The Stable Genius almost meets the Taliban

[PaulS]

She should have said 40% which I think is the percentage of people who thought Obama was a Muslim and born in Kenya without any proof.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

She should have said 40% which I think is the percentage of people who thought Obama was a Muslim and born in Kenya without any proof.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Too many people believe what they hear. That's why it's irresponsible for Sean Hannity to say Obama wasn't born here, and it's reckless for CNN to say that Trump has killed millions more than Stalin.

By the way, all Obama had to do to end that once and for all, was produce the official long form (or whatever), Took him a long time to do that. My guess, he withheld it so the GOP radical extremists would continue to embarrass themselves. That was a smart play.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trump started a trade war, without allies against China.

It's not an international trade war. It could be. But if other countries value trade with China more than with us, why would they join us. If they are being hurt by China or see it as a threat to their or the Free World's economy, why would they not come on board without even being asked. It's between the U.S. and China. We are the main target of China, and it started its economic war with us way before Trump. Our supposedly better leaders of the past didn't even seem to know that we were being attacked. If China can crush us, it thinks the rest of the world would be cake. We should have started this war years ago, or we should not have allowed ourselves to be raped by China in the first place.

He has US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and his stated aim of turning China into a market-based economy. Donald Trump, a populist obsessed with forcing China to buy more goods — a market-distorting demand. His stated objective and his representative don't agree and he thinks he is winning. Or quite possibly, he has no clue what he is doing.

The only way to get the Chinese Communist Party to change is to fatally hurt their economy or create enough havoc and resistance within, such as the unrest in Hong Kong. As of now, the Party is willing to wait Trump out until 2020 and hurt him as much as it can in order to help defeat him, and then return to the pre-Trump business as usual which was perfectly suitable to their malevolent growth and their quest to reduce the U.S. to a second rate economic power. Our virulent anti-Trump politics and rhetoric is China's ally in waiting Trump out. If that succeeds, those who hated Trump and helped get rid of him can thank themselves for putting China back in the worlds economic driver's seat.

In the meantime, if Trump thinks he can get a "deal" with China when it thinks his own country is against him, or that Xi even wants a deal other than the old one he's been riding, then Trump is trusting a leader who can't be trusted. On the other hand, China is being praised and trusted on its Belt and Road thing. And no doubt, Xi Jinping has core values.

Trump has done nothing about infrastructure, nobody knows more about infrastructure than him and has accomplished less.

Politics gets in the way of agreeing to do much infrastructure. Probably why much hasn't been done before Trump. Trump's proposal called for far more investment by the states for it to be accepted. Not sure why it is left to the President to fix the infrastructure. The real action should be in the Congress and in the states.

Worse than nothing to healthcare.

Worse than nothing would be getting the federal government heavily involved in healthcare.

He did DeVos to education.
He eliminated anything he possibly could to do with climate, even the car companies thought that was foolish.

DeVos is OK. Some things need to be eliminated. If car companies think it was foolish, they should do what they think is good re climate without being forced to by the President.

No leaders trust Trump, he doesn't have core values other than what he can get.

Yes, Trump has core values.

Trump doesn't Trust some "leaders" and some "leaders" trust Trump. Which leaders do you Trust? The Yellow Vest don't trust Macron. Do you trust Macron? Do you trust Italy's leader. Do you trust the leaders of Hungary, Poland, Austria, the Check Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, China, the African nations, the Middle Eastern nations, the Asian nations, the South and Middle American nations, the Pacific Rim nations? Do all those leaders have core values?

China is reaching out to the world and supporting development, in Central and South America, Australia, Africa and the Bahamas. They will gain alliances and commerce by doing so and are.

I like that innocuous, beneficial and friendly sounding phrase "reaching out to the world". Sounds really, really, good, really nice. We should join its Belt and Road Initiative. Man . . . it would help China rape us even more than it already has.

Since Progressives like the idea of dependency government, we could become dependent on China rather than having a trade war with it. We could, as you put it, "gain alliance" with China. Have even more commercial dependence with it than we have now.

Yeah China is "reaching out" all right. But is it with hands or tentacles?

National ascendancy is a very long term endeavor, that the US has been pursuing for many decades.

The US didn't gain national ascendancy because it pursued it.

It has enabled us to have the largest economy and become world leaders in many fields and to help others, while helping ourselves.

We were not enabled to have the largest economy and world leaders in many fields, etc., because we gained natonional ascendancy. We gained national ascendancy because we became the largest and most powerful economy.

Trump's America First nationalism is the start of America Alone in a destabilized world.

America First is what originally enabled us to have the largest economy, etc., and thus gain national ascendancy. "nationalism" helped us gain "national" ascendancy.

James Mattis explains the importance of NATO and the cultivation of allies quite well in various media.

Trump supports NATO.

