4 ms·

One of the things he was good on was being generally more against wars than other US presidents. That unfortunately is no longer true.

mindslight 1y ago
Trump was never against war, as demonstrated by his calling Putin's aggression "genius". He was just generally critical of everything the US did, because fundamentally he hates our country. There are a boat load of earnest good-faith criticisms of our society and government. Trump excels at tapping into that frustration across the whole spectrum, which is how his cabinet is a circus of malcontents with no actual constructive ideas.
- ExaltedPunt 1y ago
  > Trump wasn't against war, as demonstrated by his calling Putin's aggression "genius" I think I know what statement you are referring to and it wasn't an endorsement of war. Recognising someone for doing something well even if it is amoral/immoral, isn't an endorsement of person or action. e.g. I don't like George Galloway or how he operates as a politician, nor do I like his politics, or his policies. I personally think that he is a scumbag. However he is a very effective politician and his strategies, tactics and his communication skills are second to none. He is very good at chewing out BBC presenters which is pure Schadenfreude. > He was just generally critical of anything the US did, because fundamentally he hates our country You are making a similar mistake. Being critical of your own country doesn't mean that you hate it. I live England. I am English. I love England. Do I hate a lot of things about my country currently? yes I do. Do I hate the country? no I don't (mostly).
  - mindslight 1y ago
    People with morals don't sing the praises of other people for immorally executing well, rather they view it as an unfortunate failing. And "genius" is solidly in the territory of praise - contrast with your distancing of "very effective politician" and "don't like". That's just one touchpoint though. There's a larger but handwavier argument about how Trump's whole technique is to engage in negative-sum destructive aggression, causing pain to other parties so they capitulate and "make a deal". War is entirely on-brand for him. Really though we should probably be relieved that he turned his focus to a foreign enemy rather than spending most of his energy escalating attacks against the State of California. > Being critical of your own country doesn't mean that you hate it Read the sentence right after the one you quoted. I most certainly understand good faith criticism! I'm a libertarian - I actually care about many of the issues currently being burnt on the bonfire of credibility by Trump and the fake "libertarians" that actually only care about their own "rights".
    - ExaltedPunt 1y ago
      > People with morals don't sing the praises of other people for immorally executing well, rather they view it as an unfortunate failing. And "genius" is solidly in the territory of praise - contrast with your distancing of "very effective politician" and "don't like". You are deliberately misunderstanding the point being made, while simultaneously making an argument for tone policing. It is quite tiresome. I stated that George Galloway is a complete scumbag. I think he is utterly amoral. I can still praise his (quite frankly) amazing rhetorical ability that gets even someone like myself who dislikes him, to cheer for him. That is how good he is. Does that make me immoral for stating an obvious fact? no it doesn't. I suspect you know this though. The exact same logic applies to Trump's statements about Putin. > Really though we should probably be relieved that he turned his focus to a foreign enemy rather than spending most of his energy escalating attacks against the State of California. Quelling actual riots and enforcing immigration law is not attacking a state. I don't want to get into an argument over this, because I know there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. I think the gangs, violent thugs and state governors that encourage law breaking (that what he was doing) should be crushed. I say this as someone that used to call themselves a Libertarian. > Read the sentence right after the one you quoted. I did. It doesn't negate what I said. Even if Trump criticism were made to tap into such a feeling, that doesn't mean they are incorrect, or that he hates the country. Tony Blair said something to effect "You need to actually obtain power to be able to enact the change". That means manipulating the voter base. Every effective politician does this btw. > I most certainly understand good faith criticism! I'm a libertarian - I actually care about many of the issues currently being burnt on the bonfire of credibility by Trump and the fake "libertarians" that actually only care about their own "rights". Libertarians are just as bad as any other group in engaging in bad faith arguments. As for the credibility of Libertarians, that was in tatters well before Trump. I used to call myself a Libertarian (a very lonely position in the UK). I realised that many of the people that claimed to be one had never read any of the foundational material and what Libertarianism meant was "I want to smoke weed". You just have to watch some of the convention footage of the Libertarian party conference (which as I understand was the third biggest party after the Dems/GOP in the US) to understand that what I am saying is 100% correct. I suspect though that isn't want you referring to. I suspect you are lambasting the Libertarian Party under the Chairmanship of Angela McArdle and some of the other more Right-wing Libertarians associated with Trump. All I can say about her Chairmanship is she managed to get Ross Ulbricht freed, which makes her objectively more effective than most Libertarians.

mindslight 1y ago

Trump was never against war, as demonstrated by his calling Putin's aggression "genius". He was just generally critical of everything the US did, because fundamentally he hates our country. There are a boat load of earnest good-faith criticisms of our society and government. Trump excels at tapping into that frustration across the whole spectrum, which is how his cabinet is a circus of malcontents with no actual constructive ideas.

