Jump to content
270soft Forum
LokiLoki22

Is there an adult in the room?

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I laughed when I read that tweet - it's classic Trump. He's dealing with a dictator-bully at a level that Kim understands. Remember when he called him short and fat after Kim called him old?

Trump's so crazy that ... he's the father of 5 apparently well-balanced, mature children, grandfather of many. He built a multi-billion dollar business over many decades. He outwitted 15 opponents in the primaries despite having never run for office before, then dispatched the Clinton machine and almost all the main stream media in the general, and has now rung up multiple major victories in his first year in office ... and so on.

But Trump's threats have to appear credible, therefore he has to appear a bit crazy to his enemies. If someone like Kim has nuclear weapons, there has to be a credible deterrent to him using them. Remember that Trump ran on a non-interventionist platform, and has repeatedly critiqued the cost of various wars (including since he became President). This reminds me of Reagan freaking out his political enemies by joking about how the bombing was going to start in 5 minutes. Yet the results of Reagan's Presidency was the collapse of the Soviet Union and a sharp reduction in the chances of large scale nuclear war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LokiLoki22 Kim probably just laughs it off. These war of words happen often, Kim is very sane and wont start a war because someone insults him especially with the US

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

@LokiLoki22 Kim probably just laughs it off. These war of words happen often, Kim is very sane and wont start a war because someone insults him especially with the US

Though if you are a North Korean citizen, Kim will probably execute you in a very and imaginative way for insulting him. But that would be mostly for the purposes of establishing firm authority over the masses. Fear keeps everyone in line in an authoritarian, military tyranny, as Grand Moff Tarkin basically said near the start of "Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope."

Share this post


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

Though if you are a North Korean citizen, Kim will probably execute you in a very and imaginative way for insulting him. But that would be mostly for the purposes of establishing firm authority over the masses. Fear keeps everyone in line in an authoritarian, military tyranny, as Grand Moff Tarkin basically said near the start of "Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope."

Here's the quote for you @Patine

"The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station."

Share this post


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

Here's the quote for you @Patine

"The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station."

I know the quote well. I own the DVD (I own the DVD's for all six REAL Star Wars numbered movies, not the utter crap Episodes VII and VIII descended into that butchered the franchise). But I wasn't quoting exactly. I was paraphrasing. Note the lack of quotation marks.

Share this post


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

I know the quote well. I own the DVD (I own the DVD's for all six REAL Star Wars numbered movies, not the utter crap Episodes VII and VIII descended into that butchered the franchise). But I wasn't quoting exactly. I was paraphrasing. Note the lack of quotation marks.

I'm providing i for the Star Wars fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, admin_270 said:

I laughed when I read that tweet - it's classic Trump. He's dealing with a dictator-bully at a level that Kim understands. Remember when he called him short and fat after Kim called him old?

Trump's so crazy that ... he's the father of 5 apparently well-balanced, mature children, grandfather of many. He built a multi-billion dollar business over many decades. He outwitted 15 opponents in the primaries despite having never run for office before, then dispatched the Clinton machine and almost all the main stream media in the general, and has now rung up multiple major victories in his first year in office ... and so on.

But Trump's threats have to appear credible, therefore he has to appear a bit crazy to his enemies. If someone like Kim has nuclear weapons, there has to be a credible deterrent to him using them. Remember that Trump ran on a non-interventionist platform, and has repeatedly critiqued the cost of various wars (including since he became President). This reminds me of Reagan freaking out his political enemies by joking about how the bombing was going to start in 5 minutes. Yet the results of Reagan's Presidency was the collapse of the Soviet Union and a sharp reduction in the chances of large scale nuclear war.

I wouldn't say he's racked up major victories, since having control of both Houses of Congress and the executive is generally a guarantee for victories. I'd measure success by how often he can achieve his policy victories. Trump has arguably been the least successful modern executive in getting his platform executed while controlling Congress. I'll have to compare him with Jimmy Carter, arguably his best analogy as a successful executive (although, not moral analogies). In short, Democrats have had an enlarged influence over policies, despite falling short in both Houses. I would consider a successful executive victory is when the president inspired legislation that is bipartisan (in this sense, I wouldn't call Obamacare much of a victory when it was created, since it was mostly a product of party dominance and not leadership). 

I'd also argue that he didn't outwit 15+ opponents, but rather, stayed as himself, and they didn't know what to do with him, as he had certain allowances of what he could say, how he could say it, since he was a non-politician. His opponents were constrained by the aura that they are supposed to project. While Rubio couldn't get away with a "dick" comment, Trump could., and so on.  

While Trump has had some success as a business man, he's probably had more failures, many of them scams. 

