Jump to content

A general thread to discuss Trump

intexasatthe moment

By intexasatthe moment
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

JoeLeg

JoeLeg

Posted
Posted

It's like that Nick Cohen article where he describes how the real danger is those who believe what he says no matter what, and decry anything which disagrees with their point of view as 'fake news', 'lies' or simply irrelevant.


America is drawing itself some very dangerous lines in the sand.

jaywalker

jaywalker

Posted
Posted

Trump is an illusion, or better a mirage floating on the desert in view. It is the Republican majority we need to be scared of. They (not he) have God on their side. And it is they, I fear, that will do the legislating.


Trump is an innocent: that is the secret of his success (as Dostoevsky noted so penetratingly). He actually believes everything as he slides from one moment to another (no matter the idiocy as each inconsistent belief is as good as the next, and can thus be as truly felt).

Loz

Loz

Posted
Posted

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> People like this would have voted Trump, and will

> be applauding everything he's doing. There are

> quite a few of them in parts of America. Scary

> place (in parts).

>

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p049v0dm


But people like this have always existed. What Trump did was convince working class America that he was their saviour. And unless the Democrats start pulling their finger out to win them back, we will be in serious danger of a second term for Trump.

JoeLeg

JoeLeg

Posted
Posted

This is very true. It's all in the mid-terms. If the Dem's do well, Trump is finished; the GOP will have a quiet word with him.


If they fail, and the Republicans still hold the House and Senate, they'll keep him for another term. They don't have any qualms about pulling the rug out from under Trump is they think he's threatening their future chances. But nor do they mind tolerating him so long as they get what they want.


He's keeping the seat warm for Pence, one way or another. The GOP see him as an anomaly, a lesson to be learned for the future.

  • 4 weeks later...
JoeLeg

JoeLeg

Posted
Posted

With Russia backing them I think it was a foolish move. Any losses can be made good by Russia, and the idea that Assad is deploying nerve gas without the tacit support of Putin is laughable; Putin is plainly ok with it.


It's a direct challenge to Russia in the region, and shows that the Defence Secretary and National Security Advisor have been able to advance their viewpoint to the detriment (obviously) of Bannon et al. In other words the alt-right party is over and 'normal service' has resumed.


I don't think poking Russia with a stick is a good idea, but then it's the first use of chemical weapons since Trump took office and he plainly thinks he needs to respond. I think this was too much.

JoeLeg

JoeLeg

Posted
Posted

I don't have a problem with the act of bombing the airfields per se. My concern is the escalation of force in the face of such trenchant Russian support for Assad. Turkey and Russia patched it up pretty quick when they shot at each other; I'm not convinced the same would happen if US forces got it wrong and killed Russian servicemen. To say nothing of the fact that it rackets up tension regardless.


I don't think nothing should've been done, I think air strikes etc should've been done a long time ago and Russia ha its feet firmly under the table in Damascus now.

JoeLeg

JoeLeg

Posted
Posted

I think at that time there wasn't as much support in the country for more foreign adventures. Plus some were starting to ask who or what would fill the vacuum if Assad left. Certainly Lybia and Eygpt were not seem as resounding successes. Tory MP's had their reservations too.


If we were going to hit Assad it should've been at the start, hard. That time has passed and with it our ability to influence the future of Syria. I have no trouble pulverising those responsible for what happened, I just don't think in the grand scheme it will help.

jaywalker

jaywalker

Posted
Posted

In purely game-theoretic terms (please read this literally) Trump is acting with some acuity. He has become unpredictable. Putin and Xi will have taken note. See endless poker simulations where programmes win against their stupid (even though world-ranked) human 'interpreters' by defying interpretation.


I believe this is current orthodoxy in game-theory terms.


(PS, probably N Korea (though certainly neither Russia nor China) is too stupid to realise - we might fear this, really quite a lot).

rendelharris

rendelharris

Posted
Posted

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think at that time there wasn't as much support

> in the country for more foreign adventures. Plus

> some were starting to ask who or what would fill

> the vacuum if Assad left. Certainly Lybia and

> Eygpt were not seem as resounding successes. Tory

> MP's had their reservations too.

>

> If we were going to hit Assad it should've been at

> the start, hard. That time has passed and with it

> our ability to influence the future of Syria. I

> have no trouble pulverising those responsible for

> what happened, I just don't think in the grand

> scheme it will help.


Sense as ever Joe. Nobody who saw the pictures of the gassed children could avoid the natural desire to take revenge on the perpetrators. However, this has been going on for years and nothing's been done - Trump's justification for a complete reversal of his avowed policy of non involvement seemed to be that he'd seen pictures of "beautiful babies" being killed. If the President of the USA is going to risk conflict with Russia on the basis that something he's seen on TV has upset him we're in for a bumpy ride. It looks decisive and strong - only a cynic (me) could wonder if he's decided it's time for a distraction from the absolute dog's breakfast of a presidency he's managed so far - but it's no basis for a coherent foreign policy.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • HeadNun
      Is Rachel Reeves becoming the new Liz Truss?

      By HeadNun · Posted

      I'm certainly not surly - it's Friday, so I'm in a delightful mood.  As Earl Aelfheah said, the money has to come from somewhere. But Labour new that hiking fuel as well as employee NIC in would be a step too far - for businesses and consumers. It was the right decision for this moment in time. Suggesting that someone who's against fuel duty increase on this occasion is against and fuel duty full stop is quite a leap. Why do you demonise everyone who doesn't think that owning a car is a cardinal sin?  I'm not sure using Clarkson as an example of your average farmer holds much weight as an argument, but you know that already, Mal. 
    • lilolil
      Had to take a second look!

      By lilolil · Posted

      Hope it's making others smile too! I don't know the background or how long it's been there 😊
    • malumbu
      Is Rachel Reeves becoming the new Liz Truss?

      By malumbu · Posted

      If you are against the increase in fuel duty then you are surly against fuel duty full stop.  It has not kept up with inflation, I'm talking about getting it back on track.  Ultimately road user charging is the solution. Labour will probably compromise on agricultural land inheritance by raising the cap so it generally catches the Clarksons of the world who are not bothered about profits from land beyond, in his case, income from a highly successful TV series and the great publicity for the farm shop and pub
    • Pugwash
      Change to Charter North 6th Form Admissions?

      By Pugwash · Posted

      Were things much simpler in the 80/90s? I remember both my girls belonging to a 6th Form Consortium which covered Sydenham Girls, Forest Hill Boys and Sedgehill off Bromley Road. A level classes were spread across the 3 schools - i remember Forest Hill boys coming to Sydenham Girls for one subject (think it was sociology or psychology ) A mini bus was provided to transport pupils to different sites, But I guess with less schools being 'managed' by the local authority, providers such as Harris etc have different priorities. 

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...