Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Midlife

Kimsang wrote: »

I start to prove how bringing in Bolton was a good idea, much like that of a nuclear deterrent. You then flip the argument to a rhetorical quip.


When in fact, nothing better describes geopolitics than a game.


John Nash was best known for being publicized in 'A Beautiful Mind'
Citation worldview.stratfor, described by mediabiascheck as "These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources."


I would expect better argumentation

Maybe it is exactly this reductionist, taking things at face value thinking, that led you to err so greatly earlier in this thread.

Maybe now I deserve that victory lap?

What in Jesus are you talking about?

This is his third security advisor in two years. The last time he spoke to the United Nations, he was genuinley laughed at by the room.

And you're trying to reframe his foreign policy as some kind of attempt to achieve a Nash equilibrium?

Stope trying to be so clever. We get you know about game theory. Well done, it has nothing to do with Trump.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1144313409745432577?s=19

Rex Tillerson's thoughts on Kushner via a recent interview

Brian?

Kimsang wrote: »

Your careless straw-manning of my argument is starting to get tedious.

No one is attempting to play a game with something this serious. Someone who views something as serious as war as a game</strawman>

Why not instead, attempt to steel-man my argument? This is how you would truly disprove me.

Nations apply game theory, a mathematical equilibrium, to geopolitics. This exact mathematical equilibrium is also applied to games of unknown information such as poker. </steelman> Do you disagree, and can you disprove this?
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/john-nashs-legacy-mathematic-theory-strategic-implications

You praised Trump for stopping his advisors from starting a war with Iran.

I pointed out that he hired said advisors.

You said this was akin to a bluff.

I pointed out that geopolitics wasn’t a game.

You said geopolitics was played like a game and gave some stuff about game theory.

I took issue with this. I believe it’s flippant to play games with issues so serious.

You accused me of making a straw man argument.


Have I missed anything in the recap? Can you tell me what straw man argument I made please.

Btw, as a rule I don’t read links posted. I’m a firm believer if you can’t argue you in your own words you shouldn’t engage in debate. I’m happy to read data to support a point. But posting other people’s opinions is the lowest form of debate imo.

Kimsang

Midlife wrote: »

What in Jesus are you talking about?
And you're trying to reframe his foreign policy as some kind of attempt to achieve a Nash equilibrium?
Stope trying to be so clever. We get you know about game theory. Well done, it has nothing to do with Trump.

I believe it is you trying to do the re-framing.

Could you please answer these two questions, it might illuminate the issue.

Kimsang wrote: »

Nations apply game theory, a mathematical equilibrium, to geopolitics. This exact mathematical equilibrium is also applied to games of unknown information such as poker. Do you disagree, and can you disprove this?
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/john-nashs-legacy-mathematic-theory-strategic-implications

Kimsang

Brian? wrote: »

You praised Trump for stopping his advisors from starting a war with Iran.

I pointed out that he hired said advisors.

You said this was akin to a bluff.

I pointed out that geopolitics wasn’t a game.

You said geopolitics was played like a game and gave some stuff about game theory.

I took issue with this. I believe it’s flippant to play games with issues so serious.

You accused me of making a straw man argument.


Have I missed anything in the recap? Can you tell me what straw man argument I made please.

Btw, as a rule I don’t read links posted. I’m a firm believer if you can’t argue you in your own words you shouldn’t engage in debate. I’m happy to read data to support a point. But posting other people’s opinions is the lowest form of debate imo.

Did you even read my previous post? I clearly stated what strawman you made.

Brian? wrote: »

If you attempt to play a game with something this serious you don’t deserve to be taken seriously. someone who views something as serious as war as a game.

What you have missed is answering my questions, instead of re-framing the debate constantly with strawmans.