In regards to Trump beating the Clinton machine, I'd argue that the Clinton machine beat itself by being obviously a machine, and thus liable to appear nefarious. Also, cockiness and other slip ups allowed Trump to win ("deplorable" comment, not campaigning in some key states in the final week). Trump was unlikable, Clinton should have made an effort to be likable. Selecting the uncharismatic Tim Kaine also hampered an unexciting ticket. Clinton beat Clinton with a domino effect of poor choices, including electing to run in the first place. Trump is teflon and, as he said, "could shoot someone on 5th Avenue" and still hold supporters, Hillary Clinton didn't have that luxury. Although, she did win the popular vote. 

I wouldn't compare Trump to Reagan, as Trump is nowhere near the political ability, knowledge, and temperament of Reagan. Additionally, he isn't as nearly well served by capable staff. 

I'll agree with you that he isn't crazy, but he's definitely has some psychological disorders---sociopathy and narcissism, to name a few--which, I think Kim also has. I do believe that Trump is politically incompetent (but has business sense), and that he's dangerously unread in both government and in the Constitution, but I think he has enough basic issue knowledge to give speeches and to make surface-level comments. 

He's definitely a potential danger; although, I'm still hesitant to impeach him for Mike Pence, who would have a worse platform (progressively speaking) and would actually know how to enact his platform with political skill and knowledge. However, in a crisis, (a war, for instance), I would take Pence over Trump as Commander-in-Chief. 

Just my 7 cents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar

I don't think Trump has control of both houses of Congress - some of his fiercest foes have come from within his own party. Part of what is impressive about his success has been how he orchestrated a hostile takeover of the Republican party. He's in a sense not a Republican, but used the two-party system because that's the only way to win the Presidency.

Although I disagree with you about the nature of his primaries success (there were many innovations made by his campaign, such as how it used Twitter, Instagram, airport rallies, and so on), I agree that Clinton ran a lackluster campaign and in a sense defeated herself. Her lack of campaigning was a bit of a mystery - perhaps health issues held her back - but there seemed to be little enthusiasm for her as a candidate, probably in part because of her low charisma, and so Trump was able to overcome the MSM full-court press in the states that mattered (Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin).

His major victories for 2017 include 1. Gorsuch, 2. tax cuts, 3. regulation cuts, 4. repeal of the individual mandate in Obamacare. So far, economic indicators are fairly good, although the extent to which this is due to him is up for debate.

I don't think Trump has sociopathy, I think it's the opposite. He ran for President because he genuinely believed the country was going in a bad direction and wanted to help it, taking very large risks to himself, his family, and his businesses. But yes, he's a bit of a narcissist. ;)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JDrakeify @willpaddyg @daons @LegolasRedbard @Prussian1871 @wolves @SirLagsalott @michaelsdiamonds @victorraiders @Patine @Falcon @jnewt @President Garrett Walker @Reagan04 @Conservative Elector 2 @SeanFKennedy @vcczar @jvikings1 @harveyrayson2 @lizarraba @TheMiddlePolitical @CalebsParadox @MrPrez @msc123123 @NYrepublican  @RI Democrat @servo75  @Presidentinsertname  @ThePotatoWalrus @Sunnymentoaddict @TheLiberalKitten @Quebecois @avatarmushi @Sami @WVProgressive @Kingthero

So, Jeff Sessions, backed fully by Trump, has declared Federal prosecutors are full free to indict people on marijuana charges, with Federal backing, in States that have formally legalized the use of the drug. Who, now, among the right-wing, Republican, Constitution-loving people here will now condemn and stand against Trump and Sessions for trampling States' Rights, a big part of said political ideology's beliefs, and which of you will humbly overlook and continue blindly supporting Trump and his administration? How will the convictions lay out here?

Share this post


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

@JDrakeify @willpaddyg @daons @LegolasRedbard @Prussian1871 @wolves @SirLagsalott @michaelsdiamonds @victorraiders @Patine @Falcon @jnewt @President Garrett Walker @Reagan04 @Conservative Elector 2 @SeanFKennedy @vcczar @jvikings1 @harveyrayson2 @lizarraba @TheMiddlePolitical @CalebsParadox @MrPrez @msc123123 @NYrepublican  @RI Democrat @servo75  @Presidentinsertname  @ThePotatoWalrus @Sunnymentoaddict @TheLiberalKitten @Quebecois @avatarmushi @Sami @WVProgressive @Kingthero

So, Jeff Sessions, backed fully by Trump, has declared Federal prosecutors are full free to indict people on marijuana charges, with Federal backing, in States that have formally legalized the use of the drug. Who, now, among the right-wing, Republican, Constitution-loving people here will now condemn and stand against Trump and Sessions for trampling States' Rights, a big part of said political ideology's beliefs, and which of you will humbly overlook and continue blindly supporting Trump and his administration? How will the convictions lay out here?

Well he's referring to Federal charges which are entirely allowed.

