US Politics: He's Trump, he's Trump, he's Trump, he's in my head

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Let's just clarify a few things here. There is a difference between criticizing Trump for whatever he does, and disagreeing with a specific course of action he takes. In the case of the anti-Trump camp, they would criticize him if he did nothing in Syria, saying that he is in Putin's pocket, and they would criticize him if he launched a strike in Syria, as you guys are now indeed doing.

So he is damned, whatever he does. Similarly in Korea, you would criticize him if he did nothing, and point to his hypocrisy in criticizing Obama for not being forceful enough, and you criticize him now, when he sends carriers to Korea to oppose Korean aggression.

Simply not true. I would greatly prefer he do nothing militarily in regards to Syria or North Korea. I would in fact applaud him for showing restraint in both instances. I believe this to be true of many who are critical of Trump. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

So he is damned, whatever he does. Similarly in Korea, you would criticize him if he did nothing, and point to his hypocrisy in criticizing Obama for not being forceful enough, and you criticize him now, when he sends carriers to Korea to oppose Korean aggression.

My criticism has nothing to do with my politics here. It has to do with assuming a rational actor, as you appear to be doing.

When he actually does something effective please do let us know. So far he's gotten insulted by China, provoked North Korea and destroyed a cafe in Syria. Oh right - did you also forget his awesome plan in Yemen?

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

In my case, I disagree with his actions in Syria, because I feel he should make a deal with the Russians and carve Syria up immediately rather than painting Putin as the enemy as his domestic critics have begged him to do. Because I legitimately feel that taking an active side in the Syrian war is pointless and not worth it.

So why do you think this is a rational choice, then?

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

So maybe this is still the aim, with some token strongarm tactics intended to only set the table for negotiations. Then all ends well. I certainly hope that is the outcome.

Well, if that was the strategy it backfired completely, as Russia and Syria both denounced it and threatened to take serious action if the US does it again, as well as cancelling cooperation that already was in place with the US. 

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

As for Korea. I don't know what the hell the answer is there. Because it is a terrible situation, no matter what you do. But just lambasting Trump for the sake of it, well, that is getting kind of old.

I'm sorry a potential nuclear war happening and criticizing that is getting old for you. That must be really horrible.

What I see is you desperately hoping despite absurdly large evidence to the contrary that Trump is some sort of rational genius in foreign policy - and that you likely voted for him with the other alt-rightists in hoping that he wouldn't intervene. And now you're trying, somehow, to justify those actions that go both against his promises and your desires - and having a lot of problem in that - so instead you're criticizing the people who are also criticizing Trump because you see it as an attack on your own ideals.

My intent is to point out that Trump's actions so far are really really shitty and are not helpful. It's certainly possible that there are no real good actions here, only less bad ones. It's certainly possible that any other POTUS would have the same set of shitty choices to make (Clinton would have bombed the Syrian airfields earlier, for example, though I suspect she wouldn't have given warning and would have done it with the goal of actually stopping airstrikes, not as a ineffective show of force). That, however, does not mean that Trump gets a pass for making shitty decisions and putting into place incredibly incompetent people to reward them for personal loyalty. 

Ultimately my suspicion is that North Korea cannot be solved by the US and that China is the key. Given how the Chinese media laughed at Trump after Xi's visit, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the meeting didn't go so awesome.

[Free Northman Reborn]

52 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

My criticism has nothing to do with my politics here. It has to do with assuming a rational actor, as you appear to be doing.

When he actually does something effective please do let us know. So far he's gotten insulted by China, provoked North Korea and destroyed a cafe in Syria. Oh right - did you also forget his awesome plan in Yemen?

So why do you think this is a rational choice, then?

Well, if that was the strategy it backfired completely, as Russia and Syria both denounced it and threatened to take serious action if the US does it again, as well as cancelling cooperation that already was in place with the US. 

I'm sorry a potential nuclear war happening and criticizing that is getting old for you. That must be really horrible.

What I see is you desperately hoping despite absurdly large evidence to the contrary that Trump is some sort of rational genius in foreign policy - and that you likely voted for him with the other alt-rightists in hoping that he wouldn't intervene. And now you're trying, somehow, to justify those actions that go both against his promises and your desires - and having a lot of problem in that - so instead you're criticizing the people who are also criticizing Trump because you see it as an attack on your own ideals.