George HW Bush and his son both used the support of allies in Iraq and Afghanistan and they came at a moment's notice.
I fear that is lost to us now. Look at the Iran arms agreement for one example.

Well, many believe that we and those allies in Iraq and Afghanistan were wrong. Many believe that the alliance which agreed to the Iran arms agreement were wrong. That it was a futile agreement which would only lead to the thing that it was supposed to prevent, just take a little bit longer.

Along with that we have reduced our ability to call one of our allies who seems to have a problem with another, and to work it out without conflict, much like a big brother.

We can still do that. The concept that it has been reduced is nebulous. And much of the conflict between allies has gotten more bitter now, not because of Trump, but because of tensions created between those countries because of economic or immigration issues, and because the alliances had become too tight, too centrally controlled by the wealthier nations, and by more accute political differences, and cultural or national sovereignty problems

More than 60% of career diplomats have left the State Department.
These are senior people who have developed relationships with their counterparts in other countries. They are the gears that make diplomacy work and that trust doesn't come easy. It will take many years to get that back, but Trumps all set he has his kids to deal with it.

Diplomats, career or otherwise, come and go. Old ones leave, new ones arrive. So do those in other countries. It constantly changes. Trust based on longevity and comfort within bureaucracies leads to stagnant relationships that don't reflect actual political realities. And to an inability to react to quickly changing positions in those who hold the real power. They work best in stable political worlds rather than being the reason for stability.

At any rate, are we to think that those 60% who left were what has held the world together before Trump? Did they really do a good job of it? Have there been more wars since Trump and his diplomats have taken over?

[Pete F.]

I don’t believe that history will treat Trump well. It is rarely clear what the effect of political action is when it occurs, the theater is too large and tangled.
It’s possible Trump might get lucky and have nothing happen.
I would be happy if he went back to reality TV, Howard Stern and porn stars.
I think he would be also.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It is rarely clear what the effect of political action is when it occurs, the theater is too large and tangled.
It’s possible Trump might get lucky and have nothing happen.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

deep thoughts

[Sea Dangles]

Trump 2020
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Trump 2020
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Best mob boss of our lifetime 🤡🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

One of his lieutenants threatened to fire NOAA officials over sharpie gate, how pathetic is this crap. This clown is all about control and making family money.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

This clown is all about control and making family money.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sounds like the clintons...at least trump doesn't have people killed...yet

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

sounds like the clintons...at least trump doesn't have people killed...yet

hang on, CNN said last week he has killed millions more than Hitler and Stalin! that’s a lot! are you suggesting that’s not accurate? typical trumplican.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

hang on, CNN said last week he has killed millions more than Hitler and Stalin! that’s a lot! are you suggesting that’s not accurate? typical trumplican.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And Fox said Trump is a racist, are you suggesting that’s not accurate?
Typical
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And Fox said Trump is a racist

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Vincente?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And Fox said Trump is a racist, are you suggesting that’s not accurate?
Typical
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who said it, and what was the reply?

on cnn, when the guest ( head of
psychiatry at Duke) said Trump has
murdered millions, the host said
nothing. i wouldn’t hold
a network responsible
for everything a guest says, but the
hosts job is to intervene if the guest goes berserk.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

And what she said is over the top, but Trump did say “I don’t want to kill 10 million people,” he said. “I have plans on Afghanistan that if I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the earth, it would be gone, it would be over in literally 10 days.” He threatened to commit genocide, just joking I guess.

Here’s what she said

"Calling Trump crazy hides the fact that we're crazy for having elected him and even crazier for allowing his crazy policies to persist," Allen Frances, the author of "Twilight of American Sanity," said on CNN's "Reliable Sources." "Trump is as destructive a person in this century as Hitler, Stalin and Mao were in the last century. He may be responsible for many more million deaths than they were. He needs to be contained, but he needs to be contained by attacking his policies, not his person."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And what she said is over the top, but Trump did say “I don’t want to kill 10 million people,” he said. “I have plans on Afghanistan that if I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the earth, it would be gone, it would be over in literally 10 days.” He threatened to commit genocide, just joking I guess.

Key words: "I don't want to kill 10 million people"--is that an unprovoked threat, or is it the possible outcome of an unnecessary war, or simply a bluff? You like to point out that Trump is not capable of planning ahead. Be a little consistent here. According to you, he is not able to make a plan. According to you, he is something like a psychotic liar. Surely, you must believe that here, when he says that he has a plan, he is telling a lie.

If by "genocide" you mean Webster's definition "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group," then can we say that the destruction and elimination of the Nazis in WWII was genocide? There is a connotation in the concept of genocide as well as a denotation. Killing in defensive war is about ending the war and using whatever means necessary. It is about eliminating an enemy that wants to eliminate you. "Genocide" connotes something beyond mere war. It implies some kind of extreme hatred for a group which rises to the point of eliminating them simply because of who they are. Your use of "genocide" is deliberately connoting that Trump is some kind of murderous bigot that hates Afghans and wants to get rid of them simply because they are Afghans.