Personally I think it's just the business of the states but it's entirely legal for him to do that.

Share this post


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

@JDrakeify @willpaddyg @daons @LegolasRedbard @Prussian1871 @wolves @SirLagsalott @michaelsdiamonds @victorraiders @Patine @Falcon @jnewt @President Garrett Walker @Reagan04 @Conservative Elector 2 @SeanFKennedy @vcczar @jvikings1 @harveyrayson2 @lizarraba @TheMiddlePolitical @CalebsParadox @MrPrez @msc123123 @NYrepublican  @RI Democrat @servo75  @Presidentinsertname  @ThePotatoWalrus @Sunnymentoaddict @TheLiberalKitten @Quebecois @avatarmushi @Sami @WVProgressive @Kingthero

So, Jeff Sessions, backed fully by Trump, has declared Federal prosecutors are full free to indict people on marijuana charges, with Federal backing, in States that have formally legalized the use of the drug. Who, now, among the right-wing, Republican, Constitution-loving people here will now condemn and stand against Trump and Sessions for trampling States' Rights, a big part of said political ideology's beliefs, and which of you will humbly overlook and continue blindly supporting Trump and his administration? How will the convictions lay out here?

I've always been in favor of letting the states decide on this issue.  But, at the same time, this is the federal law.  I am in favor of changing the law through proper means, but I m in favor of enforcing laws currently on the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Well he's referring to Federal charges which are entirely allowed.

Personally I think it's just the business of the states but it's entirely legal for him to do that.

 

25 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

I've always been in favor of letting the states decide on this issue.  But, at the same time, this is the federal law.  I am in favor of changing the law through proper means, but I m in favor of enforcing laws currently on the books.

Don't legality of controlled substances, due to not being specifically stated and laid out in the list of powers allocated to each of Federal and State jurisdiction in the U.S. Constitution, fall to the States by the "residual powers" principle, and thus States' laws automatically supersede Federal laws, even extant and long-entrenched ones, on the issue, and Trump and Sessions are still, by definition, overreaching Federal authority?

Share this post


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

Don't legality of controlled substances, due to not being specifically stated and laid out in the list of powers allocated to each of Federal and State jurisdiction in the U.S. Constitution, fall to the States by the "residual powers" principle, and thus States' laws automatically supersede Federal laws, even extant and long-entrenched ones, on the issue, and Trump and Sessions are still, by definition, overreaching Federal authority?

Well Federal authorities have power if it crosses state-lines for example.

Share this post


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

Well Federal authorities have power if it crosses state-lines for example.

That much is true. But, Sessions was referring to a Federal prosecutor, say in the State of Washington, laying charges for marijuana usage or sale when the growing, production, sale, and usage would be ENTIRELY within the State of Washington's borders, and the Federal Government would fully back said prosecutor and enforce any sentence laid down. THAT'S where the Federal overreach would. Where is the hew and cry of the State's Rights crowds now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

@vcczar

I don't think Trump has control of both houses of Congress - some of his fiercest foes have come from within his own party. Part of what is impressive about his success has been how he orchestrated a hostile takeover of the Republican party. He's in a sense not a Republican, but used the two-party system because that's the only way to win the Presidency.

Although I disagree with you about the nature of his primaries success (there were many innovations made by his campaign, such as how it used Twitter, Instagram, airport rallies, and so on), I agree that Clinton ran a lackluster campaign and in a sense defeated herself. Her lack of campaigning was a bit of a mystery - perhaps health issues held her back - but there seemed to be little enthusiasm for her as a candidate, probably in part because of her low charisma, and so Trump was able to overcome the MSM full-court press in the states that mattered (Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin).

His major victories for 2017 include 1. Gorsuch, 2. tax cuts, 3. regulation cuts, 4. repeal of the individual mandate in Obamacare. So far, economic indicators are fairly good, although the extent to which this is due to him is up for debate.

I don't think Trump has sociopathy, I think it's the opposite. He ran for President because he genuinely believed the country was going in a bad direction and wanted to help it, taking very large risks to himself, his family, and his businesses. But yes, he's a bit of a narcissist. ;)

 

 

In regards to the "major victories," I'll accept that his tax cuts are a victory (for him, at least). However, the others really aren't.

1. I'm unsure I would call Gorsuch's nomination a major victory. The Senate had to use the nuclear option to get Gorsuch confirmed, which sort of taints that nomination, since Gorsuch would have been defeated under normal rules. It's a tainted victory. 

2. Most of the regulation cuts were executive orders, which Democrats can't really stop. I don't count automatic victories as an executive victory, since opposition is almost impossible. The Gorsuch nomination was made into an automatic victory by the rule change. 

3. The repeal of the individual mandate is more of a half-victory (and so also a half-defeat), since the goal was to repeal and replace Obamacare. 

