Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Christy42

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?

Ah yes. Mr. Fire and Fury. Increased massively the use of drone attacks by the US. That very dovish Mr Trump. Who started aggressivley driving wedges between the US and all its allies. Who restarted weapon sales to Saudi Arabia and excused them for murdering a journalist. Who heightened tensions between Palestine and Israel. Who tore up the agreement with Iran designed to keep the peace for absolutely no reason except to heighten tensions between the countries.

Maybe you should start by showing that he is any way dovish instead of probably the most aggressive leader in the western world right now which seems to fit him better. If any of that is dovish we should start being more careful of doves.

As an aside for who he should appoint. Someone who will think things through and who doesn't respond to every situation with blow em up.

Midlife

Kimsang wrote: »

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?

I don't consider Trump to be particularly dovish to be honest.

But my question relates to yours.

Your good cop/bad cop only plays out when you want something the other person has.

And you're massivly over-theorising this. The usual massive broad brush strokes. 'Trump is this type of this, Bolton that type of that, I'm well versed on this theory that this and that go well together, here's a link to back this up. DO YOU DISAGREE?'

The truth is that Trump is on his third security advisor in 2 years, the first two didn't work out so well and no doubt people like you were explaining why they were great moves at the time. Lets just wait and see.

I think the obvious response is that as national secutiry advisor to the US, you need to be capable of judging a situation well and doing whatever is the best course of action at the time. Competency rather than predefined sterotypes.

Kimsang

Christy42 wrote: »

Maybe you should start by showing that he is any way dovish instead of probably the most aggressive leader in the western world right now which seems to fit him better. If any of that is dovish we should start being more careful of doves.

Interestingly enough, that's where all of this started. In this post from a few days ago.

But here it is again, a quote of Trump:

“I thought about it for a second and I said, you know what, they shot down an unmanned drone, plane, whatever you want to call it, and here we are sitting with a 150 dead people that would have taken place probably within a half an hour after I said go ahead. And I didn’t like it, I didn’t think, I didn’t think it was proportionate.”

When President Donald Trump was considering military options against Iran he suddenly grew “frustrated” with John Bolton, his national security adviser, and the way he seemed to constantly advocate for a strike, reports the AP.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/tucker-carlson-talked-trump-out-of-iran-attack.html

pixelburp

Kimsang wrote: »

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

That's not really the point. Trump was lamenting how Japan wouldn't join the US if the latter were attacked, which, yeah, is true 'cos it's against the Japanese constitution. It's baked into the country's laws and for a US president not to know that does not speak to geopolitical knowledge. At all. It's geopolitics 101. Japan is a pacifist country. Obviously the South China sea et al has necessitated severe fudging but the centre still holds (what little I've read of Japanese news it remains a very touchy subject)

Closer to home he seemed - seemed - to misunderstand the Brexit border situation, necessitating public clarification from Leo Varadkar that Ireland was seeking a lack of a wall, not the building of one. Trump hasn't a damn clue, and I'd go so far as to say he couldn't pick Iran from a map.

He doesn't give a damn about preparedness, and we know from early doors reports via insiders, that staff couldn't get him to read intelligence reports prior to meetings. Apparently his business dealings were the same, refusing to engage in details and swanned in last minute to gladhand at the signing. He's ... cavalier at best. Ignorant at worst.

Kimsang

pixelburp wrote: »

That's not really the point. Trump was lamenting how Japan wouldn't join the US if the latter were attacked, which, yeah, is true 'cos it's against the Japanese constitution. It's baked into the country's laws and for a US president not to know that does not speak to geopolitical knowledge. At all. It's geopolitics 101. Japan is a pacifist country.

You seem to agree that Japan has a defense only military so yes, in principle and in practice, they could not attack. It doesn't matter if they're pacifist or not, they have no facility to attack other countries.

The reason they have such a well funded defence force? To stop the encroachment of the Soviets, and then the Chinese. This should be the point. The ideology of equality was what they are protecting themselves against.
Germany also now is a pacifist country, there is a reason both Japan and Germany have constitutions as such. They were largely drawn up by the West.

everlast75

Kimsang wrote: »

But here it is again, a quote of Trump:
Quote:
“I thought about it for a second and I said, you know what, they shot down an unmanned drone, plane, whatever you want to call it, and here we are sitting with a 150 dead people that would have taken place probably within a half an hour after I said go ahead. And I didn’t like it, I didn’t think, I didn’t think it was proportionate.”

