8 ms·

My issue with Trump has never really been about his politics. I get that immigration and loss of manufacturing jobs due to globalization are serious concerns fo

by eachro 10y ago

My issue with Trump has never really been about his politics. I get that immigration and loss of manufacturing jobs due to globalization are serious concerns for a large swath of the American population. What I don't understand is how anyone could feel comfortable with him as commander in chief, or as the US's representative in the international community. Perhaps that's not what most people are concerned about, but foreign affairs is probably the area where the POTUS has the most impact. The election could have and should have been his in an absolute popular vote landslide, but that didn't happen because he kept blundering into so many unforced errors during his campaign - errors that anyone with a modicum of self restraint would have avoided.

masondixon 10y ago
> how anyone could feel comfortable with him as commander in chief I understand what you are saying here. He struggles to speak eloquently, and does not have a statesman-like persona. He is no traditional president. But look at the last 15 years of foreign policy from "statesmen". We had two wars, Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS, Syria is a humanitarian nightmare, we had a huge financial crash, and terrorism is on the rise. Trump opposed the war (was not a strong supporter before, and immediately after was certainly opposed to it). No one likes him and he doesn't owe favours to anyone. The bankers, the lobbyists, the establishment. Everything that we would agree is wrong with the country. And he did not run on a conservative platform of religion - which has nudged the entire Republican party to the left. And he use to be a Democrat. There will never be another candidate like him. But sadly no one can look past the ad-hominem character attacks.
- prairiedogg 10y ago
  Hi masondixon! > But look at the last 15 years of foreign policy from "statesmen". We had two wars, Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS, Syria is a humanitarian nightmare, we had a huge financial crash, and terrorism is on the rise. So is your argument that "statesmen" have failed to avoid crisis, therefore someone who is not a "statesman" will be able to better avoid crisis? Would it be fair then to say that because doctors have failed to cure patients, that we should stop having doctors treat the sick? Or that because people with drivers licenses have crashed cars, that we should allow people without them to drive cars?
  - tomp 10y ago
    > failed to avoid crisis "failed to avoid" starting a war?
    - prairiedogg 10y ago
      Hi tomp! I was trying to summarize masondixon's stated points about the negative effect electing "statesmen" have had. masondixon listed: - two wars - Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS - Syria is a humanitarian nightmare - we had a huge financial crash - and terrorism is on the rise I thought "crisis" could fairly characterize any one of these, but what I consider the substance of my response was what followed, when I asked masondixon to clarify his or her logical argument and extended it by analogy to other common points of public concern, like medicine and transportation safety. I think you're correct to point out that "starting a war" and "avoiding crisis" are substantively different and accept (what I perceive to be) your criticism.
  - masondixon 10y ago
    > So is your argument that "statesmen" have failed to avoid crisis, therefore someone who is not a "statesman" will be able to better avoid crisis? Nope. Only the fact that a "statesman" doesn't imply good foreign policy. Trump does imply more uncertainty though I would say. We will see. Its worth trying out. Unless you think he will launch the nukes. Which is a big part of the liberal narrative.
    - 59nadir 10y ago
      > Its worth trying out. I think this sums most of it up. People think things are getting worse and their lives very likely are, so why not try something different? It's the reason for most "unforeseen" results for ultrarightwing parties in Europe, I imagine. People want "someone who'll stir the pot". I've never felt like that, but I can understand the sentiment, after hearing it so many times.
      - BurningFrog 10y ago
        How willing you are to take a chance depends on how desperate you are.
- orourkek 10y ago
  > But look at the last 15 years of foreign policy from "statesmen". We had two wars, Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS, Syria is a humanitarian nightmare, we had a huge financial crash, and terrorism is on the rise. There are factors in play here beyond the background of the US president; Global politics, foreign leaders, policies in other countries, civilian actions, etc. To say that the US president being a "statesman" caused all of those things is a massive leap in logic. https://xkcd.com/552/ https://xkcd.com/552/
  - masondixon 10y ago
    > To say that the US president being a "statesman" caused all of those things is a massive leap in logic. I am saying that "being a statesmen" doesn't always cause good foreign policy.
unethical_ban 10y ago
To an extent, I agree. And wouldn't it be great if people understood the President should have a much more limited role than they expect now? The Affordable Care Act being called "Obamacare" shows the way presidents establish all kinds of policy. He's put executive actions on immigration, power generation, and more. If only pepole expected the Legislature to do that, then we wouldn't be in a position of worrying that Trump will undo almost every policy achievement of Obama's. It will suck to go backwards in climate agreements.