4. Agreed on the economy. He shows no signs on having hurt the economy, but he also can't be proven to have been the source of a good economy. 

Thus, I give Trump only one real "major victory," one "tainted victory," and one "half victory," which considering Republicans control every branch of government is sort of pathetic. 

In regards to sociopathy, I don't think sociopathy is always at odds with good intentions. I think for Trump he encompasses both. I agree that Trump believed the country was on the wrong path, and that he wanted to help (I also think he believed he was the only one that could) set the country on the path he believed was the best. In regards to risk, you can say it is debatable whether or not there was much of a risk (risk as in a dangerous risk). There might have been a calculated risk. But in the end, he probably saw it as a win-win, since it drew so much attention to himself, and probably a lot of profit for his businesses (he might have even made a profit during that time, even while self-funding). Trump would have won even if he had lost the electoral college. I still hold that Trump is a sociopath, as sociopaths can still be helpful and periodically empathetic (many aren't devoid of empathy, it's just rare). 

Share this post


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

@JDrakeify @willpaddyg @daons @LegolasRedbard @Prussian1871 @wolves @SirLagsalott @michaelsdiamonds @victorraiders @Patine @Falcon @jnewt @President Garrett Walker @Reagan04 @Conservative Elector 2 @SeanFKennedy @vcczar @jvikings1 @harveyrayson2 @lizarraba @TheMiddlePolitical @CalebsParadox @MrPrez @msc123123 @NYrepublican  @RI Democrat @servo75  @Presidentinsertname  @ThePotatoWalrus @Sunnymentoaddict @TheLiberalKitten @Quebecois @avatarmushi @Sami @WVProgressive @Kingthero

So, Jeff Sessions, backed fully by Trump, has declared Federal prosecutors are full free to indict people on marijuana charges, with Federal backing, in States that have formally legalized the use of the drug. Who, now, among the right-wing, Republican, Constitution-loving people here will now condemn and stand against Trump and Sessions for trampling States' Rights, a big part of said political ideology's beliefs, and which of you will humbly overlook and continue blindly supporting Trump and his administration? How will the convictions lay out here?

When you try to roast conservatives and think your roast is so hardcore you need to tag everyone on the forum.

Share this post


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

When you try to roast conservatives and think your roast is so hardcore you need to tag everyone on the forum.

Do you have anything productive to add to this conservation?

Share this post


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

Do you have anything productive to add to this conservation?

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes 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).

Thank-you. Can we now try to put attacking each other's style of posting aside? I admit I haven't been completely innocent of it either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar

I agree that 'victory' isn't the best term for the regulation cuts - perhaps 'accomplishment' is more accurate.

Getting the Senate to use the nuclear option to confirm Gorsuch was a major victory for Trump. (Whether it was wise for the Senate to do so - whether it was a victory for the Senate and the country - is another question.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

@vcczar

I agree that 'victory' isn't the best term for the regulation cuts - perhaps 'accomplishment' is more accurate.

Getting the Senate to use the nuclear option to confirm Gorsuch was a major victory for Trump. (Whether it was wise for the Senate to do so - whether it was a victory for the Senate and the country - is another question.)

That presumes that Trump was the prime mover for the nuclear option. I think Ted Cruz should get the credit for that. 

Share this post


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

That presumes that Trump was the prime mover for the nuclear option. I think Ted Cruz should get the credit for that. 

I believe I've heard a complaint in professional NFL football (I don't follow it; this is just second hand) that the MVP award always goes to the quarterback of the team that wins the Superbowl. It seems to me that in accomplishments governance, at least to most casual observers., suct a "top first" credit system for government decisions, however flawed the viewpoint of that may be, also seems to apply.

Share this post


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

I believe I've heard a complaint in professional NFL football (I don't follow it; this is just second hand) that the MVP award always goes to the quarterback of the team that wins the Superbowl. It seems to me that in accomplishments governance, at least to most casual observers., suct a "top first" credit system for government decisions, however flawed the viewpoint of that may be, also seems to apply.

I think it is a close analogy. Just for the record, the MVP will often go to the QB, unless the QB's performance was mediocre, bad, or if another player, generally a Running back, has an outstanding game. As a kid in Dallas, I remember the Cowboys winning their 3rd Super Bowl of the 90s, and the MVP going to a Cornerback (a defensive player), because he intercepted the ball and ran it back for a TD, for the only real excitement in that game. One year, the Green Bay Packers had a kick returner named SB MVP (Desmond Howard), which almost never happens in a real game. 

We should also remember that Trump likes to take credit for anything bordering success, both domestically and abroad, which might mislead many people. I think Cruz and McConnell had much more to do with Gorsuch's nomination than Trump, and they probably influenced him to select him in the first place. 

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

×