Is it that he was told about the possible casualties beforehand, forgot about it and was told again before the strike happened and called it off, in which case he doesn't listen when being briefed?

Or was he not told at all before ordering the launch in which case the (best) people he hired are not competent?

pixelburp

Kimsang wrote: »

You seem to agree that Japan has a defense only military so yes, in principle and in practice, they could not attack. It doesn't matter if they're pacifist or not, they have no facility to attack other countries.

The reason they have such a well funded defence force? To stop the encroachment of the Soviets, and then the Chinese. This should be the point. The ideology of equality was what they are protecting themselves against.
Germany also now is a pacifist country, there is a reason both Japan and Germany have constitutions as such. They were largely drawn up by the West.

Well that's a tangent, and all completely aside to the point being made in the first place? There are no games of 4d chess being played in Iran when it involves a man who frequently shows questionable grasps of the most basic concepts in world politics. Such as with Japan. Or Ireland. Or Brexit. Or EU trade rules. And so on.

Kimsang

pixelburp wrote: »

Well that's a tangent, and all completely aside to the point being made in the first place? There are no games of 4d chess being played in Iran when it involves a man who frequently shows questionable grasps of the most basic concepts in world politics. Such as with Japan. Or Ireland. Or Brexit. Or EU trade rules. And so on.

To clarify: Trump knowing whether Japan are pacifist or not does not matter. All that matters it that he is aware that they have defensive only military. Which in terms of geo-politics what we were talking about.

pixelburp wrote: »

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.

Midlife

everlast75 wrote: »

Is it that he was told about the possible casualties beforehand, forgot about it and was told again before the strike happened and called it off, in which case he doesn't listen when being briefed?

Or was he not told at all before ordering the launch in which case the (best) people he hired are not competent?

The piece quoted said he was convinced by Tucker Carlson to not do it while Boltoin was annoying him by constantly pusing for it.

#gametheory indeed

Kimsang

Midlife wrote: »

everlast75 wrote: »

Is it that he was told about the possible casualties beforehand, forgot about it and was told again before the strike happened and called it off, in which case he doesn't listen when being briefed?

Or was he not told at all before ordering the launch in which case the (best) people he hired are not competent?

The piece quoted said he was convinced by Tucker Carlson to not do it while Boltoin was annoying him by constantly pusing for it.

#gametheory indeed

Strawman embedded within a strawman, you rarely see that.

everlast75

Kimsang wrote: »

Strawman embedded within a strawman, you rarely see that.

Answer my question then please

FrostyJack

Kimsang wrote:

Strawman embedded within a strawman, you rarely see that.

I don't think you understand what a strawman is, like your game theory hypothesis. I would not use phrases I don't understand. Similar reason I don't use the term "reverse racism" because I can't comprehend it.

Kimsang

everlast75 wrote: »

Answer my question then please

Ask me a question that is not so charged and loaded, and I will answer whatever you like.

You offered me a choice between one of two options, both which are plainly just not true. So it seems you are acting in bad faith. Hence the strawman insinuation.

everlast75 wrote: »

1) Is it that he was told about the possible casualties beforehand, forgot about it and was told again before the strike happened and called it off, in which case he doesn't listen when being briefed?

2) Or was he not told at all before ordering the launch in which case the (best) people he hired are not competent?

FrostyJack

Not knowing basic information doesn't matter, as I would like the most powerful man in the World to be. Not understanding why you can't use nuclear weapons or why you can't grab a woman by the genitals. Common mistake for a 4 dimensional chess player who has "sex" in common with his daughter. Always 3 moves ahead of everyone else.

relax carry on

So is the argument over the the last several pages that Trump is a genius playing such shrewd, deep and complex political manoeuvres involving game theory that only a few commentators can discern his true intent?

Well I've had Trump pegged all wrong. Who knew behind that facade of a barely literate, incompetent narcissistic was such a talent. Well played Donnie. Well played.

everlast75

Kimsang wrote: »

Ask me a question that is not so charged and loaded, and I will answer whatever you like.

You offered me a choice between one of two options, both which are plainly just not true. So it seems you are acting in bad faith. Hence the strawman insinuation.

You know, you could have presented a 3rd more viable option, rather than attack the question.

There are more references to strawmen in your replies than worzel fecking gummidge!

