[RD] Surrender Summit

[uppi]

Trump refused to consider that Russia interfered in the US elections because "it had no reason to."

As bizarre as it sounds, I think this is the only reasonable position Trump can take. If he admitted that Russia had reason to interfere in the US elections, the obvious implication would be that Russia did that to weaken the US influence in the world. This would come close to an admission that the US would be stronger if Hillary had won, despite his promise to Make America Great Again. This is an admission I wouldn't expect of a much more honest politician.

 

[Berzerker]

Didn't his lawyer argue a husband cant rape his wife? But you're right, watching her might not be all that enticing in that situation.

eh, I could still watch a bit

As bizarre as it sounds, I think this is the only reasonable position Trump can take. If he admitted that Russia had reason to interfere in the US elections, the obvious implication would be that Russia did that to weaken the US influence in the world. This would come close to an admission that the US would be stronger if Hillary had won, despite his promise to Make America Great Again. This is an admission I wouldn't expect of a much more honest politician.

Putin was mad at Obama and Hillary over Ukraine etc... I'm not sure that interference made us stronger

 

[Lexicus]

As bizarre as it sounds, I think this is the only reasonable position Trump can take. If he admitted that Russia had reason to interfere in the US elections, the obvious implication would be that Russia did that to weaken the US influence in the world. This would come close to an admission that the US would be stronger if Hillary had won, despite his promise to Make America Great Again. This is an admission I wouldn't expect of a much more honest politician.

I agree with this, I'm not sure what people are expecting to hear from Trump. "Yeah, Putin helped me get elected, so what?"

 

[Gori the Grey]

I was being serious. Knowledge is a matter of power. It wouldn't surprise me that Trump learned this intuitively from his experiences in the business world.

Oh, if that's the way you want to go. Yes. You may recall that during the campaign, I started a thread titled "Is Trump Smart?" There were too many threads about Trump at the time, so it got closed down in a consolidation. But this is a fascinating question to me. He has none of the traditional markers of intelligence, or even minimal mental competence. And yet he has been remarkably successful on some terms. There are certain things that the likes of me can know only in a rational, theoretical sense, but that I think he's picked up in a practical way. But they're a kind of intelligence. I can often explain after the fact, using some training I have as a rhetoritician, how it is that one of Trump's tweets or comments has the effect that it does, in fact how it's perfectly calibrated to have just that effect. But I couldn't have concocted it in the first place. He's got an intuitive feel for rhetoric in the age of mass communication. But it lets him do things that I have to label with some positive term (at the intellectual level; at the moral level they're uniformly reprehensible).

 

[rah]

But he could have done it more diplomatically without throwing US intelligence services under the bus.

 

[Berzerker]

his GOP predecessors made a habit of doing that, they outed Valerie Plame and blamed the WMD fiasco on bad intel when the intel was their own - or foreign intel.

 

[red_elk]

If he admitted that Russia had reason to interfere in the US elections, the obvious implication would be that Russia did that to weaken the US influence in the world.

The obvious criteria for Russia would be to prefer the least russophobic candidate, not the least competent.

 

[Gori the Grey]

No. The weaker of the two. That's the criterion.

 

[Lexicus]

Oh, if that's the way you want to go. Yes. You may recall that during the campaign, I started a thread titled "Is Trump Smart?" There were too many threads about Trump at the time, so it got closed down in a consolidation. But this is a fascinating question to me. He has none of the traditional markers of intelligence, or even minimal mental competence. And yet he has been remarkably successful on some terms. There are certain things that the likes of me can know only in a rational, theoretical sense, but that I think he's picked up in a practical way. But they're a kind of intelligence. I can often explain after the fact, using some training I have as a rhetoritician, how it is that one of Trump's tweets or comments has the effect that it does, in fact how it's perfectly calibrated to have just that effect. But I couldn't have concocted it in the first place. He's got an intuitive feel for rhetoric in the age of mass communication. But it lets him do things that I have to label with some positive term (at the intellectual level; at the moral level they're uniformly reprehensible).

He's ignorant and proud of it. He doesn't have a lot of book learning. I think it is a mistake to believe he is stupid, though. He just operates only for himself in a way that most other people don't. A lot of the cases where people are calling him stupid, they are using a different set of parameters for whatever actions or statements are at issue than he is.

His very way of speaking is probably the prime example. He has a distinctive way of constructing sentences, which serves multiple purposes. For one thing it's a populist touch - not many people talk like Barack Obama does, for all his charisma. The ambiguity of Trump's constructions fools people like @Manfred Belheim into thinking he was just talking about the criminal gangs, just talking about people who break the law, etc, rather than "all immigrants" or whatever. It allows him just enough deniability to where his real supporters know exactly what he means but he can still deny it in "respectable" company. And finally, and possibly most important, his weird way of speaking lures liberals into mocking him, except when they do that, they are playing right into his hands, by playing the caricature of the "liberal elitist".

So liberals who call Trump's way of speaking "stupid" are judging it by a different standard than Trump judges it. But Trump's statements almost always accomplish their purpose, while liberals who call them stupid almost always play right into his hands and ultimately help to accomplish his purposes too.

EDIT: As for the last bit of your post - I don't think the fact that it's an era of mass communication has anything real to do with it. I think Trump has a high amount of emotional intelligence which he's cultivated over the years of experience at marketing stuff. At heart that's what he is - a marketer, a promoter, a showman.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

When it comes to trump, even straight sex is gross.

Trump is gross, but you aren't accomplishing anything by saying that he is fat, has a small penis, bottoms for Putin, etc. All you are doing is perpetuating old oppressive tropes. And sound really dumb while at it.

 

[Berzerker]

Which one?

Just in case I dont get an answer given your tendency to run from your bs, another Dem accused me of criticizing Democrats and not criticizing Republicans so I linked the related the threads I started the < past year or so - it was something like 7 threads criticizing the GOP and 1 criticizing the Dems. Partisans accusing critics of partisanship is projection if anyone's taking notes.

No. The weaker of the two. That's the criterion.

It aint about strength or weakness, it was payback for Obama/Hillary' foreign policy. Putin wouldn't care about a strong Prez if they're friendly and not trying to expedite the collapse of the Russian empire. So your argument equates strength with the latter and weakness with the former.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It aint about strength or weakness, it was payback for Obama/Hillary' foreign policy. Putin wouldn't care about a strong Prez if they're friendly and not trying to expedite the collapse of the Russian empire. So your argument equates strength with the latter and weakness with the former.

Putin is a product of the cold war, and that means he sees the US/Russia as a zero sum game with no "friendlies." So, from the Putin perspective "weak" is the desired quality in a US president, period. And he got it. The entire political structure of the US has been dramatically weakened and continues to erode, and the US' position of leadership among nations is slipping even faster.

 

[red_elk]

No. The weaker of the two. That's the criterion.

Care to elaborate?
I'm not sure who of the two candidates was weaker. And weaker in what sense?
A clueless neocon would most likely undermine US influence in the world, but it would be the last person Putin would like to see as US president.
On the other hand, smart and pragmatic person with some understanding of Russian interests and not blinded by ideology, would be much more preferable.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'd be happy to elaborate. Trump was weaker. In every sense.

 

[Broken_Erika]

On the other hand, smart and pragmatic person with some understanding of Russian interests and not blinded by ideology, would be much more preferable.

So, Gary Johnson?(he's the only one that actually matches any one of those criteria....)

 

[red_elk]

I'd be happy to elaborate. Trump was weaker. In every sense.

May be, but in any case, what had happened was a consequence of Americans' own idiocy, not some evil Russian plot.

So, Gary Johnson?(he's the only one that actually matches any one of those criteria....)

Don't remember much about him, but yes, when I read about 3-rd party candidates two years ago, both of them seemed quite decent to me.

 

[Berzerker]

Putin is a product of the cold war, and that means he sees the US/Russia as a zero sum game with no "friendlies." So, from the Putin perspective "weak" is the desired quality in a US president, period. And he got it. The entire political structure of the US has been dramatically weakened and continues to erode, and the US' position of leadership among nations is slipping even faster.

Foreign policy under Obama was a product of the cold war. Dismantling the Russian empire is what we were doing and why Putin was mad at Hillary. Trump's not interested in waging that war, thats why Putin supported him. I dont think Trump has weakened us, he's forcing free riders to pay their own way. Our allies aint going anywhere but they're gonna have to pony up. Seems to me 'strength' is being defined as greater opposition to Russia.

 

[Verbose]

I agree with this, I'm not sure what people are expecting to hear from Trump. "Yeah, Putin helped me get elected, so what?"

That's because he should be impeached, deposed and put on trial already.

But he's a narcissistic wrecker, so he wrecks while it's all about him.

The rest of us will see what pieces can be picked up how eventually. What state the US will be by then lord knows.

 

[Cheetah]

@Gori the Grey and @Lexicus:

I just went through and liked that entire exchange of yours. I'm not quite sure what I'll take from it yet, but it strongly resonates with me. It's one of those things I'll have to reread and ponder on a few times.

Thanks.

 

[Verbose]

Foreign policy under Obama was a product of the cold war. Dismantling the Russian empire is what we were doing and why Putin was mad at Hillary. Trump's not interested in waging that war, thats why Putin supported him. I dont think Trump has weakened us, he's forcing free riders to pay their own way. Our allies aint going anywhere but they're gonna have to pony up. Seems to me 'strength' is being defined as greater opposition to Russia.

Most leverage with Russia would be garnered by a teaming up of the EU and China. Russia would be safely sandwiched, with the US distant and distracted. This is even more true considering the US looks like bugger all use when it comes to Russia at this point.