Here’s what she said

"Calling Trump crazy hides the fact that we're crazy for having elected him and even crazier for allowing his crazy policies to persist," Allen Frances, the author of "Twilight of American Sanity," said on CNN's "Reliable Sources." "Trump is as destructive a person in this century as Hitler, Stalin and Mao were in the last century. He may be responsible for many more million deaths than they were. He needs to be contained, but he needs to be contained by attacking his policies, not his person."

She is not bluffing. She is not connoting. She is not saying that she does not want to accuse Trump. She is deliberately accusing him of some unsubstantiated and obviously ridiculous possibility. Or she may be lying.

As Spence would say, "big difference."

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

She is not bluffing. She is not connoting. She is not saying that she does not want to accuse Trump. She is deliberately accusing him of some unsubstantiated and obviously ridiculous possibility. Or she may be lying.

As Spence would say, "big difference."

You have forgotten that nothing in Trump world is too ridiculous to be impossible. What effect did her saying that have? Did it do anything other than reinforce some people on either sides beliefs and second hand piss Jim off.

As far as Trump goes, I agree with Tillerson, Kelly and Mattis. He has no clue about foreign policy, how to negotiate or what an achievable end goal is. He is not willing to learn, since he has a very smart gut and knows better than anyone. He did threaten the Afghans with genocide.
“I have plans on Afghanistan that if I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the earth, it would be gone, it would be over in literally 10 days.”

Trying to spin it into 10 million means something assumes that the Stable Genius has a clue about how many people live in Afghanistan. I would surmise that it is but one of the many numbers he has made up, I know it is not exact.

I don't know where you find your definitions but the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation, is the Oxford definition of genocide.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You have forgotten that nothing in Trump world is too ridiculous to be impossible.

Apparently, nothing in your world is too ridiculous to be impossible.

What effect did her saying that have? Did it do anything other than reinforce some people on either sides beliefs and second hand piss Jim off.

So it's not what was said, but what effect it had? What effect did what Trump said have? Did it reinforce some people on either sides beliefs and second hand get you to respond?

As far as Trump goes, I agree with Tillerson, Kelly and Mattis. He has no clue about foreign policy, how to negotiate or what an achievable end goal is. He is not willing to learn, since he has a very smart gut and knows better than anyone.

So you agree with "some people" as Ilhan might say. Whoopie.


He did threaten the Afghans with genocide.

No he didn't. He mentioned a consequence that could occur if the Taliban continued its killing. And the Taliban had a legitimate, viable, reasonable choice which most of the rest of the world would agree with. It wouldn't have to leave, or pledge allegiance to American occupation and rule. Just quit its killing ways and its attempt to overthrow the Afghan government. I don't know of genocides where the victims had a choice.

“I have plans on Afghanistan that if I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the earth, it would be gone, it would be over in literally 10 days.”

That would be horrific collateral damage. If he wanted to. He said he didn't want to. And he didn't. I don't believe that those who want to commit genocide provide a contingency to escape it. The intent is elimination, not compromise.

The plural "plans" indicate other plans (which you said he is not capable of). Apparently the other plans were preferred.

Trying to spin it into 10 million means something assumes that the Stable Genius has a clue about how many people live in Afghanistan. I would surmise that it is but one of the many numbers he has made up, I know it is not exact.

But Trump, according to someone you also seem to believe, is just a TV character. It's all a show. It's not real.

I don't know where you find your definitions but the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation, is the Oxford definition of genocide.

I don't know why you don't know where I found the definition. I specifically quoted Webster (common shorthand for the most prestigious American dictionary Merriam Webster). So, according to Oxford, killing a large group of Germans in WWII was genocide.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't know why you don't know where I found the definition. I specifically quoted Webster (common shorthand for the most prestigious American dictionary Merriam Webster). So, according to Oxford, killing a large group of Germans in WWII was genocide.

Fool, if you kill a whole nation it’s not genocide?
Good luck with that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Fool, if you kill a whole nation it’s not genocide?
Good luck with that

First, I went by your choice of definition by the Oxford Dictionary, as well as Webster's. By those definitions, we committed genocide. By those definitions, all wars in which large numbers of people are killed would be considered to be genocides. There is a reason that they are not, except by people who have some agenda, anti-war, hate for or ideological differences with the winners, etc. Destruction caused by war, especially defensive war against those who try to kill or destroy you, is considered horrific collateral damage. Genocide is the killing of large numbers of people with whom you are not necessarily at war with for domination or defense, but whom you wish to eliminate simply because they are who they are. We do not consider the destruction of the German state along with the killing of millions of Germans in WWI and WWII to be genocides. We didn't consider the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima to be genocides.