Kimsang

relax carry on wrote: »

So is the argument over the the last several pages that Trump is a genius playing such shrewd, deep and complex political manoeuvres involving game theory that only a few commentators can discern his true intent?

everlast75 wrote: »

There are more references to strawmen in your replies than worzel fecking gummidge!

A strawman is a construction of an opponents argument in the following means:

Kimsang wrote: »

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

Strawman Structure: Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

FrostyJack

Kimsang wrote:

A strawman is a construction of an opponents argument in the following means:

So your attacks on the "liberal media" and saying Trump is a mastermind of foreign policy were parodying a strawman. Very good. I fell for it. I just thought you were trying to fill the thread with nonsense as if it was your job. I am sorry. Carry on.

Christy42

Kimsang wrote: »

Interestingly enough, that's where all of this started. In this post from a few days ago.

But here it is again, a quote of Trump:



https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/tucker-carlson-talked-trump-out-of-iran-attack.html

So he is super dovish because he doesn't agree with one of the hawkish people out there on a nutty war? I feel like that is an impressively low bar for dovish. Was anyone else clamouring for war because right now all you have is less hawkish than Bolton which fairly faint praise.

I feel like we are going back round in circles but you are giving him credit for ignoring the man he hired.

Kimsang

Christy42 wrote: »

I feel like we are going back round in circles but you are giving him credit for ignoring the man he hired.

Barrack Obama said we should surround ourselves with those who we disagree with. Do you disagree?

Here is a clip from MSNBC political correspondent from March 2018 suggesting Bolton is

"Not the characterish hawk that he's been made out to be in some quarters of the press. I think someone like Bolton is going to restrain the isolationist impulses that have really been at the heart of Trump's foreign policy thinking"

Kimsang

FrostyJack wrote: »

So your attacks on the "liberal media" and saying Trump is a mastermind of foreign policy were parodying a strawman. Very good. I fell for it. I just thought you were trying to fill the thread with nonsense as if it was your job. I am sorry. Carry on.

This is my attack on liberal media:

Kimsang wrote: »

Oh but the liberal media were(promoting the milkshaking of Farage). Find me one publication from a liberal outlet that shows the milkshaking in a bad light would prove me wrong.
They all make light of, bordering on encouraging it, as we've seen with the reaction from Jo Brand's joke.

This is me saying Trump is a mastermind of foreign policy:

Kimsang wrote: »

“I thought about it for a second and I said, you know what, they shot down an unmanned drone, plane, whatever you want to call it, and here we are sitting with a 150 dead people that would have taken place probably within a half an hour after I said go ahead. And I didn’t like it, I didn’t think, I didn’t think it was proportionate.”

Would anyone agree this to be a good thing Trump has done/said?

Spot the strawman.

FrostyJack

Christy42 wrote:

I feel like we are going back round in circles but you are giving him credit for ignoring the man he hired.

You would swear that was the purpose.....

FrostyJack

Kimsang wrote:

This is my attack on liberal media:

As I said, I listen to JRE, he constantly attacks people like the milkshake throwers. Are you saying he isn't liberal? The most popular person on podcasts, far beyond CNN or Fox? He promotes alt right and props up incels and fake outrage every week yet declares himself liberal. So is he lying or are you wrong?

Kimsang

FrostyJack wrote: »

As I said, I listen to JRE, he constantly attacks people like the milkshake throwers. Are you saying he isn't liberal?

If you really listen to JRE you would know that liberal media are labelling him as a "far-right influencer" Next to Richard Spencer. Here is an article from the NYT suggesting the same thing. i'm not sure there is much of a distinction to far right , but there you go. This is the real problem I'm constantly alluding to, which people are constantly diverting the conversation from.

I would consider Rogan liberal minded.

FrostyJack

Kimsang wrote:

I would consider Rogan liberal minded.

He is liberally minded but knowingly or not he promates the alt right and their talking points. Such as he has b
Ben Shapiro on saying he is the most misrepresented man ever, when clearly Ben is the one of the worst people in the World.

Kimsang

FrostyJack wrote: »

He is liberally minded but knowingly or not he promotes the alt right and their talking points. Such as he has Ben Shapiro on saying he is the most misrepresented man ever, when clearly Ben is the one of the worst people in the World.