Kimsang wrote: »

Nations apply game theory, a mathematical equilibrium, to geopolitics. This exact mathematical equilibrium is also applied to games of unknown information such as poker. Do you disagree, and can you disprove this?
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/john-nashs-legacy-mathematic-theory-strategic-implications

And by the way, the last part of your post is completely disingenuous bordering on defamation. any reasonable person would see that. Everytime I link, is just to cite the quote that I have taken. I don't link to a story and say go research for yourself. I use a quote or an argument FROM THAT STORY.

Brian?

Kimsang wrote: »

Did you even read my previous post? I clearly stated what strawman you made.

It wasn’t clear. Please explain so we can move forward.

What you have missed is answering my questions, instead of re-framing the debate constantly with Strawmen

I have answered them. Please point out each straw man argument. I’m starting to think we may have a different definition of a straw man argument.

And by the way, the last part of your post is completely disingenuous bordering on defamation. any reasonable person would see that. Everytime I link, is just to cite the quote that I have taken. I don't link to a story and say go research for yourself. I use a quote or an argument FROM THAT STORY.

I was being 100% honest to clarify my responses. It was the complete opposite of disingenuous. I don’t see how it could be defamation, unless the meaning of the word has changed.

Please do no take this the wrong way, but is English your first language? I feel there is a disconnect in understanding here. Feel free not to answer, I am wondering if I need to adjust my posts for clarity though.

Kimsang

I'll ask one final time, since you've requested nicely. Lets try keep the topic on track. I believe it is not me constantly diverting this issue.

Nations apply game theory, a mathematical equilibrium, to geopolitics. This exact mathematical equilibrium is also applied to games of unknown information such as poker. </steelman> Do you disagree, and can you disprove this?

Brian?

Kimsang wrote: »

I'll ask one final time, since you've requested nicely. Lets try keep the topic on track. I believe it is not me constantly diverting this issue.

I asked what strawman argument I made. You made an accusation. I’d like clarification.

FrostyJack

Kimsang wrote:

Find me where I 'defend' trump. My only point was that those who oppose Trump consider everything he does bad. I'm trying to find the few good things I agree Trump has done well to highlight this point.

You constantly point out where the left eat itself and that right wing people are badly treated by the "left media" and the "left" get away with it. To constantly come at this line it seems you are trying to deflect from the "bad" things Trump has done saying whatabout these guys being called Nazi's. There is no need for a devils advocate on here as most of us already hear what the Trump supporters say and their talking points from the media and social media, I still listen to JRE so I am sick to death of hearing about SJW's. As for game theory it is based on rational actors. Trump is far from a rational actor, he could get a love letter from Putin and turn on his own country at the drop of a hat. That is not a positive. He has surrounded himself with sub par people, the only thing he had going for him was Mad dog and he resigned saying Trump was a complete fool who didn't have a clue. The recent potential Iran strike was the latest gaff, every major military strike the staff present the President with a list of consequences. He said he called it off because he learned that 150 people would be killed. This would have already been known, either he ignored the initial report or didn't bother to read it or he lied about the whole thing, either way it shows he is a terrible at this sort of thing.

Kimsang

Brian? wrote: »

I asked what strawman argument I made. You made an accusation. I’d like clarification.

Brian? wrote: »

. If you attempt to play a game with something this serious you don’t deserve to be taken seriously.

Brian? wrote: »

Not you personally, someone who views something as serious as war as a game

(i have already highlighted this at least twice)
These are the two strawmans you constructed and then demolished.

Now could you please also demolish my steel man

Nations apply game theory, a mathematical equilibrium, to geopolitics. This exact mathematical equilibrium is also applied to games of unknown information such as poker. </steelman> Do you disagree, and can you disprove this?

Christy42

Kimsang wrote: »

These are the two strawmans you constructed and then demolished.

Now could you please also demolish my steel man

You tried to give Trump credit for stopping a war he nearly created. I see little reason to bring game theory into this.

