It is stupid to consider Trump’s unpredictability an asset. Read Budget Player Cadet’s excellent post above to understand why. You really think America’s foreign policy should be based on this?
Putin believes he can control Trump through flattery. I’m pretty sure he can, too. Even before taking office, Trump already finds himself at odds with his own party members for his affection for Putin and his (Trump’s) pro-Russian stance, going so far as to dispute and deny our own intelligence on the matter. What a sad state of affairs that is.
I’ve already read BPC’s post. If you were paying attention you would probably have noticed that my initial comment on this subject was in response to BPC’s post.
I’ve not said that Trump’s unpredictability is an asset. I only said that WRT one specific issue brought up by BPC - whether Putin was likely to challenge the US via military adventurism - Trump’s unpredictability is an asset.
But speaking of stupid, I’ll tell you something that’s really stupid. It’s deciding that since you really really dislike Trump, you are going to consider every single aspect of his presidency a negative in every possible way, and won’t consider the possibility that there could be any sort of positive aspect at all. That’s stupid. Certain people are prone to that, nonetheless.
Suppose you are the guy in some foreign country who makes the decision. Russia, China, Iran, doesn’t matter, pick one. And a high tension situation between your country and the US emerges. The kind of situation where one fuck-up on either side and the results are counted in megadeath. Ans you’re looking for the first steps in the tip-toe dance of de-escalating.
Would you rather have Trump on the other end of the phone, or Hillary?
If you’re looking for de-escalating, you want Hillary. But if you’re looking to escalate, you also want Hillary.
BPC was suggesting that Trump would make it more likely that Putin would “invad[e] some dinky NATO member”. The opposite is true. To the extent that you’re willing to play high stakes chicken - and there’s considerable speculation that Putin is willing to do this - you’re more afraid of the loose cannon than of the conventional pol.
Since the intent of your post is thinly veiled, let me say that I’m perfectly willing to give Trump credit when he does something positive. So far, the record is dismal. I detest all of his cabinet appointments. I was startled when he scolded Republicans for trying to weaken and/or do away with the independent ethics committee. Seemed so out of character and frankly, ironic. But yes; a positive.
Not to worry – Trump enjoys the benefit of exceedingly low expectations from me. It won’t take much to impress.
If ever there was a false flag it’s that softball letting him look good in spite of himself.
I think the junior members got triumphal, thinking the lifelong party was just getting started (Like not a few here) and they could do anything, and senior members got ahold of don the con and told him it was the worst look ever, especially when you have long term oligarchy in mind.
Trump is really a troll on the electorate and his positives are nonexistent at the moment. It’s really the wrong season and the wrong pres elect to start getting red about how people aren’t seeing positives. I mean really.
I’m pretty sure he is soft on Putins adventures and I don’t see why that would change. Putin wanted him in there.
I would ask: is don the con mysterious? He’s predictable, to Putin as he is to us. That argument fails.
Yeah. It’s unusual for a politician. Because of literally everything I just brought up. Because when you’re the president, the ships your loose lips sink may very well be the USS Ronald Reagan. Because your words hold substantial power, and just “saying things” can be stupidly dangerous. And yes, as others have pointed out, if he actually believed half of what he was saying, he’s dangerously delusional as well - did he honestly believe that he was being unfairly treated by the debate commission when they ran one or two debates up against NFL games (which they could not reasonably have dodged)? Did he honestly believe that Aleppo had “already fallen”?
It’s certainly extraordinary. Not in any good way, though. It’s a dire indication of how stupid the American populace are.
Look at the specific example. Trump said pretty clearly that our allies in NATO need to “pull their weight”, or we would stop supporting them. You’d rather invade, say, Croatia, under a president who has said in no uncertain terms that we would support our allies in NATO, or under a president who has said, well, the opposite? Loose cannon or not, Trump’s unclear foreign policy position constitutes a risk.
I beg to differ. We know what Trump did, as does Putin. He dismissed reality. Intelligent people would reasonably infer that past behaviour is a good indicator of future behaviour.
While I appreciate the desire to look for the silver lining in Trump’s severely flawed persona, I see no advantage in viewing his “upredictability” as an asset for the position of POTUS. What’s more, his upredictability has become nothing but predictable at this point. Trump can be counted on acting like a petulant and immature loudmouth rhetorically, but when faced with actual authority, (i.e. Mexican President), he suddenly turns to milquetoast. Imagine him being faced and challenged by Putin; Trump will fold like the cheap suits that he wears.
Trump is Putin’s muppet at this point, at best, he’s Putin’s useful idiot, and there is no evidence that he will behave otherwise when he assumes the position of POTUS. Thus far, Trump being a “wild card”, has only served to negatively impact US standing and only NATO allies are concerned about the (negative) impact he’ll have as POTUS.
Trump is a master propagandist who tricks the fourth estate into reporting on irrelevancies so that the voting public doesn’t find out about the significant stuff he’s doing, stuff that would cause a genuine outrage if folks knew about it.
I’m a little confused whether you think this second alternative is a defense of his behavior.
Similarly, aldiboronti, you seem to find it refreshing that we’ve elected a man as president whose grasp on reality is so tenuous that he’s literally incapable of dishonesty, inasmuch as, like a two-year-old, he cannot hold in his head one idea as true but speak another idea out loud.
If you find yourself defending your party’s leader in such terms, perhaps it’s time to reconsider.
A 20-something in The Atlantic explains why he supports Trump. His post is long; this is the very beginning and the very end of it.
Note his belief that the function of a competent government is to “deliver constant gains to living standards, widely distributed prosperity.” IS this the function of government?
Who can blame her? She gave thoughtful, empathetic answers about Trump voters, West Virginia miners, and the victims of Benghazi, to name a few, but all that was reported was “deplorable”, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business,”, and “what does it matter?” all taken completely out of context.
Note also his complete lack of awareness of the facts of the past 8 years of Obama’s presidency on the issues he considers key to Trump’s success:
[QUOTE=20-something]
Instead, my concerns will be very basic. Does he improve economic growth? Does he reduce crime? Reduce unemployment rates? Increase average incomes?
[/QUOTE]
Not for nothing, but the above is a blatant strawman. Explain to me why I should entertain it?
Rather easily, considering Trump has never said nor insinuated anything of the sort. Are you trying to be a caricature of liberals?
Are you looking for a serious response, or are you content to engage in histrionics? Because if it’s the latter, I’m more than content to let you do so for the next four, and hopefully eight, years.
Considering that the US has hundreds of troops stationed in countries along Russia’s border, and missiles in Europe aimed directly as Russia, yes, I do think he’d be worried about potential conflict with the US should Hillary, a known war hawk, have won. I mean, explain to me why he wouldn’t prefer the person who would rather some semblance of diplomacy to the person who talked about doing things to antagonize Russia, and even talked openly about engaging in actions that would lead to outright conflict with Russia (like establishing a NFZ in Syria)? While I understand that it’s suddenly become all the rage among leftists to beat the war drum in regards to-- how did Obama put it?-- “a declining regional power”, that doesn’t make it any less asinine of a suggestion or a position to take.
Where did I attribute benevolence to Putin? You’ve completely made that up.
Everyone wants the government to do that. The arguments and the differences are about the means and the limitations on the government in pursuit of those goals. For a lot of conservatives, those goals do NOT justify the means used (that apart from arguments whether the means actually further those goals).