Jump to content
270soft Forum
LokiLoki22

Is there an adult in the room?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Sure. I agree with basically everything @admin_270 said, as he seemed extremely nonpartisan and intelligent in his responses (I never would have thought about his explanation about the Trump tweets to North Korea, ever), though, I do agree with what @vcczar said about the Houses of Congress (to an extent), as I believe that were Trump truly smart and controlled, he'd be able to get his own act together, and get his Party under control and in support of his policies (but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's pathetic), though @vcczar does seem a bit reluctant to accept some of Trump's victories (Gorsuch is DEFINITELY a victory, though I agree that exec. orders are not).

Hell, @Patine, I even align with you about the Jeff Sessions thing. While it's technically legal, I think it's another regulation that Trump's administration tries so hard to act like they're against, and allows the federal government to do more unnecessary hand-holding that should be left to the states (if not outright legalized).

His NK tweets could be also compared to President Nixon[insert cheap joke about another aspect of Trump similar to Nixon].https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump doesn't need to be the one most active in doing something for it to be a victory for him. He was the one who nominated Gorsuch and set in motion the process to confirm him. That he was confirmed (via the nuclear option) was Trump's victory (as well as Cruz's and McConnell's). If these are your standards, victories for Presidents will be few and far between because of the separation of the legislative and executive powers in the States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

His NK tweets could be also compared to President Nixon[insert cheap joke about another aspect of Trump similar to Nixon].https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
 

It's interesting that the Madman Theory (which has been discredited by most scholars) never gained much traction. So much so, that I think I've only heard only one reference to it in a book. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, vcczar said:

It's interesting that the Madman Theory (which has been discredited by most scholars) never gained much traction. So much so, that I think I've only heard only one reference to it in a book. 

I'm not a big fan of the theory myself, as Kissinger is the bigger influencer of Nixon's foreign policy. I've seen it referenced a few times in the news, and figured I might share it in hopes someone like you would offer their insight.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Trump doesn't need to be the one most active in doing something for it to be a victory for him. He was the one who nominated Gorsuch and set in motion the process to confirm him. That he was confirmed (via the nuclear option) was Trump's victory (as well as Cruz's and McConnell's). If these are your standards, victories for Presidents will be few and far between because of the separation of the legislative and executive powers in the States.

I think a president achieves a victory when:

  • The president is the prime mover of a policy or decision (This may or may not be the case with Gorsuch)
  • There is an opposition to the policy or decision enough to thwart the success of that policy or decision (This is sort of the case, through the nuclear option, but you can argue the nuclear option voided this as a true victory, and what I will call a "tainted victory")
  • The president is instrumental in keeping disgruntled members of his own party together and is able to gain enough bipartisan support to bring greater credibility and integrity to the policy or decision. (not done)
  • The policy or decision is concluded successfully (this was done)
  • The policy or decision was successful in achieving the primary goals (this will probably be done, as I doubt Gorsuch will swing very far left). 

Thus, I consider it a "tainted victory" and if I were a Republican I would have wished that Trump had been able to get the 60 votes. If Obama had pushed Garland through by using the nuclear option, I'd feel the same way. It would be a "tainted victory," different, but not so dissimilar as winning the presidency but losing the popular vote. It has a tinge of a lack of legitimacy, even if it is a legal victory. 

Going back to victories, I think there are also "true victories," those that after time passes are seen as major accomplishments or major failures. 

Going back to Obama, while I give him credit for Healthcare, I can't call it a victory, as he failed to achieve any real bipartisan support, which is something I think should be a primary goal, especially for a real American victory (as opposed to a Republican or Democratic victory). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2018 at 11:03 PM, LokiLoki22 said:

Brutal confession time: This latest tweet by Trump has shaken my confidence in him as a sane, rational man who wouldn't start Nuclear War over a bruised ego. Him raving about how he has a "Bigger Button" Makes him sound like a child throwing a tantrum, and everyone knows how reasonable those are. Up to this point, while I believed that he was bad for our nation, I had always believed that he was sane, and wouldn't actually nuke anything. I am no longer sure. Pence, while I disagree with almost all of his views, wouldn't wreck our reputation abroad, and play with nuclear war in such a callous manner. I'm still 80% sure things will be fine, but all it takes is one tweet or announcement be North Korea that hits a little too hard, and we would have a bloody and gruesome war on our hands. Can the adult in the room please inform the President that, be it an aide, advisor, secret Service agent, hell, even a receptionist. I would rather not get drafted.

said the guy who got jimmy carter in his profile picture who did nothing to prevent the current Iranian regime into power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Presidentinsertname said:

said the guy who got jimmy carter in his profile picture who did nothing to prevent the current Iranian regime into power.