People tend to use game theory a little more ins tuff like poker where it is easier to calculate odds and outcomes. I see little evidence Trump has applied it. Especially as he seems to have achieved is to get a drone destroyed and encourage the Iranians to get nukes. (Sanctions if you do get nukes and sanctions if you don't - may as well get them).

pixelburp

Deleted User wrote: »

I really can't believe that you guys consider yourselves political commentators, and in the same breath, dismiss the electoral college.

Argue the percentages? Sure.
Argue that states shouldn't have levels of representation bigger than their population? Naive.

Trumps win was only the 5th time in US history the popular vote didn't win the electoral, but the 2nd time in the last 5 elections, so maybe there's something there? Probably not. It's interesting it has happened twice in recent history.

The principle of electoral college is sound, for all the reasons you say, but it has turned those "swing states" into a total circus that has arguably given a small number of states way too much say in the election - Florida and Ohio basically calling it. Yet outside the election cycles that extra foothold doesn't resonate in normal politics. They've effectively become a resource, but one that are increasingly less representative of the nation as a whole.

Kimsang

FrostyJack wrote: »

You constantly point out where the left eat itself and that right wing people are badly treated by the "left media" and the "left" get away with it. To constantly come at this line it seems you are trying to deflect from the "bad" things Trump has done saying whatabout these guys being called Nazi's. There is no need for a devils advocate on here as most of us already hear what the Trump supporters say and their talking points from the media and social media, .

This is just unfair. Whenever asked, I've given my honest opinion of anything Trump does. You can disprove this by quoting something of mine. I'm far from a Trump apologist.

What I'm saying is right wing media pick up on the bad things that Trump does, but left-wing media can not accept anything Trump does as good.

This proves an ideology that starts with a conclusion and works backwards. Its frightening. As James Lindsay puts it

"If you start with the right conclusion, you can prove anything. As long as it's hostile to the right things, privilege in particular"

Brian?

Kimsang wrote: »

(i have already highlighted this at least twice)
These are the two strawmans you constructed and then demolished.

1. They’re repetitions of the same argument.
2. It’s not a strawman argument.

Now could you please also demolish my steel man

Ok. Trump is too stupid and irrational to apply any rational theory to his actions.

Kimsang

Christy42 wrote: »

You tried to give Trump credit for stopping a war he nearly created. I see little reason to bring game theory into this.

This is another straw-man, I'm sure everyone reading is getting tired of this.
I think it's Sam Harris who speaks about steel-manning peoples arguments. It's only people who can really offer an argument for the other side, that the other side can agree with, that truly understand their own position.

Christy42 wrote: »

People tend to use game theory a little more in stuff like poker where it is easier to calculate odds and outcomes. I see little evidence Trump has applied it. Especially as he seems to have achieved is to get a drone destroyed and encourage the Iranians to get nukes. (Sanctions if you do get nukes and sanctions if you don't - may as well get them).

It does get applied. Trust me. Trump bringing in hawkish advisors while being dovish himself is a great strategy. Its akin to good-cop bad cop. And yes games are the best way of describing geopolitics.

marno21

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I really can't believe that you guys consider yourselves political commentators, and in the same breath, dismiss the electoral college.

Argue the percentages? Sure.
Argue that states shouldn't have levels of representation bigger than their population? Naive.

The US is a federation of states. This notion that that doesn't work anymore because Trump got elected is so short-sighted. The country is the width of Western Europe, and because of one election, people are calling for a "most popular wins" system. What happened to all your support for EU negligibles like what Walloons did in Belgium? Smaller pieces in the big picture having a say.. Ireland having the support of the EU in Brexit negotiations because our comparatively small population is negated by our membership?

How would that play out in the coming decades? Where the majority live on the coastlines.. Would that be fair to the people in the middle.. Of course it wouldn't. Ye know that.

There are people willing to strip away centuries of governmental systems because "one got through the net". Trump won't even be talked about in a decade or two but angry people would choose to change everything now, and for what, a ridiculous system where politics would be centered on a few coastal states. Removing a system where central states can vote and be counted would be worse than anything Trump has done so far.

