That taking to Twitter has been effective for Trump?
Please. It’s beyond a doubt.
How about effective for America?
While I agree with you in substance, I disagree with your final sentence. Given the stakes I am quite sure that all world leaders are going to pore over his tweets very carefully. Not in the way that the New York times did in which each word is ascribed a possible nuance like Alan Greenspan’s “irrational exuberance”
Rather to try and figure out what whims are going through his head, who he has been talking to and where it might lead him. Like a psychoanalyst interpreting the incoherent ramblings of a patient in order to gain insight into the nature of his psychosis.
I don’t feel afraid, personally. Twitter is indeed effective at stirring shit up. Is it effective at reducing the long-term chances of nuclear conflict? I guess we’ll have to see, won’t we?
Heck, maybe an unconventional blustery off-the-cuff write-now-think-never approach might indeed break up several decades-long diplomatic logjams that we’ve casually come to accept as the status quo. Of course, the main advantage of the status quo is that it offers reasonable certainty of continued survival.
I think I answered that a couple questions ago. If it forces the discussion (as it has) and has an effect of limiting / managing what Russia (et al) does, then great. A simple tweet knocks out a shit ton of back-channel talk, threats, and time.
If it leads to what the tweet insinuates, that we move policy and action wise to counter what we perceive as threats with strength and a renewed effort to go one on one, which practically destroyed Russia before, as a policy or reaction to the same in spirit and action from their side, then I’m behind that too.
It’s not even close to that stage yet and already you’re crying, complaining, and whining that it’s too much too soon. Which leads me to believe you’d rather cower than counter pretty much anything.
I agree with the first part, disagree with the second.
Status quo assumes neither side is moving in any particular direction in any meaningful way. Russia and China are. We’re not.
Of course we can see. Most of us, by far, voted against him. We got screwed by an 18th century electoral system designed by a bunch of wealthy privileged slaveowners intent on protecting their privilege.
The problem isn’t that we can’t see. The problem is that there’s no quick fix that wouldn’t be likely to make things even worse.
Apparently, the best we can hope for at this point is that public pressure plus filibusters can simply maintain the status quo as much as possible.
Removing Trump would leave us with Pence and it’s arguable as to whether he’d be better or worse.
Absolutely. Our only hope between now and 2020 is divine intervention aka, some female karate expert kicking him in the groin, and sending his family jewels into orbit, when he tries grabbing her by the short hairs.
Somehow the number of nukes doesn’t strikes me as all that meaningful, beyond a certain value. Conventional military movements in Ukraine, potential movements against the Baltics or Taiwan, though…
I’m also less-than-convinced by arguments on how important it is to “appear strong”, in the sense that the person accusing a president of failing to appear strong almost always has some bias against that president for other reasons, while similar actions by a different president the speaker happens to like go unremarked.
Also you keep projecting, describing me and others with variations of “fearful”, “cowardly”, “crying” etc. The impression I get is more eye-rolling and “there goes Trump, again” petty annoyance.
Holy crap. “It’s got your side (and experts!) all up in arms and afraid.” :smack:
I can only assume you’re 12 years old (or younger) if you think this is an appropriate way to conduct government business. The world is not a video game, kid.
Huh. I thought the modern Republican admired Putin for being a strong leader and not the kind of guy who’d get warned off by a tweet.
Do you think that people would not pay attention to his statements were he not using Twitter? The man is president-elect of the US, for God’s sake. He could, in the time-honored tradition, float a trial balloon by having “an unnamed source” talk to a reporter and get just as much attention. And that has the advantage that, if the idea turns out to be a bad one, he can deny he was ever considering it.
When he was one of more than a dozen candidates for the Republican nomination, perhaps he needed the attention gotten from outrageous tweets. But it’s over now.
He still needs the attention. Just a whole lot more of it.
Pence is his insurance policy, but does not put us in good hands like Allstate might.
Pence would still be a better president*. Not much better maybe, but I don’t think that Pence would be inclined to discuss US nuclear policy on Twitter.
*Shit, my dog would be a better president than Trump.
Typical redneck “we gots us big boats and mizzels and aeroplanes and bombs” bullshit.
Thanks, Lord, for the generous supply of tough guys. Maybe dial it back a notch? Two? 'Cause this…isn’t working.
I don’t know if that’s projecting but if all you and others are doing is eye-rolling then those comments weren’t meant for you. It was meant for the faction within whichever party thinks this talk (and possible action) marks the end of the world.
It’s meant to keep people / governments honest and act as an overwhelming deterrent.
To your first part I was responding to is the idea that Trumps tweet wasn’t an effective means to convey what he thought. Obliviously it is since it’s got people talking and some … freaking out.
To your second part, no fucking shit you dumbass. Nobody is saying it’s a game. They’re looking at Treaties being broken and ignored, threats being made against the current (relatively peaceful) status quo, and wondering how best to counter that and keep that genie in the box. And for as long as possible.
A whole lot of insinuating and flat out saying we should do nothing in response. Apparently ever, or at some undetermined future point that can’t be explained very well or expected to hold even then, since at that point what you’re or whoever are arguing now could conceivably argue the same then.
Let me ask you since it isn’t clear, what do you propose we do in terms of Russia and their ignoring the START Treaty and developing offensive nuclear weapons? The other countries (China) who continue to grow their defense capabilities and more and more are using them as a threat against their neighbors?
Just give them a good stern talking to?
Hilarious. He needs to keep things like this quiet and secret and when called on it lie.
Hillary supporter, huh?
Effective? Effective beyond a doubt- how?
I know! I know! It has been effective beyond a doubt in establishing that Trump doesn’t know jack fucking shit about U.S. foriegn policy.