accept them, you are making a choice on what you believe and that is that Trump is being controlled by Russia through blackmail.
As for your question, not trustworthy =/= Trump works for the Russians because they are blackmailing him. You think they guy is untrustworthy and unfit to the position (which I agree) fine, but when you start buying and perpetuating conspiracy theories (like the one you advanced about paedophilia) you’ve lost me.
I think the transcript of his call to Erdogan is likely much more treasonous than his call to Zelensky. Let’s not argue about the definition of treason again. I can’t think of a better word when describing Trump’s interactions with other countries.
Treason; criminal disloyalty to the state. Yeah, that describes it.
This is a warning for accusing another poster of trolling or being a troll.
[/moderating]
Just because someone was jailed for statutory rape in their 30s doesn’t mean that they’ll abuse your tween daughter if you hire them as a babysitter. It would still be stupid.
It’s not a conspiracy theory that Trump has close connections to people who trafficked in children, both before and after Epstein. That is documented reality. It’s not based on speculation nor innuendo. It’s statically impossible for anyone to accomplish without a concerted effort to do.
Trustworthiness is not global. I might not trust someone with my tween daughter and yet still trust them to calculate my taxes. These are separate concerns.
If a guy keeps hanging out with people who traffick women and children and there’s some amount of evidence that he may have done the same, then making a national security bet that he didn’t go all in is stupid. It’s a concern because there’s genuine reason to be concerned in that specific area. It might be unjustified, if you had perfect knowledge of all things. It’s possible that he’s completely innocent. It’s possible that a guy can have ten friends who are all goths and not himself be a goth. But making those bets, in the face of national security is reckless.
Final thoughts on NATO:
I can also imagine a scenario in which NATO was strengthened because Trump said he was going to pull us out:
Trump makes his statement. Members of NATO, the actual people involved in it on a day to day basis, are appalled. Morale takes a dive. But, the fact that Trump made his statement encourages people in the US and elsewhere to raise a ruckus about Trump’s ridiculous idea. These people stress the importance of NATO to the security of the west. We are all reminded of this, as are NATO workers, and this reaffirms the worth of what they do. Morale rises to new heights. Now, I say again, I have no idea what the morale of NATO is. But I think this scenario is plausible, and diminished morale is not a foregone conclusion.
You did not say that that was your only benchmark for determining if NATO had been weakened, just that that was an example.
IMHO, if nations are pulling out of NATO, it is not weakened, it is broken. It is the weakening of NATO that will cause nations to consider pulling out of it.
You’re a big fan of Occam’s Razor…
Which requires more assumptions, your convoluted reverse fakey jake morale boost scenario or… ?
There was never a doubt that the US would fulfill its Article V obligations until Trump. Now there is and NATO is weaker as a result.
To be a conspiracy theory as the phrase is understood, it needs to explain a situation or event as a conspiracy among powerful and/or hidden figures,** when other explanations seem more probable.** (Aronovitch, 2009).
If you want to reject the notion of Trump being a thrall of Putin as a conspiracy theory, you must provide one or more alternative explanations that are clearly better explanations of why Trump acts the way he does. That is what conspiracy theory means.
Providing explanations of roughly equal probability is advancing competing theories, it does not reduce the “compromat” theory to a conspiracy theory. If you wish to use “conspiracy theory” as a derogative to dismiss the notion that Putin has Trump by the balls, you have to provide something that is clearly better.
" …something that is clearly better."
I believe the competing theory is “stupidity and incompetence”.
Its a possible theory. It does however, require Trumps stupidity and incompetence to always come out in Putins favor. As Trump keeps coming down on the side of Putins agenda over and over again, randomness seem a more and more remote possibility.
“Well, of course!” would be my first reaction. But this is how silly this has gotten. I am forced to ask you now, what is your standard of weakened vs broken? If one nation pulls out, is that broken, or just weakened? Two? Seven?
Says who that there is a doubt? Who precisely is saying that? Yes, it plausible. It’s reasonable. And for all I know you are 100% correct. But the only proof you’ve offered is that you say it’s so.
I will respond, but man, I would really rather drop this. I have nothing more to say.
P.S.
Sorry about the silly remark 