Economic, taxes, and tariffs discussion

[Kevin Seitzer]

So it is possible to support something he does without actually being a supporter? Wasn’t that Bernie’s point?
(And to be clear, I agree with you being glad he didn’t escalate things with Iran. My biggest fear of his Presidency is his over reacting to something and becoming involved in another unnecessary military operation).

To be clear, Trump has made a disaster of our relations with Iran. As part of sidling up with his financial interests with the Saudi regime, he has supported horrible human rights violations by the Saudis, made worse the war that the Saudis are waging in Yemen, and allowed himself to be pushed by the Saudis into confrontations with Iran that are not in the interests of the United States. Other presidents before him have done similar things, but he has been more driven his personal lust for money and power, and thus more reckless in his decisions in that area of the world than most of them.

So while I laud his restraint in this particular decision, he is not taking the path of wisdom overall in his dealings in the Middle East, by any means.

[nots]

I actually fear he would do it for a more sinister reason and that is thinking that it will help him get re-elected if people "rally around the flag." Look back at his tweets from 2012 when he was talking about Obama starting a war with Iran to help him get re-elected.

I ask this with all due respect and not a whiff of snark: how do you know which tweets and things Trump says to believe and which not too?

[nots]

To be clear, Trump has made a disaster of our relations with Iran. As part of sidling up with his financial interests with the Saudi regime, he has supported horrible human rights violations by the Saudis, made worse the war that the Saudis are waging in Yemen, and allowed himself to be pushed by the Saudis into confrontations with Iran that are not in the interests of the United States. Other presidents before him have done similar things, but he has been more driven his personal lust for money and power, and thus more reckless in his decisions in that area of the world than most of them.

So while I laud his restraint in this particular decision, he is not taking the path of wisdom overall in his dealings in the Middle East, by any means.

At the risk of what-aboutism, but you think Trump has done more damage in the ME than Bush? How many civilians died as a result of our escapades over there during that administration? How many US troops? How much money was wasted (I acknowledge aTrump’s military budget is obscenely higher than Bush’s obscene military budget, but Trump has merely mostly collected weapons, whereas Bush actually deployed them). I would love to hear your rebuttal about in what way Bush was less of a negative influence in the region than Trump.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I ask this with all due respect and not an whiff of snark: how do you know which tweets and things Trump says to believe and which not too?

Trump purposefully blurs that line.

[Kevin Seitzer]

At the risk of what-aboutism, but you think Trump has done more damage in the ME than Bush?

No, I do not. Not even close.

The damage that GW Bush/Cheney did in the Middle East, including the torture program, was a big part of what turned me from a staunch Republican into an independent.

I mainly put that caveat because I know that some people here perceive me as a liberal, and I don't think Obama or Clinton's hands were clean in the Middle East, either.

[Steve 2.0]

Trump purposefully blurs that line.

Purposely? The man's a buffoon.

[umjewman]

I ask this with all due respect and not a whiff of snark: how do you know which tweets and things Trump says to believe and which not too?

I actually believe that Trump believes most of what he tweets out at the time he tweets it. It's only after the fact that when he is told that he's completely wrong or watches something to the contrary that he types out something different, never to admit that he said or believed the thing he previously said or believed. If that makes sense.

In other words, I believe that in his mind, whatever he says at that particular moment is true in his head.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Purposely? The man's a buffoon.

Yes, purposely. Maybe not always consciously. I think he is accustomed to living in a world where he defines the truth.

He is a good emotional manipulator. If he wasn't able to prey on people's emotions, he wouldn't be president. (Could be said for some other politicians, perhaps, but it's especially true for him.) He's also good at using dog whistles and insinuations to communicate so that he can later say it was all a joke and he didn't really mean any of it as a serious proposal. That's not all an accident happening because he's not good with words. He isn't good with words, in terms of assembling a logical argument, but he is good at using them to manipulate people in situations where they are weaker than him or at a disadvantage that he can exploit. I'm not saying he's assembling all of these words ahead of time as some Machiavellian plan to manipulate the country. I'm saying that he plays fast and loose with the truth so that he can get away with stuff, as well as using his lack of capability with words as an excuse after the fact to worm out of getting caught.

[onejayhawk]

Definitely agree with the latter. I'm not sure what evidence you have of the former.

You have plenty of evidence. Bringing North Korea to the bargaining table is evidence. Choosing to call the drone shoot down a mistake is evidence.

We saw more evidence today. We shoed force and conspicuously chose not to use it. President Trump used the word mistake concerning the Iranian situation on at least five occasions. The repetition is significant. He is giving the Iranian government room to save face, but also warning that the next event will not be treated as a mistake. IF you pay attention, Trump is quite good at this.

Purposely? The man's a buffoon.

No he isn't. He's actually quite skilled. He plays a buffoon on TV and likes the attention it brings but there is always something else going on.

J

[Steve 2.0]

I actually believe that Trump believes most of what he tweets out at the time he tweets it. It's only after the fact that when he is told that he's completely wrong or watches something to the contrary that he types out something different, never to admit that he said or believed the thing he previously said or believed. If that makes sense.

In other words, I believe that in his mind, whatever he says at that particular moment is true in his head.

Here's what I believe.........Trump is a buffoon.

[Steve 2.0]

You have plenty of evidence. Bringing North Korea to the bargaining table is evidence. Choosing to call the drone shoot down a mistake is evidence.

We saw more evidence today. We shoed force and conspicuously chose not to use it. President Trump used the word mistake concerning the Iranian situation on at least five occasions. The repetition is significant. He is giving the Iranian government room to save face, but also warning that the next event will not be treated as a mistake. IF you pay attention, Trump is quite good at this.


No he isn't. He's actually quite skilled. He plays a buffoon on TV and likes the attention it brings but there is always something else going on.

J

OMG, J......you don't really believe that do you? The man is a capital B, Buffoon. and a liar, and a cheat, and a buffoon, and a blight on humanity, and a buffoon.

[Steve 2.0]

Yes, purposely. Maybe not always consciously. I think he is accustomed to living in a world where he defines the truth.

He is a good emotional manipulator. If he wasn't able to prey on people's emotions, he wouldn't be president. (Could be said for some other politicians, perhaps, but it's especially true for him.) He's also good at using dog whistles and insinuations to communicate so that he can later say it was all a joke and he didn't really mean any of it as a serious proposal. That's not all an accident happening because he's not good with words. He isn't good with words, in terms of assembling a logical argument, but he is good at using them to manipulate people in situations where they are weaker than him or at a disadvantage that he can exploit. I'm not saying he's assembling all of these words ahead of time as some Machiavellian plan to manipulate the country. I'm saying that he plays fast and loose with the truth so that he can get away with stuff, as well as using his lack of capability with words as an excuse after the fact to worm out of getting caught.

Why is he never held accountable for the BLATANT lies he tells? I'm still going with "Buffoon". You aren't going to change my mind on this one.

[Ken]

OMG, J......you don't really believe that do you? The man is a capital B, Buffoon. and a liar, and a cheat, and a buffoon, and a blight on humanity, and a buffoon.

Not to mention he's a buffoon.

[Steve 2.0]

Not to mention he's a buffoon.

I was getting to that.

[umjewman]

Not to mention he's a buffoon.

If you say buffoon enough times, it doesn't even sound like a real word anymore. Buffoon buffoon buffoon.