Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[SimonNZ]

People are free to assess facts as they see fit.  It's not a wind up; your worldview is not universal.  That is also a fact.

Wer'e not talking about "assessing" facts, we're talking about denying facts (trump was fined for defrauding his own charity) because they're inconvenient. Why are you saying anything other than "yeah, the Trumpists should stop doing that"?

[Todd]

Wer'e not talking about "assessing" facts, we're talking about denying facts (trump was fined for defrauding his own charity) because they're inconvenient. Why are you saying anything other than "yeah, the Trumpists should stop doing that"?

Your response simply reinforces what I wrote last time.

[JBS]

You are seriously ignorant of the business world.  There most certainly are people who can and do run both charitable and for profit entities in ways at least as rapacious as Trump did. 

Business people who take their fiduciary responsibilities seriously will always assess the cost of compliance.  Sometimes it makes sense to knowingly violate laws and regulations. 

Yes, they exist. The normal terms for such people are "criminals" and "con men". The more numerous they are, the more danger to normal business because of the higher risks and costs that come from not being able to trust those you do business to fulfill their contractual obligations.

[Todd]

Yes, they exist. The normal terms for such people are "criminals" and "con men". The more numerous they are, the more danger to normal business because of the higher risks and costs that come from not being able to trust those you do business to fulfill their contractual obligations.

Generally, this is correct. 

This is, of course, distinct from pursuing perfectly legal (ie, non-criminal) and acceptable practices as it pertains to adhering to strict compliance of every rule and regulation.

[dissily Mordentroge]

Incorrect.

This is a fairly standard type of response from people who consider themselves worldly, etc.  It is also twaddle.  The reality is that American hard power - both military and economic - is still sufficient to cause serious harm to other countries, and the leaders of those countries know it.  That is why Trudeau, for instance, despite his posturing, signed the replacement to NAFTA like a good little boy.  That is why Chinese leaders raised alarms when the US was poised to crush Huawei.  That is why China and Russia are actively seeking ways to neutralize the power of the US Navy.  And so forth.  The US still possesses a combination of strengths no other single power, or even combination of powers, possess.  That will change, of course, but not until the 2030s at the soonest.

I'm tempted to lecture you on ad hominem argument but suspect such would be water off a duck's back. It's interesting you equate America's reputation with it's ability to 'cause serious harm to other countries'. I wonder why you're unable to see that's not an efficient way to gain respect?

[Todd]

I'm tempted to lecture you on ad hominem argument but suspect such would be water off a duck's back.

Lecture away.  It means nothing.

It's interesting you equate America's reputation with it's ability to 'cause serious harm to other countries'. I wonder why you're unable to see that's not an efficient way to gain respect?

Many residents of small, weak powers find a great deal of appeal in the rhetorically attractive and inclusive aspects of liberal internationalism.  The existing world order, which is in the slow process of decline as the US itself declines, will give way to more traditional great power politics.  The post-war era is an historical anomaly.

[JBS]

I'm tempted to lecture you on ad hominem argument but suspect such would be water off a duck's back. It's interesting you equate America's reputation with it's ability to 'cause serious harm to other countries'. I wonder why you're unable to see that's not an efficient way to gain respect?

He was talking about hard power. Reputation is soft power. Trump has blown up all our soft power, but the hard power, our military and economic assets, remain as they were before Trump.

[Todd]

Trump has blown up all our soft power

The same was said of Dubya.  Then came Obama.  The thing is, there currently is no viable alternative to the US in terms of leading some semblance of a world order.  The EU is nothing, and no European power has anything like the economic or military power needed to augment soft power.  President Van Halen's ambitions are not matched by the resources at his disposal.  And it is critical to note that soft power without guns backing it up is irrelevant; Europeans get to be good cop because the US is bad cop.  Only the US can be both.  At least today.

It is also arguable whether Trump has even done as much harm as Bush since Trump has not started any major new wars, which means allies are not being called on to expend more blood and treasure.  Nor has Trump done something as strategically damaging or freeing, depending on one's outlook, as withdrawing from the ABM treaty - withdrawing from the INF treaty is significant, of course, but less so.  And while Trump has caused his fair share of ineffectual marches around the world, the anti-Iraq war marches were more significant.  Now, if Trump gets reelected, then he can do more lasting damage to the international institutions in place now.  He's quietly, and with precious little non-business press, hobbling the WTO (which I'm lukewarm about), but a second term would allow for some weakening of NATO, a full withdrawal from Afghanistan (fingers crossed), hopefully the same in Iraq and the Levant, and, provided Brexit happens as some hope for, he could take the first diplomatic and economic steps needed to dismantle the EU.  So, Trump 2020.

[dissily Mordentroge]

The same was said of Dubya.  Then came Obama.  The thing is, there currently is no viable alternative to the US in terms of leading some semblance of a world order.  The EU is nothing, and no European power has anything like the economic or military power needed to augment soft power.  President Van Halen's ambitions are not matched by the resources at his disposal.  And it is critical to note that soft power without guns backing it up is irrelevant; Europeans get to be good cop because the US is bad cop.  Only the US can be both.  At least today.