In Europe, we see carnage down the road because of Brexit, but we're not arguing for monumental change. Somehow, Europeans addicted to US politics, are arguing for more change there than here.

There are forecasts that half of the population of the US will be in 8 states by 2040. It’s simply not democratic for half the country to have 84% representation in the Senate. And there are the associated domino effects on the electoral college.

Is it fair that a vote for President in Wyoming is worth 3.5 votes by a person from California?

And I’m not arguing on a partisan basis here. This applies to Rhode Island, Delaware etc in equal measure. It’s just that the States most unrepresented (bar Texas and Florida) are blue states and a large swathe of the lowly populated flyover states are red states

TomOnBoard

pixelburp wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

I really can't believe that you guys consider yourselves political commentators, and in the same breath, dismiss the electoral college.

Argue the percentages? Sure.
Argue that states shouldn't have levels of representation bigger than their population? Naive.

Trumps win was only the 5th time in US history the popular vote didn't win the electoral, but the 2nd time in the last 5 elections, so maybe there's something there? Probably not. It's interesting it has happened twice in recent history.

The principle of electoral college is sound, for all the reasons you say, but it has turned those "swing states" into a total circus that has arguably given a small number of states way too much say in the election - Florida and Ohio basically calling it. Yet outside the election cycles that extra foothold doesn't resonate in normal politics. They've effectively become a resource, but one that are increasingly less representative of the nation as a whole.

Because it's not going to change, Presidential candidates need to work much harder in these low population swing states to ensure that they win them and earn their EC votes. That means that no such swing State should be bypassed or taken for granted as the Dems seemed to do in Wisconsin in 2016.

Kimsang

Brian? wrote: »

I would actually have had some respect for Trump if he hadn’t brought Bolton in in the first place..

Brian? wrote: »

No I wouldn't agree at all. Geopolitics isn't a game of poker. It's an extremely serious subject.

Brian? wrote: »

If you attempt to play a game with something this serious you don’t deserve to be taken seriously. Not you personally, someone who views something as serious as war as a game.

Brian? wrote: »

Geopolitics isn’t a game. End.

Brian? wrote: »

1. They’re repetitions of the same argument.
2. It’s not a strawman argument.
Ok. Trump is too stupid and irrational to apply any rational theory to his actions.

Your arguments have devolved into short statements of affirmation or negation. Without making any actual argument, while constantly constructing strawmen of my arguments. Its beyond ridiculous at this stage, if you can't admit what a strawman is.

TomOnBoard

marno21 wrote: »

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I really can't believe that you guys consider yourselves political commentators, and in the same breath, dismiss the electoral college.

Argue the percentages? Sure.
Argue that states shouldn't have levels of representation bigger than their population? Naive.

The US is a federation of states. This notion that that doesn't work anymore because Trump got elected is so short-sighted. The country is the width of Western Europe, and because of one election, people are calling for a "most popular wins" system. What happened to all your support for EU negligibles like what Walloons did in Belgium? Smaller pieces in the big picture having a say.. Ireland having the support of the EU in Brexit negotiations because our comparatively small population is negated by our membership?

How would that play out in the coming decades? Where the majority live on the coastlines.. Would that be fair to the people in the middle.. Of course it wouldn't. Ye know that.

There are people willing to strip away centuries of governmental systems because "one got through the net". Trump won't even be talked about in a decade or two but angry people would choose to change everything now, and for what, a ridiculous system where politics would be centered on a few coastal states. Removing a system where central states can vote and be counted would be worse than anything Trump has done so far.

In Europe, we see carnage down the road because of Brexit, but we're not arguing for monumental change. Somehow, Europeans addicted to US politics, are arguing for more change there than here.

There are forecasts that half of the population of the US will be in 8 states by 2040. It’s simply not democratic for half the country to have 84% representation in the Senate. And there are the associated domino effects on the electoral college.

