International What is the truth behind Donald Trump?

[Yotsuya]

Whatever bravado he displayed against China regarding Covid was made redundant by his own misinformation and constant downplaying of the virus.

All the anti-Trump media did was grab hold of the stupid shit he said and put it on constant replay.

The lab leak theory was duped as conspiracy theory pretty much all over the world. I think then two main reasons were China controlling WHO and having FDA by the balls and press opposing everything Trump says. I'm not disputing the fact that Trump said a lot of stupid shit. I'm saying that the media should not have been burying the lab leak theory.

 

[skold]

 

[dreden1982]

i havnt been on this far left cesspool of a website in forever but it seems you leftard lowlife scum are still going on about orange man, pathetic. what a mess we are in now wow

This is psychosis. This myopic imbecile thinks the war room is liberal.

 

[SandisLL]

Poland's old Mig 29 are 32+ years old.
For this resason they bought F-16 and ordered F-35.

And all this shit had made Obama and later Trump.
Plus EU with paper sanctions after Crimea.
Nothing had learned from history with Hitler, Stalin, Japan ( yeah ), Korea etc,...

 

[SandisLL]

Even Sadam is cool example what might be cost of lack of willpower to suppress aggession in early stage.
Kurds in Iraq= nothing wrong, Sadam does have crude oil.
War with Iran? Chemical weapons and SCUD missiles.
Sadam does have crude oil.

Now, vuala, Kuwait and all Gulf is crying to calm him down while....in the end bad west is portrayed as evil.
Saudia cried as pupps, provided airfields and begged to help prevent further Iraq forces movement.
Now death prince is cocky piece of s"""*" in crazy country scared and cocky animal in crude oil tank.

 

[rearnakedchoke]

America got scammed by him and exposed for the level of stupidity rampant in the country by electing him.
In the run up to 2008, they labeled a senator a community organizer, yet elected a tv star with no political experience as the potus. Now these dummies have to double down and hope he makes a comeback.

 

[jeremyemilio]

I don’t think you needed the analogy but I agree with most of your post before that. What I don't think is true is there being any chance of Trump wanting to kick the shit out of Trump. I believe there's more of an adulation there as well as some sort kompromat that explains Trump's consistent subservience.

He was compromised even before the election by lying about negotiations for a real estate deal in Moscow, Juniors expressed willingness to accept Russian government help, as well as Stone and Manafort's contacts with Russian agents.

But with regard to foreign policy, he really wasn't subservient. He really did tell the Germans (and others) to stop dealing with them economically. That doesn't seem subservient. He attacked Russia backed Syria and destroyed a bunch of Russian supplied fighter planes in the process. Not subservient. On weapons and defense systems in Europe he ignored Russia (even as he tried to leverage his foreign policy power in the Ukraine for political purposes).

I think it's odd that people suggest he practiced appeasement with Putin. Putting rhetoric aside, he was much more hawkish on Russia than most presidents have been. No?

 

[jeremyemilio]

This goes back to the discrepancy between what he says and what his team has him do. Trump would express admiration for Putin in public statements and talk about getting out of NATO but then his team would craft a policy to sanction Russia in his next bill.

This is not just limited to Russia. What he says and the legislation the team around him puts out are two separate things.

I think that's probably not a very nuanced way to think of things, though. Trump is both a loose canon with what he says, and is someone who tries to use his words to serves specific purposes and get reactions. And people sometimes misinterpret him both by mistake and on purpose.

The best "for instance" of this is the (intentional, I think) misrepresentation of his "praise" for Putin following the invasion of the Ukraine. Trump's suggestion that Putin was "smart" for invading wasn't an indication that he supported the move or would have allowed it had he been president. It was the opposite. What he was clearly saying was that the punitive response from Europe and America wasn't strong enough to deter a strongman like Putin from the possible rewards to be gained by aggression and expansion. Yes, as a wannabe strongman himself, he was stating that given the tradeoff he could understand why Putin made the move. But the "and therefore" part of that was the suggestion that the proper response to Putin's aggression was not appeasement but, to the contrary, was to up the stakes and up the costs.

You can disagree with that suggestion. But to paint it as being pro Putin is to be either insincere or to be lacking in any sort of elementary understanding of rhetoric and how it works. Not just Trump's, but any rhetoric at all.

 

[jeremyemilio]

Wannabe strongman? Isn’t commander of the free world kind of a strongman?

A strongman is a particular political type. Not all US presidents embody this type.