Bruh. as much as I dislike Jimmy Carter's policies, it went past Reagan, and the Bushes too lmao.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Presidentinsertname said:

said the guy who got jimmy carter in his profile picture who did nothing to prevent the current Iranian regime into power.

I always thought you were a Libertarian, which generally would mean that you would be against military intervention and nation building. Perhaps, I was wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said a year ago there would be a nuclear war. Why do you think they're rereleasing Threads on Blu-ray? They want to teach the new generation the horrors that their leaders are planning to bring forth! ...how history repeats itself.

It's over, people. Unless we get that warmongering fascist out of the White House, there really is no hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Wiw said:

I said a year ago there would be a nuclear war. Why do you think they're rereleasing Threads on Blu-ray? They want to teach the new generation the horrors that their leaders are planning to bring forth! ...how history repeats itself.

It's over, people. Unless we get that warmongering fascist out of the White House, there really is no hope.

Lmaoooo... The past 3 Presidents have been warmongering 'fascists', not much has changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Wiw said:

Yeah, well they didn't threaten to use nukes, did they?!

Well, Kennedy did, and we're still here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Lmaoooo... The past 3 Presidents have been warmongering 'fascists', not much has changed.

Hell more than that. In act if the Nuremberg trials were upheld every president post WWII would be charged and hanged on war crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Patine said:

Well, Kennedy did, and we're still here...

Well no, I was referring to the last 3 presidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Wiw said:

Well no, I was referring to the last 3 presidents.

Why only them? By what arbitrary delineator do you draw your line of relevance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Wiw said:

Well according to Potato, they're all guilty of fascism in some way!

Well, to people like him, Dindu, and other uneducated fools out there, everyone in a political office EXCEPT those they personally support and favour are outright, total, and bona fide "fascist," "communists," "terrorists," or other extreme roles. I just made a post less than an hour ago in the "State of Jefferson poll" thread about the potential dangers and foolhardiness of tossing around such labels thoughtlessly, willy-nilly, and where they're not all appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Wiw said:

Well according to Potato, they're all guilty of fascism in some way!

What I meant was, the earlier three (and as WVProgressive said, pretty much everyone after WW2) were just as war-mongering as Trump, so, by your logic, that would make them fascists as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wiw said:

Well, even I know what Communism entails!

Surprisingly, some don't. Like those who think Hillary Rodham Clinton, born to old money, educated in an exclusive university, on the board of directors of Wal-Mart, a good friend of George Soros and many powerful Wall Street Bankers, and a member of old money high society, is somehow a full, complete, bona fide Communist - somehow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

What I meant was, the earlier three (and as WVProgressive said, pretty much everyone after WW2) were just as war-mongering as Trump, so, by your logic, that would make them fascists as well.

No, not by my logic. The vast majority of warmongers in history have not been in any way, shape, or form Fascists, or have been tied to the ideology at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well anyway, back to the point - when did the earlier three ever use a nuclear threat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wiw said:

Well anyway, back to the point - when did the earlier three ever use a nuclear threat?

Well never. I'll give Barry and Bush this they may have turned us into the largest terror state in morn history but they at-least they never threatened to bring total and utter destruction to humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wiw said:

Well anyway, back to the point - when did the earlier three ever use a nuclear threat?

No bona fide, true, actual Fascist leader in history has ever made a nuclear threat directly, because no true, honest-to-God Fascist has ever had nuclear weapons. The closest was Hitler's threat to beat the U.S. to developing them, but the resources they had to constantly throw to the Soviet front pretty much prevented that. Communist leaders, however, HAVE made nuclear threats, if mostly veiled and oblique ones, as the U.S.S.R. and the People's Republic of China both had (or still have, in the case of China and the U.S.S.R.'s main successor state Russia, the latter of which is not at all Communist, nor truly Fascist) nuclear weapons in large numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×