Why is it that diversity among different “kinds” of people is celebrated everywhere, but intellectual, ideological, and political diversity among those groups is demonized?(https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/barack-obama-warning-about-identity-politics-hypocritical-not-wrong/)
It is only by being challenged by fringe opinions, that we can have any conviction in our own opinions. To quarantine fringe opinions only fuels support for them. This has been repeated throughout history. Akin to the Streisand effect:

The Streisand effect is a phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote in The Friends of Voltaire

Do you know what she meant by that?
Nazism is actually scarily on the rise in Germany.(Telegraph report) In a country where it is illegal to pronounce yourself a nazi no less. I would prefer the nazis in society to be out in the open where we can mock and denigrate their beliefs, rather than hiding away and growing in power.

Due to the law, German Neo-Nazis took to displaying modified symbols similar but not identical with those outlawed.

Manic Moran

AbusesToilets wrote: »

SCOTUS rules in favor of partisan gerrymandering. Jesus wept. Republicans have played the Democrats for fools this past decade, literally stolen the democratic franchise away from huge swathes of the country.

Did they really rule in such a manner?

I've seen lots of people saying it does, but nobody on the legal blogs, nor in the opinion itself saying it does.

Here's the bottom line. If the court ruled that Gerrymandering were legal, all subordinate courts, including the State courts, would have to follow that ruling. That is not what SCOTUS ruled.

SCOTUS simply ruled that the private citizen does not have standing to challenge state-level gerrymandering in federal court. It is a procedural issue, and does not say one thing about the legitimacy of gerrymandering one way or the other.

If you read a lot of cases, you'll see that the matter of standing is a commonly argued affair. A decision on the grounds of standing is not a decision on the merits.

The other distinction which annoys the hell out of me is when SCOTUS declines review, it doesn't mean that they are ruling anything at all. It just leaves the lower court case in place with effect of precedence only within that court's jurisdiction.

vetinari

I thought the ruling was that the federal courts should stay out of gerrymandering as it's a political issue.
That amounts to yet another bad decision by the Supreme Court.

Kimsang

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60

Full transcript of their argument
I remember the very first time I became disillusioned with the left, and started to look at it with a more critical eye. It was exactly this moment from Real Time with Bill Maher, where both Sam Harris and Ben "Batman" Affleck both appear.


Up until this point, I had regularly watched Harris engage with people, and challenge all kinds of faiths and receive support everytime from liberal society. This was the firs time I noticed a switch in tone.

Harris argues liberals have failed us.
Affleck attacks Harris, and as Maher describes later, wasn't supposed to happen.
Maher"Why are you so hostile about this Ben, you're not listening"
The idea is proposed that the argument is instead between the fundamentalists vs the moderates.
Harris retorts, of Islam, which could also be the same argument vs the left, that the fundamentalists are given carte blanche by a wider part of their group.

Just imagine you have some concentric circles. You have at the center, you have jihadists, these are people who wake up wanting to kill apostates, wanting to die trying. They believe in paradise, they believe in martyrdom. Outside of them, we have Islamists, these are people who are just as convinced of martyrdom and paradise and wanting to foist their religion on the rest of humanity but they want to work within the system. They're not going to blow themselves up on a bus. They want to change governments, they want to use democracy against itself. Those two circles arguably are 20% of the Muslim world. -Harris

Just imagine you have some concentric circles. You have at the center, you have far-left sjws, these are people who wake up wanting identity quotas, and massive flips in our culture. They believe in communism, they believe in marxism/socialism. Outside of them, we have moderates, these are people who are just as convinced of equality of outcome and identity politics but they want to work within the system. They're not going to silence a legitimate discussion at a university. They want to change governments, they want to use democracy against itself. Those two circles arguably are 60% of the politically left world.

Could anyone say the same about the right?
Affleck has never apologized, or retracted his words from this incident. I remember this feeling deep inside of me, similar to when Trump was elected.

Who was the bigot in this situation? I believe this is why Trump got elected, Brexit happened and why we're seeing the rise of populism world-wide.

Why was Affleck so aggressive here?

AngryHippie

Kimsang wrote: »

Ask me a question that is not so charged and loaded, and I will answer whatever you like.

You offered me a choice between one of two options, both which are plainly just not true. So it seems you are acting in bad faith. Hence the strawman insinuation.

There are only two possibilities.

He knew about it beforehand...or he didn't

The implications as outlined aren't necessarily invalid either, so I would like to hear your alternative implications if:
A) he knew about it beforehand
he didn't


It's a pretty basic question.

No strawmen