In fact, I can't think of a single one besides Trump in my lifetime. (Obama certainly had the "cult of personality" thing going, but he fostered and used it mainly for election purposes and never did leverage it toward strongman type objectives the way that Trump often threatened in his rhetoric and sometimes tiptoed up to in real life.)

I'm Canadian. We're more prone to that sort of thing. Trudeau Jr is certainly one, but with much more "wannabe" mixed in than usual. Chretien was one, but with a lot less "wannabe" mixed in than usual (which, ironically, made him an awful lot more likeable and, not surprisingly, an awful lot less petulant than Trudeau Jr).

 

[BIKES!]

A strongman is a particular political type. Not all US presidents embody this type.

In fact, I can't think of a single one besides Trump in my lifetime. (Obama certainly had the "cult of personality" thing going, but he fostered and used it mainly for election purposes and never did leverage it toward strongman type objectives the way that Trump often threatened in his rhetoric and sometimes tiptoed up to in real life.)

I'm Canadian. We're more prone to that sort of thing. Trudeau Jr is certainly one, but with much more "wannabe" mixed in than usual. Chretien was one, but with a lot less "wannabe" mixed in than usual (which, ironically, made him an awful lot more likeable and, not surprisingly, an awful lot less petulant than Trudeau Jr).

Before our time there were plenty of strongman. Regan, Teddy, Ford, FDR, etc…

 

[Mark McMichael]

Lol. We do know of a family that actually got millions from Ukraine.

False. You know of an individual who was paid by a Ukraine company in a legal way.

 

[calavera2]

I think that's probably not a very nuanced way to think of things, though. Trump is both a loose canon with what he says, and is someone who tries to use his words to serves specific purposes and get reactions. And people sometimes misinterpret him both by mistake and on purpose.

The best "for instance" of this is the (intentional, I think) misrepresentation of his "praise" for Putin following the invasion of the Ukraine. Trump's suggestion that Putin was "smart" for invading wasn't an indication that he supported the move or would have allowed it had he been president. It was the opposite. What he was clearly saying was that the punitive response from Europe and America wasn't strong enough to deter a strongman like Putin from the possible rewards to be gained by aggression and expansion. Yes, as a wannabe strongman himself, he was stating that given the tradeoff he could understand why Putin made the move. But the "and therefore" part of that was the suggestion that the proper response to Putin's aggression was not appeasement but, to the contrary, was to up the stakes and up the costs.

You can disagree with that suggestion. But to paint it as being pro Putin is to be either insincere or to be lacking in any sort of elementary understanding of rhetoric and how it works. Not just Trump's, but any rhetoric at all.

Ah the old trump 4 d chess move...with the this is what he really meant.

You trump lovers are the dumbest sacks of ... around.

 

[jeremyemilio]

Ah the old trump 4 d chess move...with the this is what he really meant.

You trump lovers are the dumbest sacks of ... around.

Gawd. There's no Trump lover, here.

As I said, the guy is a thug. He is clearly (as in, openly, not in code, no 4 d chess, just in extremely clear language) saying "If that was me, I would invade the Ukraine too. The gains are just too tempting, and no one is doing anything to make the costs prohibitive." That's literally what he said. And it's not to be taken lightly. As I said, he's an absolute wannabe strongman and, as such, he absolutely does think Putin is "Smart" to invade the Ukraine because that absolutely is what he would do in that same situation.

The message of which is NOT, "And so you should let him because I think he's cool" but rather (and again, very clearly unless you are obtuse, intentionally or unintentionally), "If you wanted me to stop, you would need to raise the stakes, and so if you want Putin to stop, you will likewise need to raise the stakes."

That's the very literal meaning of his messaging on Putin since the invasion.

 

[calavera2]

Gawd. There's no Trump lover, here.

As I said, the guy is a thug. He is clearly (as in, openly, not in code, no 4 d chess, just in extremely clear language) saying "If that was me, I would invade the Ukraine too. The gains are just too tempting, and no one is doing anything to make the costs prohibitive." That's literally what he said. And it's not to be taken lightly. As I said, he's an absolute wannabe strongman and, as such, he absolutely does think Putin is "Smart" to invade the Ukraine because that absolutely is what he would do in that same situation.

The message of which is NOT, "And so you should let him because I think he's cool" but rather (and again, very clearly unless you are obtuse, intentionally or unintentionally), "If you wanted me to stop, you would need to raise the stakes, and so if you want Putin to stop, you will likewise need to raise the stakes."

That's the very literal meaning of his messaging on Putin since the invasion.