My intent is to point out that Trump's actions so far are really really shitty and are not helpful. It's certainly possible that there are no real good actions here, only less bad ones. It's certainly possible that any other POTUS would have the same set of shitty choices to make (Clinton would have bombed the Syrian airfields earlier, for example, though I suspect she wouldn't have given warning and would have done it with the goal of actually stopping airstrikes, not as a ineffective show of force). That, however, does not mean that Trump gets a pass for making shitty decisions and putting into place incredibly incompetent people to reward them for personal loyalty. 

Ultimately my suspicion is that North Korea cannot be solved by the US and that China is the key. Given how the Chinese media laughed at Trump after Xi's visit, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the meeting didn't go so awesome.

Not quite. I think he intended to make a grand deal with Putin, on everything from Ukraine to Syria, but that he let the critics with their ridiculous Putin conspiracy theories get to him, and now he has overreacted in the opposite direction. But my hope is that he quickly realizes this, and uses this as the platform for some real negotiations with Putin.

In a way, the fact that he has now publicly antagonized Putin ironically enough allows him to actually speak to the guy without every Democrat screaming that it is because the guy has videos of him engaging in Golden Showers in a Russian hotel room. So this "rash" action might actually be what opens the door for some talks between the US and Russia. Those talks are apparently only possible if they appear to be antagonistic, else the conspiracy theorists at home think its because Trump was gifted shares in the Russian state oil company or some such baloney.

So yes, the current situation is incredibly tense. And yes, Trump makes plenty of mistakes. And no, I certainly don't claim that he is some genius. But in the end, it might actually allow him to actually negotiate and make a deal with the Russians. Remember, what Putin says in public means nothing. It is whats said behind closed doors that matters.

[Kalbear]

Why does he want to or need to make a deal with Putin, though? Prior to this the US had basically pulled out of dealing with Syria in proper and instead had focused on fighting ISIS and helping allies in Iraq. Putin and others had ignored the US and were negotiating with each other towards a peace agreement. 

Now the US is involved, and that settlement is in possible tatters. What is the US getting out of this? 

[Free Northman Reborn]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Why does he want to or need to make a deal with Putin, though? Prior to this the US had basically pulled out of dealing with Syria in proper and instead had focused on fighting ISIS and helping allies in Iraq. Putin and others had ignored the US and were negotiating with each other towards a peace agreement. 

Now the US is involved, and that settlement is in possible tatters. What is the US getting out of this? 

By making a deal with Putin he could achieve a peace settlement in Syria in exchange for dropping sanctions relating to Ukraine and Crimea. This would serve Putin and would serve the US and Western Europe's interest, as it would close the refugee tap, carve Syria up with safe zones for the rebels, and allow the world to unite against ISIS.

And Trump would look like a deal maker extraordinairre. Not to mention that he might have driven a wedge between Russia and Iran, as Russia was according to reports late last year becoming uneasy with Iran's growing influence in Syria. Getting another UN veto power as an ally would make a lot of negotiations a lot easier around the world, from issues dealing with Israel to North Korea. Maybe not resolving all those issues, but certainly it would help de-escalate them.

Now, the anti-Putin brigade got what they wanted. And it could become a shit storm. Unless they somehow get back to the negotiating table after all.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

By making a deal with Putin he could achieve a peace settlement in Syria in exchange for dropping sanctions relating to Ukraine and Crimea. This would serve Putin and would serve the US and Western Europe's interest, as it would close the refugee tap, carve Syria up with safe zones for the rebels, and allow the world to unite against ISIS.

And Trump would look like a deal maker extraordinairre. Not to mention that he might have driven a wedge between Russia and Iran, as Russia was according to reports late last year becoming uneasy with Iran's growing influence in Syria. Getting another UN veto power as an ally would make a lot of negotiations a lot easier around the world, from issues dealing with Israel to North Korea. Maybe not resolving all those issues, but certainly it would help de-escalate them.

Now, the anti-Putin brigade got what they wanted. And it could become a shit storm. Unless they somehow get back to the negotiating table after all.

Total Pie-In-The-Sky thought here. How is Russia in any position to achieve peace? About the best they could do to that end is to leave. They are in no position to force or broker peace in Syria.

[Week]

8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Not quite. I think he intended to make a grand deal with Putin, on everything from Ukraine to Syria, but that he let the critics with their ridiculous Putin conspiracy theories get to him, and now he has overreacted in the opposite direction. But my hope is that he quickly realizes this, and uses this as the platform for some real negotiations with Putin.