ExaltedPunt 1y ago
> Trump wasn't against war, as demonstrated by his calling Putin's aggression "genius" I think I know what statement you are referring to and it wasn't an endorsement of war. Recognising someone for doing something well even if it is amoral/immoral, isn't an endorsement of person or action. e.g. I don't like George Galloway or how he operates as a politician, nor do I like his politics, or his policies. I personally think that he is a scumbag. However he is a very effective politician and his strategies, tactics and his communication skills are second to none. He is very good at chewing out BBC presenters which is pure Schadenfreude. > He was just generally critical of anything the US did, because fundamentally he hates our country You are making a similar mistake. Being critical of your own country doesn't mean that you hate it. I live England. I am English. I love England. Do I hate a lot of things about my country currently? yes I do. Do I hate the country? no I don't (mostly).
- mindslight 1y ago
  People with morals don't sing the praises of other people for immorally executing well, rather they view it as an unfortunate failing. And "genius" is solidly in the territory of praise - contrast with your distancing of "very effective politician" and "don't like". That's just one touchpoint though. There's a larger but handwavier argument about how Trump's whole technique is to engage in negative-sum destructive aggression, causing pain to other parties so they capitulate and "make a deal". War is entirely on-brand for him. Really though we should probably be relieved that he turned his focus to a foreign enemy rather than spending most of his energy escalating attacks against the State of California. > Being critical of your own country doesn't mean that you hate it Read the sentence right after the one you quoted. I most certainly understand good faith criticism! I'm a libertarian - I actually care about many of the issues currently being burnt on the bonfire of credibility by Trump and the fake "libertarians" that actually only care about their own "rights".
  - ExaltedPunt 1y ago
    > People with morals don't sing the praises of other people for immorally executing well, rather they view it as an unfortunate failing. And "genius" is solidly in the territory of praise - contrast with your distancing of "very effective politician" and "don't like". You are deliberately misunderstanding the point being made, while simultaneously making an argument for tone policing. It is quite tiresome. I stated that George Galloway is a complete scumbag. I think he is utterly amoral. I can still praise his (quite frankly) amazing rhetorical ability that gets even someone like myself who dislikes him, to cheer for him. That is how good he is. Does that make me immoral for stating an obvious fact? no it doesn't. I suspect you know this though. The exact same logic applies to Trump's statements about Putin. > Really though we should probably be relieved that he turned his focus to a foreign enemy rather than spending most of his energy escalating attacks against the State of California. Quelling actual riots and enforcing immigration law is not attacking a state. I don't want to get into an argument over this, because I know there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. I think the gangs, violent thugs and state governors that encourage law breaking (that what he was doing) should be crushed. I say this as someone that used to call themselves a Libertarian. > Read the sentence right after the one you quoted. I did. It doesn't negate what I said. Even if Trump criticism were made to tap into such a feeling, that doesn't mean they are incorrect, or that he hates the country. Tony Blair said something to effect "You need to actually obtain power to be able to enact the change". That means manipulating the voter base. Every effective politician does this btw. > I most certainly understand good faith criticism! I'm a libertarian - I actually care about many of the issues currently being burnt on the bonfire of credibility by Trump and the fake "libertarians" that actually only care about their own "rights". Libertarians are just as bad as any other group in engaging in bad faith arguments. As for the credibility of Libertarians, that was in tatters well before Trump. I used to call myself a Libertarian (a very lonely position in the UK). I realised that many of the people that claimed to be one had never read any of the foundational material and what Libertarianism meant was "I want to smoke weed". You just have to watch some of the convention footage of the Libertarian party conference (which as I understand was the third biggest party after the Dems/GOP in the US) to understand that what I am saying is 100% correct. I suspect though that isn't want you referring to. I suspect you are lambasting the Libertarian Party under the Chairmanship of Angela McArdle and some of the other more Right-wing Libertarians associated with Trump. All I can say about her Chairmanship is she managed to get Ross Ulbricht freed, which makes her objectively more effective than most Libertarians.