It is also arguable whether Trump has even done as much harm as Bush since Trump has not started any major new wars, which means allies are not being called on to expend more blood and treasure.  Nor has Trump done something as strategically damaging or freeing, depending on one's outlook, as withdrawing from the ABM treaty - withdrawing from the INF treaty is significant, of course, but less so.  And while Trump has caused his fair share of ineffectual marches around the world, the anti-Iraq war marches were more significant.  Now, if Trump gets reelected, then he can do more lasting damage to the international institutions in place now.  He's quietly, and with precious little non-business press, hobbling the WTO (which I'm lukewarm about), but a second term would allow for some weakening of NATO, a full withdrawal from Afghanistan (fingers crossed), hopefully the same in Iraq and the Levant, and, provided Brexit happens as some hope for, he could take the first diplomatic and economic steps needed to dismantle the EU.  So, Trump 2020.

Single handedly you have exposed the central reason our species is doomed to self induced extinction.

[Todd]

Single handedly you have exposed the central reason our species is doomed to self induced extinction.

Derp.

[milk]

Single handedly you have exposed the central reason our species is doomed to self induced extinction.

But this is the argument some of my FB friends on the "left" seem to be making too - although they support Tulsi Gabbard (which, in the end, may amount to the same thing as supporting Tump).

[dissily Mordentroge]

But this is the argument some of my FB friends on the "left" seem to be making too - although they support Tulsi Gabbard (which, in the end, may amount to the same thing as supporting Tump).

My perspective is neither left nor right. I assert no single ideology or combination of several can reverse the situation we find ouselves in which is the result of what we are as a species, not what which ideology or religion we may follow.

[milk]

My perspective is neither left nor right. I assert no single ideology or combination of several can reverse the situation we find ouselves in which is the result of what we are as a species, not what which ideology or religion we may follow.

People like Steven Pinker say things are so much better. Of course, you can say that about mutually assured destruction too - which keeps us safe right until it doesn't. I always wonder why if so many republicans hated republican policies they didn't vote for Ron Paul, or maybe his wigged son. After all, when the incompetence is over, we won't be left with an argument for a different set of policies. But there is America: it needs a conman. And him being a rich dumb racist probably sealed the deal.

[drogulus]

     Economic and military power is necessary to sustain a liberal world order, which has been the goal of U.S. policy since WWII. Hard power can buy soft power. The trend in imperial expansion has shifted away from settler colonies and trade outposts to economic expansion into less developed nation states, an intensification. Regardless of how defectors try to disrupt the system, they too acquire a stake in the world order that grows over time. I note that as China has more intellectual property to defend it takes a different view of IP theft. Our deterrence may be enough to bridge the gap between China the defector and China the pillar of cooperation. It's a goal of policy to thread that needle.

     It's pointless to claim that the U.S. is acting from an altruistic conception of its role when there's so much self-interest that's plain to see. We bought our soft power with our hard power because it was a good deal for us. We defend allies with dollars that end up buying our goods. Trump claims allies are ripping us off, showing he doesn't understand either how our power or our money works. There is no higher stage of ignorance than that.

[BasilValentine]

     It's pointless to claim that the U.S. is acting from an altruistic conception of its role when there's so much self-interest that's plain to see. We bought our soft power with our hard power because it was a good deal for us. We defend allies with dollars that end up buying our goods. Trump claims allies are ripping us off, showing he doesn't understand either how our power or our money works. There is no higher stage of ignorance than that.

Yes, a belligerent child who likes to break things he doesn't understand, not unlike many of his supporters.

[drogulus]

Single handedly you have exposed the central reason our species is doomed to self induced extinction.

     What's at issue is the cost in "blood and treasure" of early versus late intervention. An early intervention means we decide the path to future riches lies in building an economy that can withstand the coming changes and even to some degree reverse them. This is what we'll do at some point, and one hopes we start long before the last idiot is convinced we should.

     

[drogulus]

     Britain's Secret War With Russia

     Putin has been effective in exploiting every kind of political weakness in Europe and the U.K. without the assistance of a "No Puppet".

[drogulus]

     The Mueller Report Illustrated

     This is a useful refresher on TrumPutin 2016.

     How the Ukraine pressure campaign began as an effort to undercut the Mueller investigation

In the summer of 2016, as Manafort faced building questions about lucrative lobbying work he did in Ukraine, he began to suggest to other Trump campaign aides that the Ukrainians might have been responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee in 2016, rather than the Russians, according to what his deputy, Rick Gates, told the FBI.

Gates told investigators that Manafort's comments attributing the hacks to Ukrainians "parroted a narrative" that was also advanced at the time by Konstantin Kilimnik, an employee of Manafort who the FBI has assessed to have ties to Russian intelligence. (Kilimnik denies such ties.)

As the special counsel investigation got underway in 2017, other Trump allies began promoting the alternative Ukraine theory.

     

[SimonNZ]

Appeals court directs banks to provide Trump financial records
A US court upholds the legality of congressional subpoenas seeking Trump's banking records.

[drogulus]

     Macron Uses Toddler Reverse Psychology Trick to Fool Trump Into Supporting NATO

Trump himself has called NATO "obsolete," openly questioned whether the U.S. would come to the defense of allies under attack (the very foundation of the alliance), and privately told aides on several occasions last year he wants to withdraw from the alliance. But the notion that somebody else would question NATO, and blame its demise on Trump, has enraged him.

And now Trump is lashing out at Macron. "NATO serves a great purpose," he declared today. "And I hear that President Macron said NATO is 'brain dead.' I think that's very insulting to a lot of different forces ... When you make a statement like that, that is a very, very nasty statement to 28 — including them — 28 countries."

Manipulating children into doing what you want by pretending to demand they do the opposite thing is a trick most parents learn to use. It usually stops working around the age of 5.