What would make you think he had the ability, willingness, or cache to deal with Putin? Particularly after the stance that Russia took after the attack, Putin is not going to show weakness by cowing to Trump. On the other hand, Trump acknowledging an overreaction and negotiating with Putin? What would make you think that Trump would be willing or capable of doing that? As with all of these - nothing is the answer. Only misguided faith in a charlatan.

Also, since when is the US Intelligence apparatus called "critics"?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/trump-russia-cia-john-brennan.html

8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In a way, the fact that he has now publicly antagonized Putin ironically enough allows him to actually speak to the guy without every Democrat screaming that it is because the guy has videos of him engaging in Golden Showers in a Russian hotel room. So this "rash" action might actually be what opens the door for some talks between the US and Russia. Those talks are apparently only possible if they appear to be antagonistic, else the conspiracy theorists at home think its because Trump was gifted shares in the Russian state oil company or some such baloney.

Misrepresenting the entirety of the Trump(/campaign loyalists)-Russia connection. Or perhaps you missed everything since the unverified dossier was released (perhaps read up on Flynn, Nunes, Manafort, etc.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/trump-russia/?utm_term=.7944072f5c47

[Free Northman Reborn]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Total Pie-In-The-Sky thought here. How is Russia in any position to achieve peace? About the best they could do to that end is to leave. They are in no position to force or broker peace in Syria.

Because if they withdraw support, Assad will be out within 6 months, especially if the US takes sides against him, which they cannot really do while Russia is involved.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

Because if they withdraw support, Assad will be out within 6 months, especially if the US takes sides against him, which they cannot really do while Russia is involved.

You equate Assad being out of power with peace?

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, Week said:

What would make you think he had the ability, willingness, or cache to deal with Putin? Particularly after the stance that Russia took after the attack, Putin is not going to show weakness by cowing to Trump. On the other hand, Trump acknowledging an overreaction and negotiating with Putin? What would make you think that Trump would be willing or capable of doing that? As with all of these - nothing is the answer. Only misguided faith in a charlatan.

Also, since when is the US Intelligence apparatus called "critics"?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/trump-russia-cia-john-brennan.html

Misrepresenting the entirety of the Trump(/campaign loyalists)-Russia connection. Or perhaps you missed everything since the unverified dossier was released (perhaps read up on Flynn, Nunes, Manafort, etc.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/trump-russia/?utm_term=.7944072f5c47

A deal is certainly much tougher now than it would have been if Trump was left in peace to follow his agenda. What's the big deal about the Russia connections, if they result in a deal that works for everyone?

[Free Northman Reborn]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

You equate Assad being out of power with peace?

Oh please. Stop playing dumb here or putting simplistic claims in my mouth.

If the Great Powers agreed, they could enforce a partitioning of Syria fairly easily. One that would result in significant de-escalation of the conflict. But that is not possible when they are at each other's throats.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

By making a deal with Putin he could achieve a peace settlement in Syria in exchange for dropping sanctions relating to Ukraine and Crimea. This would serve Putin and would serve the US and Western Europe's interest, as it would close the refugee tap, carve Syria up with safe zones for the rebels, and allow the world to unite against ISIS.

Putin was already achieving a peace settlement in Syria. They had already had talks with Iran, Syria, Turkey and Iraq. That had started. And it had started without the US. What this did was put that in jeopardy. The US was getting what they wanted, and now they are not as likely to do so without giving something else up. 

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

And Trump would look like a deal maker extraordinairre. Not to mention that he might have driven a wedge between Russia and Iran, as Russia was according to reports late last year becoming uneasy with Iran's growing influence in Syria. Getting another UN veto power as an ally would make a lot of negotiations a lot easier around the world, from issues dealing with Israel to North Korea. Maybe not resolving all those issues, but certainly it would help de-escalate them.

Given that the US has been talking about getting out of the UN I find this analysis lacking. I know how much you personally love Russia and the idea of a US-Russia alliance, but this doesn't really fly at all. And again, how does Trump look like a dealmaker help things when in practical terms he'd be giving up something in exchange for something which was already happening? 

Now, if you're saying that shooting rockets was good for Trump's image and that's why he did it - I partially agree. I also do believe that he got upset with kids dying due to chemicals and wanted to show his displeasure, but I think it's also his impulsivity and lack of ability to consult with others. 

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

Now, the anti-Putin brigade got what they wanted. And it could become a shit storm. Unless they somehow get back to the negotiating table after all.