Is it fair that a vote for President in Wyoming is worth 3.5 votes by a person from California?

And I’m not arguing on a partisan basis here. This applies to Rhode Island, Delaware etc in equal measure. It’s just that the States most unrepresented (bar Texas and Florida) are blue states and a large swathe of the lowly populated flyover states are red states

I fully agree that it's not fair, but what does fairness have to do with it? It can't change without Constitutional amendment and that's NOT going to happen absent some major upheaval.

One possibility to resolve this might be to break up large states like California into smaller ones, assuming they would still get 2 Senators each. There's been occasional movements for that over the years- I don't know what constitutional effects there would be. I know that if I was a Californian, I would be rightly pissed off if Republicans used smaller state Senate votes to force some Immigration solution onto me.

Brian?

Kimsang wrote: »

Your arguments have devolved into short statements of affirmation or negation. Without making any actual argument, while constantly constructing strawmen of my arguments. Its beyond ridiculous at this stage, if you can't admit what a strawman is.

At last, something we can agree on. This is ridiculous.

You don’t know what a strawman is. Later.

marno21

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I fully agree that it's not fair, but what does fairness have to do with it? It can't change without Constitutional amendment and that's NOT going to happen absent some major upheaval.

Aside from fairness, the current system, if it continues would likely lead to a Democratic House, Republican Senate and who knows with the President

If the McConnell approach to the Senate continues and the low bar Trump has set for the Presidency remains that low America will have a few problems in the future.

TomOnBoard

marno21 wrote: »

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I fully agree that it's not fair, but what does fairness have to do with it? It can't change without Constitutional amendment and that's NOT going to happen absent some major upheaval.

Aside from fairness, the current system, if it continues would likely lead to a Democratic House, Republican Senate and who knows with the President

If the McConnell approach to the Senate continues and the low bar Trump has set for the Presidency remains that low America will have a few problems in the future.

And with a Republican Senate, an ever more conservative Supreme Court will be the future.

Kimsang

Strawman:
Oversimplifying, parodying or distorting an opponents view.
Requires an opponent to find the worst version of the opponent's argument, and then argue with this.
Dishonest, misrepresentative.
Confuse the Issue.
Acts in bad faith, likely to cause harm

Steelman:
Attempt to re-express your opponent's position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your opponent says, "Thanks, I wish I thought of it that way"
Requires an opponent to find the best version of the opponent's argument, and then argue with this.
Explain what you think your opponent's argument means to them, ask them if they agree, this is what they mean, and then argue with that.
This is a tougher debate tactic because it allows for fewer shady arguments, but the result is a stance that holds up to scrutiny.
Makes a sincere attempt to understand and summarize an opposing view.
Clarify the issue.
Acts in good faith, likely to reduce harm.

Would we agree strawman bad, steelman good?

Midlife

Kimsang wrote: »

I believe it is you trying to do the re-framing.

Could you please answer these two questions, it might illuminate the issue.

No, you're just referencing something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Game theory can apply to geopolitics and negotiations. That's obvious.

Now why are you asking people to answer such pointless questions. What does that prove or disprove?

Are you asserting that Trump is versed in game theory. Are you suggesting that it is is due to some advanced strategy that he's on his third national security advisor?

His THIRD advisor and you're calling it 'great strategy' and bringing game theory into the discussion.

Really?

Christy42

Kimsang wrote: »

This is another straw-man, I'm sure everyone reading is getting tired of this.
I think it's Sam Harris who speaks about steel-manning peoples arguments. It's only people who can really offer an argument for the other side, that the other side can agree with, that truly understand their own position.



It does get applied. Trust me. Trump bringing in hawkish advisors while being dovish himself is a great strategy. Its akin to good-cop bad cop. And yes games are the best way of describing geopolitics.

Whatever about strawmanning. It happens trust me is not a steel man.

