Cont: Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness', say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
"It doesn't matter that the President of the last remaining superpower is a hateful psychopathic man-child because he has no real power and it's not his fault toadies and yesmen do whatever he says and/or don't stop him" is certainly a.... bold position to take.
 
JoeMorgue said:
"It doesn't matter that the President of the last remaining superpower is a hateful psychopathic man-child because he has no real power and it's not his fault toadies and yesmen do whatever he says and/or don't stop him" is certainly a.... bold position to take.
Click to expand...

I think it's actually pretty mundane, but I'm happy to try discussing the point with you, if you're interested.
 
theprestige said:
I think it's actually pretty mundane, but I'm happy to try discussing the point with you, if you're interested.
Click to expand...

I most certainly am not interested. I'd rather go back and talk immortality with Jabba while Bob tries to hijack it. It would be functionally the same and at least that would be coming from two people not one.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Interesting how one's ability to understand things suddenly evaporates when that ability would lead to unwanted results or conclusions.
Click to expand...

I generally have that problem with rhetorical questions.

Tell you what. You make one attempt to explain what you mean, and if I still don't get it, or I keep harping on it, you can write off the entire conversation as bad faith on my part. Fair?
 
3point14 said:
I think 'what the president says and does doesn't matter' is an interesting theory.

Or is it just 'what the president says doesn't matter'? Either way it's a theory worth exploring.
Click to expand...

Leads to the questions - why have the office of president at all, and why waste all those billions of dollars on it?
 
Steve said:
Leads to the questions - why have the office of president at all, and why waste all those billions of dollars on it?
Click to expand...

Seemingly to punish us for the hubris of having a government larger/more powerful then certain people deem appropriate.

Apparently Trump is just something we deserve for not living in a faux-Libertarian fantasy land.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I'd bet that the Kurds take a longer view, and that they feel like US policy is always in disarray, and it's always the Kurds getting the shaft.
Click to expand...

The Kurds took down fortifications and gave up heavy weapons because the US assured them we would protect them. I'd bet that few people anywhere will be that gullible again.
 
theprestige said:
My question is, why were they that gullible in the first place?

And is there stuff we don't know, about that decision?
Click to expand...


Well, I guess my point was that it appears their "longer view" was, at that time, somewhat different than the one you described, and I'm suggesting that they most likely have a different longer view of the US now that's a bit more intense than your suggestion, too. My apologies for being too subtle.
 
theprestige said:
My question is, why were they that gullible in the first place?

And is there stuff we don't know, about that decision?
Click to expand...

Good point. Mistrust of Americans and their government by all should have begun long ago. Nobody should have believed them. The Russians and the Chinese, among others, are really on the ball. They have known this for years.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I agree that, usually, foreign leaders will be more interested in what the State Department has to say than what is going on in the White House.

But the Ukraine scandal and text messages clearly demonstrate how Trump micromanages "diplomacy".
Click to expand...
Not only that, but he's fired a gazillion career diplomats and replaced them with people as skilled as his favorite golf caddy.
 
Belz... said:
Yes, it's their damned fault for trusting us!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far.

But I would like to understand how far they trusted us, and what led them to that.

And maybe it *is* their fault that they trusted us. For example, if they understood that President Obama's assurances were not binding on his successors, and that they had no guarantee of continuance without an act of Congress, but chose to hang their fortune on President Obama's deal anyway, without any contingency plan, then that's absolutely on them.

On the other hand, if they didn't understand these nuances of the US system of governance, and thought that shaking hands with Obama made it a done deal in perpetuity, then this must be a rude awakening and probably not their fault at all.

So when I ask "why they were that gullible in the first place", I'm not saying it's their fault. Nor am I even insisting that they were gullible. It's not a rhetorical question. I'm literally wondering how well the Kurds understood the nature of the promises they were getting, and whether they understood that well enough to prepare contingencies for it, and how much of their own understanding isn't actually being reported to us.
 
kellyb said:
This is true, and it's one of the more...I'm not sure what the word is...intriguing... aspects of this thing.

There's basically no way CIA analysts and other WH staff haven't been overhearing all kinds of illegal **** going down in every admin since Truman, but the little bootlickers never went public.

That said, it doesn't really seem plausible that, say, Obama was asking SA for dirt on Romney as a condition for getting weapons.
Watergate was the result of elite misbehavior towards other members of the elite. Likewise, Ukrainegate is an elite-on-elite thing. Funny how that works.
Click to expand...
Elite vs elite is an interesting idea.

I think it's also about personal gain that crosses the line for whistleblowers vs keeping **** from the American public. Unfortunately it takes a Daniel Berrigan to expose secrets kept from the public.
 
theprestige said:
My point is that the President can negotiate any deal he likes, and sign his name to any promises he cares to make. A smart head of state will understand that none of this is actually settled US policy unless and until Congress ratifies it.

Trump backs out of a deal Obama inked but Congress never ratified. Your position is that Trump's action causes other nations not to take us seriously. My position is that smart nations will understand that the deal wasn't to be taken seriously in the first place, since Obama never got Congress to ratify it.

And this has been the way the US has done business for almost three hundred years.

Amateurs imagine that Trump invented all this stuff. Professionals realize the system they're dealing with, and that only Congress has the power to make long-term US policy. Professionals realize that the President has zero power over long-term policy, and that every regulatory or diplomatic adjustment they make within their authority is subject to change by their successor. Professionals understand that a President's executive decisions are not binding on their successor, and take that into account when charting a policy course with the US.

---

We saw a similar dynamic with the Bush-Obama transition. Bush negotiated a status of forces agreement with the government of Iraq. But the government of Iraq would have been idiots to imagine that was binding on Obama. And indeed they did not. They approached the matter as something to be renegotiated - and so did Obama (he even made a campaign promise about it). I don't recall a lot of freakout about this reversal in policy, from one president to the next. I don't recall a lot of lectures about how Obama's deviation from Bush's course would cause the rest of the world to not take the US seriously.
Click to expand...
Nice fantasy, but you don't have a lick of evidence to support it.

And changing from Bush to Obama isn't analogous in the least.
 
JoeMorgue said:
"It doesn't matter that the President of the last remaining superpower is a hateful psychopathic man-child because he has no real power and it's not his fault toadies and yesmen do whatever he says and/or don't stop him" is certainly a.... bold [a beyond-ignorant] position to take.
Click to expand...
That's what you really meant, isn't it. :D

Careful though, or you'll find yourself falling down a troll hole.
 
Last edited:
3point14 said:
USA = Littlefinger? (!)
Click to expand...

Take away the pop culture reference and kind of, yeah.

The US changes regimes every 4 to 8 years, more or less. It also divides power between co-equal branches. And while the executive branch has the responsibility for negotiating agreements, it doesn't have binding authority to ratify those agreements. US policy is subject to wild swings, and unfulfilled commitments, with each new president and the shifting moods of Congress. Many a counterparty has found their state of play changing dramatically, from one president to the next.

I don't understand why anybody would expect any consistency from the US, president to president, absent an act of Congress. And therefore I don't understand why anybody would be so completely shocked - shocked! - to discover a lack of consistency from Obama to Trump.

You wish some other Republican had been elected, instead of Trump? They would have reversed some of their predecessor's policies, too. Maybe the Kurds would have been spared, and somebody else gotten the shaft, if it had been President (Jeb) Bush instead. But nobody should have been surprised. Just like nobody should have been surprised when Obama reversed some of (W) Bush's policies.

But I'm pretty sure the Kurds understood they were negotiating with a scorpion. I'm pretty sure that, living in that region, they understand that all their counterparties are scorpions. And unless the Kurds have no sense of history, they must have already figured out that US policy in the Middle East is very swingy, and is just as likely to screw them over as it is to help them out.

And that's not even considering wild policy swings during a single presidency, which also happens.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
I most certainly am not interested. I'd rather go back and talk immortality with Jabba while Bob tries to hijack it. It would be functionally the same and at least that would be coming from two people not one.
Click to expand...
Ahh... I see you didn't need a warning.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Nice fantasy, but you don't have a lick of evidence to support it.
Click to expand...
It's actually a fact that agreements negotiated by the president are not binding unless ratified by Congress. I have all the evidence I need to back that up. So do you.

And changing from Bush to Obama isn't analogous in the least.
Click to expand...
But it is a useful point of comparison.
 
theprestige said:
It's actually a fact that agreements negotiated by the president are not binding unless ratified by Congress. I have all the evidence I need to back that up. So do you.


But it is a useful point of comparison.
Click to expand...
Asserting your faux wisdom is not supporting your claim and your comparison is an analogy fail.
 
The idea that Trump was intended as a punishment or reckoning is one I've entertained in the past and I still think there is probably some truth in there somewhere.

The idea that Trump is a punishment or reckoning we deserve is one I will not entertain.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Not only that, but he's fired a gazillion career diplomats and replaced them with people as skilled as his favorite golf caddy.
Click to expand...

I see Trump interviews as being like the scene from A Clockwork Orange, when, after his treatment, Alex likes the sole of his protagonist's shoe.

If Trump candidates do that, they're in.

And licking his shoes is pretty tame when compared to the far more revolting tasks they perform after their appointments.
 
theprestige said:
My point is that the President can negotiate any deal he likes, and sign his name to any promises he cares to make. A smart head of state will understand that none of this is actually settled US policy unless and until Congress ratifies it.

Trump backs out of a deal Obama inked but Congress never ratified. Your position is that Trump's action causes other nations not to take us seriously. My position is that smart nations will understand that the deal wasn't to be taken seriously in the first place, since Obama never got Congress to ratify it.

And this has been the way the US has done business for almost three hundred years.

Amateurs imagine that Trump invented all this stuff. Professionals realize the system they're dealing with, and that only Congress has the power to make long-term US policy. Professionals realize that the President has zero power over long-term policy, and that every regulatory or diplomatic adjustment they make within their authority is subject to change by their successor. Professionals understand that a President's executive decisions are not binding on their successor, and take that into account when charting a policy course with the US.

---

We saw a similar dynamic with the Bush-Obama transition. Bush negotiated a status of forces agreement with the government of Iraq. But the government of Iraq would have been idiots to imagine that was binding on Obama. And indeed they did not. They approached the matter as something to be renegotiated - and so did Obama (he even made a campaign promise about it). I don't recall a lot of freakout about this reversal in policy, from one president to the next. I don't recall a lot of lectures about how Obama's deviation from Bush's course would cause the rest of the world to not take the US seriously.
Click to expand...

The way you argue it, one wonders: Why have a President at all?
 
theprestige said:
I think it's actually pretty mundane, but I'm happy to try discussing the point with you, if you're interested.
Click to expand...

JoeMorgue said:
I most certainly am not interested. I'd rather go back and talk immortality with Jabba while Bob tries to hijack it. It would be functionally the same and at least that would be coming from two people not one.
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
Careful, Joe. It's a trap!
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
I was taking a jab at those who still support Trump.
Click to expand...

WilliamSeger said:
Sorry, yes I knew that and was taking a punch at 'em myself.
Click to expand...

Skeptic Ginger said:
That's what you really meant, isn't it. : D

Careful though, or you'll find yourself falling down a troll hole.
Click to expand...

Skeptic Ginger said:
Ahh... I see you didn't need a warning.
Click to expand...
Riiight.

Joe just want to talk trash and avoid discussion, but somehow I'm the troll.

This is what "skeptics" actually believe. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
 
theprestige said:
I wouldn't go that far.

But I would like to understand how far they trusted us, and what led them to that.

And maybe it *is* their fault that they trusted us. For example, if they understood that President Obama's assurances were not binding on his successors, and that they had no guarantee of continuance without an act of Congress, but chose to hang their fortune on President Obama's deal anyway, without any contingency plan, then that's absolutely on them.

On the other hand, if they didn't understand these nuances of the US system of governance, and thought that shaking hands with Obama made it a done deal in perpetuity, then this must be a rude awakening and probably not their fault at all.

So when I ask "why they were that gullible in the first place", I'm not saying it's their fault. Nor am I even insisting that they were gullible. It's not a rhetorical question. I'm literally wondering how well the Kurds understood the nature of the promises they were getting, and whether they understood that well enough to prepare contingencies for it, and how much of their own understanding isn't actually being reported to us.
Click to expand...

There was once this time where one's word was one's bond, be it man or nation. I gather that in this new, cynical age, friendship and honor are transactional, subject to whim unless codified in a paper agreement.

Abandonment of a loyal ally forged in shared blood lost is a supreme betrayal. If the US does not immediately reverse this reckless and feckless decision, the stain to her honor, this badge of shame, will have serious and long term consequences.