by eachro 10y ago

masondixon 10y ago

> how anyone could feel comfortable with him as commander in chief I understand what you are saying here. He struggles to speak eloquently, and does not have a statesman-like persona. He is no traditional president. But look at the last 15 years of foreign policy from "statesmen". We had two wars, Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS, Syria is a humanitarian nightmare, we had a huge financial crash, and terrorism is on the rise. Trump opposed the war (was not a strong supporter before, and immediately after was certainly opposed to it). No one likes him and he doesn't owe favours to anyone. The bankers, the lobbyists, the establishment. Everything that we would agree is wrong with the country. And he did not run on a conservative platform of religion - which has nudged the entire Republican party to the left. And he use to be a Democrat. There will never be another candidate like him. But sadly no one can look past the ad-hominem character attacks.

prairiedogg 10y ago
Hi masondixon! > But look at the last 15 years of foreign policy from "statesmen". We had two wars, Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS, Syria is a humanitarian nightmare, we had a huge financial crash, and terrorism is on the rise. So is your argument that "statesmen" have failed to avoid crisis, therefore someone who is not a "statesman" will be able to better avoid crisis? Would it be fair then to say that because doctors have failed to cure patients, that we should stop having doctors treat the sick? Or that because people with drivers licenses have crashed cars, that we should allow people without them to drive cars?
- tomp 10y ago
  > failed to avoid crisis "failed to avoid" starting a war?
  - prairiedogg 10y ago
    Hi tomp! I was trying to summarize masondixon's stated points about the negative effect electing "statesmen" have had. masondixon listed: - two wars - Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS - Syria is a humanitarian nightmare - we had a huge financial crash - and terrorism is on the rise I thought "crisis" could fairly characterize any one of these, but what I consider the substance of my response was what followed, when I asked masondixon to clarify his or her logical argument and extended it by analogy to other common points of public concern, like medicine and transportation safety. I think you're correct to point out that "starting a war" and "avoiding crisis" are substantively different and accept (what I perceive to be) your criticism.
- masondixon 10y ago
  > So is your argument that "statesmen" have failed to avoid crisis, therefore someone who is not a "statesman" will be able to better avoid crisis? Nope. Only the fact that a "statesman" doesn't imply good foreign policy. Trump does imply more uncertainty though I would say. We will see. Its worth trying out. Unless you think he will launch the nukes. Which is a big part of the liberal narrative.
  - 59nadir 10y ago
    > Its worth trying out. I think this sums most of it up. People think things are getting worse and their lives very likely are, so why not try something different? It's the reason for most "unforeseen" results for ultrarightwing parties in Europe, I imagine. People want "someone who'll stir the pot". I've never felt like that, but I can understand the sentiment, after hearing it so many times.
    - BurningFrog 10y ago
      How willing you are to take a chance depends on how desperate you are.
orourkek 10y ago
> But look at the last 15 years of foreign policy from "statesmen". We had two wars, Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS, Syria is a humanitarian nightmare, we had a huge financial crash, and terrorism is on the rise. There are factors in play here beyond the background of the US president; Global politics, foreign leaders, policies in other countries, civilian actions, etc. To say that the US president being a "statesman" caused all of those things is a massive leap in logic. https://xkcd.com/552/ https://xkcd.com/552/
- masondixon 10y ago
  > To say that the US president being a "statesman" caused all of those things is a massive leap in logic. I am saying that "being a statesmen" doesn't always cause good foreign policy.

unethical_ban 10y ago

To an extent, I agree. And wouldn't it be great if people understood the President should have a much more limited role than they expect now? The Affordable Care Act being called "Obamacare" shows the way presidents establish all kinds of policy. He's put executive actions on immigration, power generation, and more. If only pepole expected the Legislature to do that, then we wouldn't be in a position of worrying that Trump will undo almost every policy achievement of Obama's. It will suck to go backwards in climate agreements.