Second, Your quote "I don’t want to kill 10 million people,” he said. “I have plans on Afghanistan that if I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the earth, it would be gone, it would be over in literally 10 days” begins with Trump saying he didn't want to kill 10 million people. That is the opposite of genocide in which the intended objective is absolutely to kill those people. Nor did Trump express any animus against Afghans or any desire to kill them all. Which is the opposite of the motivation for genocide. His quote actually, if you read it carefully, implies that he doesn't even want to have that war as in "if I wanted to win that war".

What he did imply was that among the various plans for dealing with the Taliban, there was one that could result in the destruction of the Afghan state. I would assume that if he wanted to commit genocide that he would have gone along with that plan, actually did it, basically so he could kill all the Afghans, not merely to win a war. He didn't. And it wouldn't have been considered genocide, just as the destruction of the German state in WWII was not considered genocide. He even wanted to meet with the Taliban to work things out. Which is the opposite of wanting to commit genocide.

But, by the simplistic definitions in Oxford and Webster, one could say that it would be genocide. And that our wars in Germany, and Japan, and Viet Nam were genocides. If that is what you actually think, then I have a glimmer of insight into why you think Trump threatened genocide rather than to win a war.

But, actually, I believe you chose that word for effect rather than accuracy. You like to paint everything Trump does or says as a horror show. And I think you are not only a fool for thinking that Trump actually threatened genocide, but that you are a malevolent ideologue who wants to destroy Trump--a sort of mini political and even personal "genocide" against him.

[Pete F.]

Genocide, much like Collusion is not a crime.
However the premeditated mass killing of civilians certainly is a war crime. That is what Trump threatened the Afghans with. Proportionality is a basic part of the Law of War and while Trump may think he can do whatever he wants, he would be committing a war crime. I attached a link to the DOD Law of War Manual so you can, if you like, determine which one(s) he would be charged with or how he would be exonerated.
The only plan like this that exists is in Trumps head.
As far as the feasibility of what he claimed to be able to do, it is not possible (we do not have enough bombs to totally obliterate Afghanistan), strategically insane (using all our bombs would leave us vulnerable), if you did bomb the urban centers you would leave the 22 million people in rural areas without a central government (Do you think that would radicalize them?) and therefor stupid to a Trumpian degree.
I think we should have less involvement in the Middle East. The importance of the region is much less than it was 20 years ago.
However the war in that area is not over and withdrawal is more complicated than maintaining the status quo or winning.
I have seen no evidence that Trump is capable of the required attention to details, the intellectual investment on the part of the commander in chief, and that he has a clear-eyed understanding of both our capabilities and the limits of our power to accomplish it.
I don't have to paint The Citrus Caligula as a horror show, he puts it on every day in this, the first ever, Presidential reality horror show starring Donald Trump. Coming to you on TV and Twitter.

https://archive.defense.gov/pubs/law...-june-2015.pdf

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Genocide, much like Collusion is not a crime.

deep thoughts

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Genocide, much like Collusion is not a crime.
However the premeditated mass killing of civilians certainly is a war crime. That is what Trump threatened the Afghans with. Proportionality is a basic part of the Law of War and while Trump may think he can do whatever he wants, he would be committing a war crime. I attached a link to the DOD Law of War Manual so you can, if you like, determine which one(s) he would be charged with or how he would be exonerated.
The only plan like this that exists is in Trumps head.
As far as the feasibility of what he claimed to be able to do, it is not possible (we do not have enough bombs to totally obliterate Afghanistan), strategically insane (using all our bombs would leave us vulnerable), if you did bomb the urban centers you would leave the 22 million people in rural areas without a central government (Do you think that would radicalize them?) and therefor stupid to a Trumpian degree.
I think we should have less involvement in the Middle East. The importance of the region is much less than it was 20 years ago.
However the war in that area is not over and withdrawal is more complicated than maintaining the status quo or winning.
I have seen no evidence that Trump is capable of the required attention to details, the intellectual investment on the part of the commander in chief, and that he has a clear-eyed understanding of both our capabilities and the limits of our power to accomplish it.
I don't have to paint The Citrus Caligula as a horror show, he puts it on every day in this, the first ever, Presidential reality horror show starring Donald Trump. Coming to you on TV and Twitter.

https://archive.defense.gov/pubs/law...-june-2015.pdf

You accuse Trump of threatening genocide. Something that is not possible is not a threat. And if genocide is not a crime, are you now changing your charge from genocide to "war crime"? And is a threat, especially an impossible one, a war crime? And you keep painting, even though you say you don't have to. You keep trying very, very, hard to do what you don't think is necessary.

Something strange is going on with you. TDS?