It is also a terrible strategy. They are not interrogating anyone they are trying to come to a deal (well should Trump won't talk either and has not been dovish outside of not being as ridiculously overly aggressive as Bolton which is not a high bar). Trump has bent over backwards to suit Israel in their fights. Iran won't see that as dovish. Nor going out his way to help Saudi Arabia get more weapons and defend their brutal regime.

Sure people play games in politics but Trump has no idea who the other countries are never mind what games he is meant to be playing. He forgets all but the simplest talking points (build the wall, lock her up and...). I see no evidence that there is some grand scheme going on. I have your word for it which is not much. Just people going out of their way to describe what he is doing as good.

Kimsang

Midlife wrote: »

No, you're just referencing something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Game theory can apply to geopolitics and negotiations. That's obvious.

Now why are you asking people to answer such pointless questions. What does that prove or disprove?

Are you asserting that Trump is versed in game theory. Are you suggesting that it is is due to some advanced strategy that he's on his third national security advisor?

Sorry its clearly not obvious to people that start with a conclusion and work backwards! I genuinely think large parts of society are going insane.
I'm suggesting any strategic advisor to Trump factors game theory into their decisions.
I also was suggesting that I see the decision Trump made to appoint Bolton as a good one, especially seeing as Trump is dovish. Otherwise his opponents might not believe the administration have the conviction to make necessary large scale attacks, if acted upon first. With Bolton in the corner, its like having a dog on a leash.

Its akin to good-cop, bad-cop. Either one can appeal to the opponents, based on which approach they choose to adopt. Good-cop/good-cop and bad-cop/bad-cop don't work.

Would you agree it a good decision to appoint someone like Bolton, considering how dovish Trump is? Would he have been better served with a more dovish advisor?

pixelburp

Given in an earlier tweet Trump demonstrated he didn't know Japan has a pacifist constitution, and only a "self defence" force than a standing army, I really don't think we can presume the Iranian issue was a case of strategic, geopolitical thinking from Trump. He clearly hasn't a clue towards even the most basic knowledge of developed countries, let alone developing.

Kimsang

pixelburp wrote: »

Given in an earlier tweet Trump demonstrated he didn't know Japan has a pacifist constitution, and only a "self defence" force, I really don't think we can presume the Iranian issue was a case of strategic, geopolitical thinking from Trump. He clearly hadn't a clue of even the most basic knowledge of developed countries, lost alone developing.

I'm sure both of these things can be true. All of Japans military are designed for defensive reasons. US have been funding them and helping them with tech for decades. All to combat the spreading of the ideology of equality from China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces

Midlife

Kimsang wrote: »

Sorry its clearly not obvious to people that start with a conclusion and work backwards! I genuinely think large parts of society are going insane.
I'm suggesting any strategic advisor to Trump factors game theory into their decisions.
I also was suggesting that I see the decision Trump made to appoint Bolton as a good one, especially seeing as Trump is dovish. Otherwise his opponents might not believe the administration have the conviction to make necessary large scale attacks, if acted upon first. With Bolton in the corner, its like having a dog on a leash.

Its akin to good-cop, bad-cop. Either one can appeal to the opponents, based on which approach they choose to adopt. Good-cop/good-cop and bad-cop/bad-cop don't work.

Would you agree it a good decision to appoint someone like Bolton, considering how dovish Trump is? Would he have been better served with a more dovish advisor?

Wouldn't it depend what they want? I assume you're largely talking about Iran? Is this correct?

Kimsang

Midlife wrote: »

Wouldn't it depend what they want? I assume you're largely talking about Iran? Is this correct?

The US has many more enemies than Iran, and is involved in many defence pacts. Its much more than about Iran.

There is a trend developing of you failing to answer my questions. Could you please answer these questions?

Kimsang wrote: »

Would you agree it a good decision to appoint someone like Bolton, considering how dovish Trump is? Would he have been better served with a more dovish advisor?