Discussion in 'United States' started by Doug1943, Jul 9, 2019.
Sorry. I apologize.
EVERYBODY shares that Former UK Amb.'s view of Trump.
The guy just as well could've said "The Sun Sets in the West".
Inept suggest the inability to accomplish and I don't think anyone would suggest DT has not accomplished a significant amount thus far. Perhaps however not those things which the former ambassador would want.
Everybody on the nut left, that is. They love Trump in Eastern Europe and Israel, among many other places. Some foreigners came here just to watch the 4th of July parade/Trump extravaganza.
"nut left"? :smh:
You couldn't get your opinion across without engaging in a Group Insult?
That is unfortunate.
In am glad to hear that so many foreign visitors came here for the DC 4 th of July.
Just like they do EVERY Year (and it had nothing to do with Trump).
Once again, the UK Amb. was spot-on.
Inept suggests an inability to accomplish your job. I don' think anyone would suggest trump actually possesses the intellectual, behavioral, or leadership skills necessary to execute the office of president.
No problem, everyone makes mistakes.
Which Eastern Europeans love Trump? Are you referring to the many in Eastern Europe who are far right supporters and still have their roots in Nazism. Trump panders to Nazis for support
Yeah, them eastern EU nations who are in conflict with the rest of the EU of being too corrupt and too undemocratic....
They share a theme: being inept.
That would be my guess... There are far right supporters coming out from under rocks in every country.... Very sad.
On topic, I think it's going to be VERY interesting replacing this Brit. Ambassador. Under any normal circumstances, the British Ambassador to the US is a very prestigious position.
Who in the world is going to want it now??? When the man who held the job has that opinion of the man you are supposed to work with??
May I suggest the following appointment - British Ambassador to the United States Ricky Gervais?? We have a game show President so why not have a TV show ambassador...
EDIT - Here are some chuckles
“It could have been any of us,” one ambassador, who is still serving and therefore spoke on the condition of anonymity, said on Wednesday.
Forgive my ignorance but what part of his job has he been unable to accomplish. His list of job accomplishments is obviously extensive.
Whoever's next might be more careful about buttoning their vest.
My main complaint about Trump domestically is that he needlessly alienates that 10 to 20% of the electorate that we need to keep the liberals from winning power in the next election. There are ways to carry out his policies which could bring along people who are now listening to the Left.
Defending the border is one example, probably the most important. In a fight, you have to identify those who are not with you, and seek to exploit their divisions ... neutralizing as many as you can. Obama was pretty good at this -- as witness his getting an evangelical Christian to preside at his first inauguration. The Democrats are moving rapidly towards an effectively Open Borders position, which will be deeply unpopular with those not living in gated communities. They should be vulnerable on this. But because America is a very decent country, the Left will use any example, including invented ones, of harsh treatment of illegals, especially children, to appeal to American emotions. That should be countered with equally skillful propaganda.
My fear is that what Trump does is not as the result of cool calculuation, decisions taken after confering with people who know about the problem he's dealing with, but are impulsive and based on who has wounded, or stroked, his ego last. So he's unpredictable. And I don't think he's deeply knowledgeable about foreign policy ... the most important issue for an American President by far. You can make up for that to some extent by hiring good brains -- people like 'Mad Dog' Mattis -- but then he couldn't stand it and left.
On the other hand, I was very pleased with his Supreme Court nomination, and hope he gets to make more.
I think few people have really taken on board that there is no privacy any more. Everything you say, you write, your physical presence some place, the books you buy ... the anything you buy [guns and ammunition in particular]... your emails ... your booking of a motel for a one-night tryst when you're away on a business trip ... it's all recorded somewhere. Anything that was recorded in the past, even fifty years ago, will be found and used by unscrupulous enemies. A mature people could laugh off a high school indiscretion, but in the current atmosphere of emotional hysteria -- and people willing to lie -- nothing is sacred.
Don’t worry, trump admin says the debt isn’t a concern. Problem solved!