I think you fail to understand that Putin's objectives and methodology is not a mystery to anyone paying attention. What you are describing is not a great insight by trump but trump making an ass out of himself by claiming it's a brilliant strategy. Putin is threatening nukes, it's his only deterrent from getting his country's shit pushed in for their crimes. Trump is an imbecile.

 

[LikeItIs]

Shady and criminal as fuck but somehow smart and influential enough to grift a bunch of you morons into loving him.

 

[Damien Karras]

But with regard to foreign policy, he really wasn't subservient. He really did tell the Germans (and others) to stop dealing with them economically. That doesn't seem subservient. He attacked Russia backed Syria and destroyed a bunch of Russian supplied fighter planes in the process. Not subservient. On weapons and defense systems in Europe he ignored Russia (even as he tried to leverage his foreign policy power in the Ukraine for political purposes).

I think it's odd that people suggest he practiced appeasement with Putin. Putting rhetoric aside, he was much more hawkish on Russia than most presidents have been. No?

He told Germany not to rely so heavily on Russia for oil and gas. He was right in that assertion, but didn't really expand on the rationale as to why. He said it in the context of his lamenting of U.S investment into their defense budget vis-à-vis other NATO members, and them turning around and becoming heavily reliant on Russian oil thereby trading heavily to the tune of billions with Russia. He wasn't looking out for NATO countries, he was trying to lay the groundwork that would justify pulling out entirely, imo. It doesn't really speak to his overall opinion about Russia. He just wanted to point to the incoherence of NATO from a military and economic perspective.

 

[James Bomb]

America got scammed by him and exposed for the level of stupidity rampant in the country by electing him.
In the run up to 2008, they labeled a senator a community organizer, yet elected a tv star with no political experience as the potus. Now these dummies have to double down and hope he makes a comeback.

“Community organizer” is just a dog whistle code for “black communist”. You can’t take anything that modern conservatives say at face value, because it’s always worse than you originally imagined.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

But with regard to foreign policy, he really wasn't subservient. He really did tell the Germans (and others) to stop dealing with them economically. That doesn't seem subservient. He attacked Russia backed Syria and destroyed a bunch of Russian supplied fighter planes in the process. Not subservient. On weapons and defense systems in Europe he ignored Russia (even as he tried to leverage his foreign policy power in the Ukraine for political purposes).

I think it's odd that people suggest he practiced appeasement with Putin. Putting rhetoric aside, he was much more hawkish on Russia than most presidents have been. No?

I just don't think those things compare to his actual meetings with Putin and all the secret contacts his group had with Russians. Also some of his actions against Russia were forced by Congress while Trump attempted to dismiss them.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Gawd. There's no Trump lover, here.

As I said, the guy is a thug. He is clearly (as in, openly, not in code, no 4 d chess, just in extremely clear language) saying "If that was me, I would invade the Ukraine too. The gains are just too tempting, and no one is doing anything to make the costs prohibitive." That's literally what he said. And it's not to be taken lightly. As I said, he's an absolute wannabe strongman and, as such, he absolutely does think Putin is "Smart" to invade the Ukraine because that absolutely is what he would do in that same situation.

The message of which is NOT, "And so you should let him because I think he's cool" but rather (and again, very clearly unless you are obtuse, intentionally or unintentionally), "If you wanted me to stop, you would need to raise the stakes, and so if you want Putin to stop, you will likewise need to raise the stakes."

That's the very literal meaning of his messaging on Putin since the invasion.

This is literally what he said. “I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius,’ ” Mr. Trump said during the radio interview “Putin declares a big portion of of Ukraine, Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. So, Putin is now saying, ‘It’s independent,’ a large section of Ukraine. I said, ‘How smart is that?’”I mean, he’s taking over a country for $2 worth of sanctions. I’d say that’s pretty smart,”“He was going to be satisfied with a piece and now he sees the weakness and the incompetence and the stupidity of this administration,”

 

[jeremyemilio]

I think you fail to understand that Putin's objectives and methodology is not a mystery to anyone paying attention. What you are describing is not a great insight by trump but trump making an ass out of himself by claiming it's a brilliant strategy. Putin is threatening nukes, it's his only deterrent from getting his country's shit pushed in for their crimes. Trump is an imbecile.

It seems like you're agreeing with me, at this point, and just putting words into my mouth so that you can keep up the appearance of disagreement.

I didn't say that it was some great insight.

All I said was that characterizing his statements as some sort of indication that he would be (or thinks others should be) more acquiescent to Putin is an intellectually dishonest and/or lazy interpretation of his words.

As you suggest, if anything Trump's ideas on the issue are dangerous precisely because they don't give Putin's nuclear deterrent the thoughtful and serious consideration warranted.