Again, the anti-Putin brigade got what they wanted? The fuck is this? Sorry, but I didn't want to shoot missiles ineffectively at airbases. Trump did that. I'm sorry that Trump decided to hire several people with connections to Russia in his campaign, and I'm sorry that Trump openly used Russian intel in prosecuting his campaign, but those are actual things he did. I didn't make them up. He fucked this up, and then proceeded to continue to fuck it up, and the person you're most angry with isn't the person who did it but the people who originally blamed him for bad decisions? 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Oh please. Stop playing dumb here or putting simplistic claims in my mouth.

If the Great Powers agreed, they could enforce a partitioning of Syria fairly easily. One that would result in significant de-escalation of the conflict. But that is not possible when they are at each other's throats.

I'm playing dumb? If peace in Syria was as easy as removing Assad, it would've already happened. We've been through this. It was called Iraq. How did that work out? 

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Putin was already achieving a peace settlement in Syria. They had already had talks with Iran, Syria, Turkey and Iraq. That had started. And it had started without the US. What this did was put that in jeopardy. The US was getting what they wanted, and now they are not as likely to do so without giving something else up. 

Given that the US has been talking about getting out of the UN I find this analysis lacking. I know how much you personally love Russia and the idea of a US-Russia alliance, but this doesn't really fly at all. And again, how does Trump look like a dealmaker help things when in practical terms he'd be giving up something in exchange for something which was already happening? 

Now, if you're saying that shooting rockets was good for Trump's image and that's why he did it - I partially agree. I also do believe that he got upset with kids dying due to chemicals and wanted to show his displeasure, but I think it's also his impulsivity and lack of ability to consult with others. 

Again, the anti-Putin brigade got what they wanted? The fuck is this? Sorry, but I didn't want to shoot missiles ineffectively at airbases. Trump did that. I'm sorry that Trump decided to hire several people with connections to Russia in his campaign, and I'm sorry that Trump openly used Russian intel in prosecuting his campaign, but those are actual things he did. I didn't make them up. He fucked this up, and then proceeded to continue to fuck it up, and the person you're most angry with isn't the person who did it but the people who originally blamed him for bad decisions? 

Seems to me that most Democrats supported his missiles pounding some sand in Syria. And Linsay Graham and the other anti-Putin hawks too.

I on the other hand think it was a big mistake.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

Oh please. Stop playing dumb here or putting simplistic claims in my mouth.

If the Great Powers agreed, they could enforce a partitioning of Syria fairly easily. One that would result in significant de-escalation of the conflict. But that is not possible when they are at each other's throats.

They really couldn't, not without massive troop involvement and insurgency crises. There's another issue which is that no one really likes the rebels save, perhaps, Iran. No one likes Assad either save Russia, but there's no 'good' side for the US to align with in Syria.

Quote

A deal is certainly much tougher now than it would have been if Trump was left in peace to follow his agenda. What's the big deal about the Russia connections, if they result in a deal that works for everyone?

This assumes a deal that 'works for everyone', which is itself pretty problematic. Helping Russia against NATO allies doesn't exactly work that well for the Ukraine or Lithuania, as an example. But again - Trump being 'left in peace' implies that someone outside him was telling him he needed to attack Syria after a gas attack. Somehow Trump is powerless here? Do you really think that Trump is both a master negotiator and completely at the mercy of public opinion?

I also like how an ongoing FBI investigation along with several congressional investigations is somehow bizarrely the fault of, say, me, instead of Trump's actual actions. 

[Week]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

A deal is certainly much tougher now than it would have been if Trump was left in peace to follow his agenda. What's the big deal about the Russia connections, if they result in a deal that works for everyone?

We don't know what the big deal is about the Russia connections yet. THAT is what the investigation by Senate intelligence committee and agencies are looking at. They've determined there was enough lying and malfeasance that an investigation is necessary. Not "critics".

If Trump is involved with Russia supporting his candidacy - then that is an enormous problem.

If Trump was NOT involved, but his staff/surrogates were - that is ALSO a significant problem. His inability to properly vet and organize a competent, ethical, and moral staff is staggering and could be worse than we currently know.

Finally, the means do not justify the 'end' of a "beautiful", "amazing", "big league" deal with Russia - something that we didn't need anyway. I thought this whole election was about jobs, a wall, and repealing Obamacare ... /s

[Week]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They really couldn't, not without massive troop involvement and insurgency crises. There's another issue which is that no one really likes the rebels save, perhaps, Iran. No one likes Assad either save Russia, but there's no 'good' side for the US to align with in Syria.

This assumes a deal that 'works for everyone', which is itself pretty problematic. Helping Russia against NATO allies doesn't exactly work that well for the Ukraine or Lithuania, as an example. But again - Trump being 'left in peace' implies that someone outside him was telling him he needed to attack Syria after a gas attack. Somehow Trump is powerless here? Do you really think that Trump is both a master negotiator and completely at the mercy of public opinion?

I also like how an ongoing FBI investigation along with several congressional investigations is somehow bizarrely the fault of, say, me, instead of Trump's actual actions. 

I read Trump being "left in peace" as a response to the reporting ongoing Trump-Russia connection which is an even more absurd statement.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They really couldn't, not without massive troop involvement and insurgency crises. There's another issue which is that no one really likes the rebels save, perhaps, Iran. No one likes Assad either save Russia, but there's no 'good' side for the US to align with in Syria.

This assumes a deal that 'works for everyone', which is itself pretty problematic. Helping Russia against NATO allies doesn't exactly work that well for the Ukraine or Lithuania, as an example. But again - Trump being 'left in peace' implies that someone outside him was telling him he needed to attack Syria after a gas attack. Somehow Trump is powerless here? Do you really think that Trump is both a master negotiator and completely at the mercy of public opinion?

I also like how an ongoing FBI investigation along with several congressional investigations is somehow bizarrely the fault of, say, me, instead of Trump's actual actions. 

Sorry, but where do you figure in all of this? You are a random internet commentator, as am I. When I talk about the anti Trump camp, I don't mean a group headed by you. I mean the left wing cabal that is hell bent on delegitimizing his presidency.

And for the umpteenth time. I don't think Trump is a master negotiator. I don't think he is particularly smart. I don't even like him. He is there to serve a cause. In fact, I am on record as saying that even if the worst is true about him, it is worth it just to get one (and perhaps more than one) conservative Supreme Court judge confirmed during his tenure.

At the same time, I don't think he is a blithering idiot either. He is impulsive, but cunning, and probably able to salvage outcomes that aren't total disasters from initial grandiose schemes that don't work out as intended.

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

Seems to me that most Democrats supported his missiles pounding some sand in Syria. And Linsay Graham and the other anti-Putin hawks too.

I on the other hand think it was a big mistake.

Many  Democrats did not support the action without massive reservations, and I personally feel that doing something symbolic and ineffective was stupid. Note that far more Republicans supported it.

Either stay out of it despite the bad press of kids dying (because kids are dying anyway and you're not helping anyway thanks to your shitty refugee ban, you shower of assholes) or actually do something that prevents kids from dying by actually disabling the airfields that the strikes are launched from. 

And that also is a problem for your stated view, which is getting into bed with your darling Russia. Because as it turns out Russia knew about the chemical strikes and has also repeatedly bombed civilian targets causing far more deaths. In addition, Russia is currently arming AQ in Afghanistan. If your goal is for the US to turn a blind eye to these kinds of humanitarian attacks and attacks on the US so to get some bizarre 'grand deal' that doesn't benefit our biggest allies, I'd question as to why. Russia doesn't help with dealing with China, it doesn't help with North Korea, it certainly doesn't help with much in the middle east while Russia backs Assad, and Russia is still occupying the Ukraine. What, precisely, is this big deal going to get?

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Many  Democrats did not support the action without massive reservations, and I personally feel that doing something symbolic and ineffective was stupid. Note that far more Republicans supported it.

Either stay out of it despite the bad press of kids dying (because kids are dying anyway and you're not helping anyway thanks to your shitty refugee ban, you shower of assholes) or actually do something that prevents kids from dying by actually disabling the airfields that the strikes are launched from. 

And that also is a problem for your stated view, which is getting into bed with your darling Russia. Because as it turns out Russia knew about the chemical strikes and has also repeatedly bombed civilian targets causing far more deaths. In addition, Russia is currently arming AQ in Afghanistan. If your goal is for the US to turn a blind eye to these kinds of humanitarian attacks and attacks on the US so to get some bizarre 'grand deal' that doesn't benefit our biggest allies, I'd question as to why. Russia doesn't help with dealing with China, it doesn't help with North Korea, it certainly doesn't help with much in the middle east while Russia backs Assad, and Russia is still occupying the Ukraine. What, precisely, is this big deal going to get?

Why on earth would Russia support chemical strikes by Assad - if it was indeed Assad - at this point in the game? It gains them absolutely nothing.