Get TF out of here... trump is a gdamn moron without the leadership shills to get legislation passed when his party has both the house and senate. He's completely incompetent on matters of trade and fiscal policy. He tweets like a preschooler. He's a train wreck. And everyone knows it.
You think??? LOL, thanks capt. obvious.
You make good points. He could get more support if he revised some of his tactics I do agree. He is not a slick politician, which is part of his appeal to many. I appreciate his foreign policy stances generally, he has negotiated better trade deals. China, N Korea and Iran are still on the table, but I like that he uses economic and not military means to deal with our enemies and that he is willing to stand up to them, unlike his predecessor. I think he has accomplished more than most who have gone before him, so to consider him inept I believe would be inaccurate at best.
Actually, although I didn't support him in the last election, I did think some of the things he said about foreign policy were hopeful ... he didn't appear to be a captive of the Washington bi-partisan foreign policy consensus. But that hope was dashed.
That's only because trump has no friggin idea what he thinks. He doesn't know what he doesn't know and he (apparently) doesn't care to know.
History will judge him. When Richard Nixon took office, including for the second time, liberals in America were horrified. I remember some people even talking about 'fascism'. But he was able to see that our China policy was completely wrong, and he turned American foreign policy on its head with respect to China. Only he could have done it -- a liberal President would have been afraid of being baited as soft on communism. Now Nixon could do that, because, among other characteristics he was totally amoral. So I'm still hopeful about Trump, although his, or John Bolton's, Iran and Cuba policies are exactly wrong.
Interesting point but the definition of "sanity" is not "conforming to social norms" so since your hypothesis is based on a false premise, it is false.
Yes, I think you have a valid point. Not a good choice of words.
Before I wrote that, I thought a bit about what 'sanity' should/did mean, but couldn't really come up with some sort of objective definition. Most of the definitions I've seen refer to 'rational behavior', which, however, is a social judgement. Is it rational to charge a machine gun? To gamble away your inheritance? Was it rational to openly oppose a powerful totalitarian government? (The Soviets didn't think so, and put some of the people who did that into insane asylums.) Is it rational to believe that you are being watched by an invisible man in the sky, and if you don't believe that this man sent down an angel to impregnate a woman, and the offspring died on the cross to atone for your sins ... you will not go to heaven? At various times it certainly has been irrational to voice your doubts about this extraordinary proposition.
But charging machine guns, in the right circumstances, can earn one the highest approval society is capable of; people who lose all their money may be foolish but we don't usually literally think they are mad (although it's a common metaphor); we honor those Soviet dissidents who were imprisoned in insane asylums; and most of the population of the US believes that they will go to heaven because they believe in the son of the invisible man in the sky.
I certainly believe that the concept of 'insanity', or, more broadly, 'mental disorder' can be used in a valid way.
But there is also a 'conforming to social norm' component to our judgements of these conditions. For instance, the supposed mental illness of 'drapetomania' was certainly purely a socially-defined 'mental illness'.
Similarly, and much more common at one time, was the diagnosis of 'hysteria' in women. Here's what Wiki has to say about it:
In my lifetime, homosexuality was classified in the DSM as a mental disorder. No longer, but the change was the result of a change in society, not the result of objective scientific investigation (nor was its inclusion there in the first place the result of such investigation -- it was the result of a social norms).
So it was a bit lazy of me to use that choice of words .... but ... I can't phrase it in such a way to recognize, or assert my belief in, both the fact that there is such a thing as as 'insanity' -- that the term has a useful objective referent -- and also to acknowledge that it overlaps with social judgements as well.
In any case, mass persecution of one tribe by another is not the manifestation of mental illness, but rather is an ever-present potential of normal human behavior, and Hitler was not insane.
Yeah so far Iran has not gone well, especially as of late. The previous policy of ignoring the problem and allowing the greatest terrorist supporting nation to go nuclear seemed less than ideal. I don't see any great alternative plans, hopefully over time it will be more effective. I certainly don't support military options in the region. Among Nixon's many faults, he did have some praiseworthy foreign accomplishments.
A flawed man with some significant accomplishments. If he cured cancer I fear you'd condemn him for it.
Separate names with a comma.