Trump supporters would have us believe the orange fungus is a harmless troll not to be taken seriously, and that the POSOTUS is not the real arbiter of policy. But we see clearly that just this one 'person' exerts influence--in the short term, at least--that has real life and death consequences.
 
Lurch said:
There was once this time where one's word was one's bond, be it man or nation. I gather that in this new, cynical age, friendship and honor are transactional, subject to whim unless codified in a paper agreement.



Abandonment of a loyal ally forged in shared blood lost is a supreme betrayal. If the US does not immediately reverse this reckless and feckless decision, the stain to her honor, this badge of shame, will have serious and long term consequences.



Trump supporters would have us believe the orange fungus is a harmless troll not to be taken seriously, and that the POSOTUS is not the real arbiter of policy. But we see clearly that just this one 'person' exerts influence--in the short term, at least--that has real life and death consequences.
Click to expand...



Sounds like you want to make America great again, or something... ;)
 
I'd just love to hear one person who actually supports Trump instead of a bunch of people who are either actively and admittedly trolling or just putting on some teen angst show of why it doesn't matter and we're all stupid for caring.

A list of excuses will never add up to one valid reason.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
I'd just love to hear one person who actually supports Trump instead of a bunch of people who are either actively and admittedly trolling or just putting on some teen angst show of why it doesn't matter and we're all stupid for caring.

A list of excuses will never add up to one valid reason.
Click to expand...

What information do you think a Trump supporter would offer? And who is trolling/putting on a show?
 
Lurch said:
There was once this time where one's word was one's bond, be it man or nation.
Click to expand...
There was? Even in absolute monarchies, the king's word isn't necessarily binding on future kings, even if it is binding on the nation during his reign.

And I don't think that there's ever been a time that nation-states have entered into binding agreements without following specific, spelled-out protocols for reaching a binding agreement.

In the US, the nation's "word as bond" is the process of ratification into law, by act of Congress and signature of the president (or by act of Congress alone in supermajority). Agreements negotiated by the president, and endorsed by him, but not yet ratified by Congress, are not the nation's bond. Explicitly, as a matter of constitutional law, the president's word alone is not the nation's bond. There was never, ever a time when this was otherwise. Nor is there any point in modern history where the Kurds would have been justified in assuming anything else.

A president refusing to honor a ratified treaty is an entirely different kind of problem from a president choosing not to continue the arrangements of his predecessor. The whole point of having the Senate ratify treaties is so that a single person can't set long-term international policy over a handshake, without the formal consensus of the states.

Why do you insist that unratified treaties should have the binding force of law?
 
Lurch said:
If the US does not immediately reverse this reckless and feckless decision, the stain to her honor, this badge of shame, will have serious and long term consequences.
Click to expand...

I've been hearing this refrain from progressives for pretty much my entire adult life. Any time there's a reversal of their fortunes in the White House, it's a stain on our honor and a badge of shame. And yet international diplomacy and commerce proceeds apace. Alliances are formed. Agreements are made (actually ratified into law, I mean). Accommodations are reached. Everybody talks big about how completely America's reputation has been destroyed. E pur si muove. By this point, it's just the "BushHitler" thing all over again. Once you've called a president literally Hitler, what more can you do to demonize his successor? Is Trump supposed to be Double Hitler? Hitler 3000?

But hey - lasting consequences, right? Like what? If we elect Elizabeth Warren in 2020, will she get her own Nobel Peace Prize?
 
theprestige said:
I've been hearing this refrain from progressives for pretty much my entire adult life. Any time there's a reversal of their fortunes in the White House, it's a stain on our honor and a badge of shame. And yet international diplomacy and commerce proceeds apace. Alliances are formed. Agreements are made (actually ratified into law, I mean). Accommodations are reached. Everybody talks big about how completely America's reputation has been destroyed. E pur si muove. By this point, it's just the "BushHitler" thing all over again. Once you've called a president literally Hitler, what more can you do to demonize his successor? Is Trump supposed to be Double Hitler? Hitler 3000?

But hey - lasting consequences, right? Like what? If we elect Elizabeth Warren in 2020, will she get her own Nobel Peace Prize?
Click to expand...

I'll bite. Name one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom