Cont: The Trump Presidency X: 10-10 'til we do it again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
No, it's quite reasonable. He hasn't been given half a chance yet.

You're free to disagree, but it should be obvious that I think he hasn't, since there's no war yet, and yet I still made that comment. : rolleyes :
Click to expand...

Schroedinger's casus belli doesn't seem like a reasonable assessment to me. You want to suggest that Trump is a crazy warmonger - or could be, if given the opportunity - but when we examine your suggestion, it ends up being empty words. "Half a chance"? What does that even mean?

I think there's a lot of countries out there giving at least half a chance for war. The Chavista regime in Venezuela is more than half in need of a paddlin'. Iran has done more than half enough to provoke a crazy warmonger - just being a state sponsor of terror about fills that cup entirely. Russia's invasion of Ukraine, in defiance of US commitments to guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty, is more than half a justification for war in my book. North Korea has been operating on at least half a chance of war for over fifty years.

Hell, Libya and Syria each gave Obama half a chance of war, and he took it. Of course, he only fought half a war in each case, with arguably worse results than if he'd fought no war at all, or gone ahead with a full war. But that's probably beside the point.

You say Trump would start a war with Liechtenstein if given half a chance, but when we actually examine Trump's warmongering record, we find that it is well within the reasonable mainstream of presidential behavior. "Half a chance" connotes "very little provocation at all", and it's implied that Trump is unusual in this regard. But so far it looks like Trump's threshold for warfare requires at least as much provocation as is usual for a US President.

So what is "half a chance" actually supposed to mean, in your accusation? Anything other than "hasn't started any wars, which is normal behavior for a President"?
 
I can see choosing a date off in the future for retiring, but for resigning? Seems like the locks should be changed the very day of the announcement.
 
theprestige said:
Schroedinger's casus belli doesn't seem like a reasonable assessment to me. You want to suggest that Trump is a crazy warmonger - or could be, if given the opportunity - but when we examine your suggestion, it ends up being empty words. "Half a chance"? What does that even mean?
Click to expand...

"Oh, no! I don't understand language anymore! Thus your post ceases to make sense."

It means exactly what I meant. His temperament means he's likely to flirt with open war. Hopefully it won't come to that. Don't try to make it mean more.
 
From a piece called, "WATCH: Trump Expertly Slams Hillary Clinton and Her Take on Kavanaugh During Nikki Haley Presser"

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_mo...y-clinton-take-kavanaugh-nikki-haley-presser/


“What’s your response to Hillary Clinton saying last night’s swearing-in of Judge Kavanaugh was more a political event than it was a national event?” asked the reporter.

Trump’s response was calm, but it was a devastating strike against Clinton’s ineptitude and failure as a politician.

“I guess that’s why she lost. She doesn’t get it. She never did,” answered Trump.

“I knew that a long time ago,” he added. “Hillary never got it. That’s why she lost.”
Click to expand...

That's....not actually an answer to the question.
 
Belz... said:
It means exactly what I meant. His temperament means he's likely to flirt with open war.
Click to expand...

Okay, I can get with that. It's not so much that he'd start a war if given half a chance. It's that he's temperamentally inclined to flirt with war.

But even this claim I disagree with. Bombast aside, he doesn't seem any more inclined to flirt with open war than have been most of his predecessors. Obama didn't just flirt with open war in Libya and Syria -- he straight up grabbed open war by the pussy.

And we all know about Dubya's attitude towards open war. Even Clinton wasn't entirely averse to putting US troops in harm's way, and America's enemies in the way of American cruise missiles. Then there's Kennedy's decision to put nuclear missiles in Turkey, which is pretty much the gold standard for American presidents flirting with open war. Anything more than that, and they'd actually be in open war. Which Kennedy also did.

One time that Trump seemed like he might be flirting with open war - his bombastic (heh) approach to North Korea - has resulted not in warlike escalation, but in demarche. North Korea has made overtures of peace to South Korea. They've reversed their stated policy on the development of nuclear weapons. Etc. Even if you deny that Trump had anything to do with these developments, it seems clear that there was no open war to flirt with, on that front.

It seems silly to say that Trump would "start a war... if given half a chance" if all you mean is that he'd "flirt with open war", and his track record so far doesn't even support that. His track record actually supports the idea that he's no more warlike than most presidents, and possibly even less warlike than his recent predecessors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom