Cont: The Trump Presidency 11: Insert something funny

[The Big Dog]

Also not relevant. You should form and communicate a thought at some point.

Golly! Would it help if I formed a thought that it was spectacularly ironic that you said that a murderer could be scapegoated for a traffic accident and then later declared that something was irrelevant?

Let me communicate that to you now.

So communicated.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Golly! Would it help if I formed a thought that it was spectacularly ironic that you said that a murderer could be scapegoated for a traffic accident and then later declared that something was irrelevant?

Let me communicate that to you now.

So communicated.

I never assert my opinions are relevant

 

[The Big Dog]

I never assert my opinions are relevant

Then we agree!

 

[BobTheCoward]

Then we agree!

But do you assert that your opinions are relevant? Because I got bad news if you do.

 

[The Big Dog]

But do you assert that your opinions are relevant? Because I got bad news if you do.

But, we have already established that your opinions are not relevant, therefore your assertions regarding my opinions are....

Well I will let you noodle that out for yourself, but as always I find our discussions:

Fascinating.

 

[BobTheCoward]

But, we have already established that your opinions are not relevant, therefore your assertions regarding my opinions are....

Well I will let you noodle that out for yourself, but as always I find our discussions:

Fascinating.

We didn't decide that. I didn't say my opinions we're not relevant. I said I don't assert that they are.

But I did solve your issue with scapegoating. I would like your feedback on that solution.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I got the impression also that at least some of these apparent perpetrators are going to pay a price for failure of mission secrecy.

Doubtful. Someone is going to be seen to pay. But appearances are everything. It will be the next group of jaywalkers, pickpockets and religious idolators who will go to the public chopper, having been branded by the Sheik's court as "THEY DID IT!"

 

[Norman Alexander]

Even if that is all true, I still don't understand the butt-kissing. There are instances where it might even be better for the dictators if Trump weren't so obviously communicating his loyalties. And I don't know that the economic explanation holds up as well when talking about Kim and Duterte. Maybe he has deals with them too. But the "we fell in love" rhetoric is unnecessary even under the scenario you and other posters are proposing here. To me there seems to be something else to it, some compulsion to grovel.

Again, if we consider these relationships in the light of "What's in it for Trump personally?" then it makes more sense. Remember it doesn't necessarily have to be money, but money IS high on his list.

Philippines: Trump Tower Manila, started 2011 or so and completed after Donny became president. How vested is Donny in the region? Lots.

North Korea: This is not so much monetary as it is for personal glory. He wants to be forever remembered as the president who "solved" (or perhaps even "tamed") North Korea. Hence the fanfare and bravado leading up to Singapore. More discussion here. Of course, being such a one-dimensional braggart, he got played by Kim like a kitten with a laser pointer. But since this doesn't involve Donny's personal money, if it all falls apart (and it looks to be doing so), Donny will pretend it was all somebody else's fault and then try to pretend it never happened. Just like his bankruptcies.

 

[Ladewig]

FFS, it’s a Trump thread, if you want to talk about Trump’s reaction, then talk about that. Arguing about the definition of scapegoating should be done in the thread devoted to the murder.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I feel making this about Trump is like cutting off the nose to spite your face.

Why would you think that? No one generally wants to discuss Asian politics - I've tried many a time. I assume you've noted the thread title? I related the developments to President Trump.

There's nothing in my post other than realpolitik as to the moves they are possibly going to make and to how that pertains to Trump. That's the subject of the thread.

So which nose on which face. That's a handy old saw sometimes, but it connotes that you think there's something wrong or right about the policies of the DPP and Kuomintang. They're both pretty much the same party now, as the majority of the country is pretty clearly behind maintaining and building on the ties and relationships with China. The founders of the DPP have aged and the population as a whole benefits greatly from the relationship with China. As long ago as 2002, Taiwanese owned and Taiwanese/Chinese j.v. operations in the PRC amounted to over 50,000 businesses.

If you wish to discuss the elections and/or politics of Taiwan, feel free to start a thread. My read on the news is not all that different from commentaries in a number of journals - both sides of the political spectrum. And a thread on Trump is the right place for the comments.

 

[Stacyhs]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_100585bfcba1847bd4.jpg[/qimg]

verb
1.
make a scapegoat of.
"secret police scapegoated a few of the ringleaders to put an end to the issue"

Exactly. Scapegoats do not have to be free of guilt. They take the fall for someone else who gets away without punishment. In this case, M bin Salman gets away with ordering the murder of Khashoggi by placing all the blame on "rogue" Saudis who are now facing execution.

 

[Mojo]

I chuckled when they used the word scapegoated to illustrate scapegoating, that is some quality dictionering.

What? You think it’s amusing that they illustrated the use of a word by using a sentence with that word in it?



What word do you think they should have used?

 

[varwoche]

I chuckled when they used the word scapegoated to illustrate scapegoating, that is some quality dictionering.

You're right! That is indeed goofy dictioneering. (I think the two e's works better.)

But an excellent job on your part of causing the sidetrack to begin with! Diversion, misrepresentation, weaseling, infantility, flat out lying, trolling, wrong on the facts, wrong on the meta facts, supportive of autocracy, misogynistic, a sense of self worth rivaling your fuhrer, make believe Bernie supporter, make believe legal expert, hoisted by your own retard on a daily basis. Etc. With apologies to Trebuchet.

 

[Aridas]

You're lying. He said exactly why he "collapsed crying." Unfortunately, you suffer from a rare reading disorder that renders incomprehensible any words that don't serve your narrow, politically dishonest purposes.

Hmm? Going by the available evidence over the last number of years, it seems to be remarkably common on the Far Right. logger spouted a LOT of examples of said reading disorder, though, as he repeated indefensible misinterpretations that were circulating in his circle.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

not war!

I didn't think it was worth trying to engage you in honest conversation, but I tried. So I'll just note that you twice refused to answer the question, and I''ll move on.

 

[Aridas]

Well, here's another striking contrast. First order of business for this incoming Democrat led House is... Reining in dark money, taking measures to make public servants serve the public, and renewing the Voting Rights Act. Two years ago... the Republican led House was talking about their first order of business being gutting the House Ethics Committee... and had actually passed that in a secret vote before backing down after the outcry against it when it became known.

 

[abaddon]

Also not relevant. You should form and communicate a thought at some point.

But Bob, you have a presupposition built in there...

 

[thaiboxerken]

Well, here's another striking contrast. First order of business for this incoming Democrat led House is... Reining in dark money, taking measures to make public servants serve the public, and renewing the Voting Rights Act. Two years ago... the Republican led House was talking about their first order of business being gutting the House Ethics Committee... and had actually passed that in a secret vote before backing down after the outcry against it when it became known.

But but but....both sides are the same!!!

 

[Foolmewunz]

I didn't think it was worth trying to engage you in honest conversation, but I tried. So I'll just note that you twice refused to answer the question, and I''ll move on.

Well, we could all give similar non-answers as TBD seems to want to hear our whacko-lefto solutions.

"Not kissing the Prince's ass" works for me.
"Not parading the American people as a bunch of whores who have no morality and only care about gas prices" would do well.
"Not selling out any semblance of principles we still have left" works.
Since TBD seems very concerned with supporting terrorists, perhaps "Not sucking up to the Wihabist financiers of 9/11" would be appropriate.

I mean, he's got no concrete ideas other than obfuscation, auto-defensive-shell mode and deflection, why should anyone else be responsible for coming up with plans or policy?

 

[Border Reiver]

I don't buy that. Trump loves to fight. So why are the only people he chooses to suck up to are these dictatorships? Politically it's moronic. There has to be a reason for it. And the ONLY thing that makes sense, is that he's over a barrel somehow.

Intelligence Services know that when they buy some information from their enemy, they get more than whatever they paid for because they can always threaten exposure down the road. If Trump stops doing their bidding, the evidence of treason is leaked.

Not really. 45's a bully. He hits down, or at least in the direction that he perceives as down, because striking at a peer or superior is potentially going to get him hurt.

Most democratically elected leaders do what they can to maintain at least a statesman-like appearance and don't resort to childish name-calling and attempted strong-arm tactics as their first choice of how to deal with people. While 45 seems to look on it as a way to put his "opponent" off balance so he can "win" the exchange. He's the person who looks at the person not responding to the catcalls as weak, rather than as someone with the strength of character to ignore the petty stuff in order to get what needs doing done.

Contrasted with the people he sucks up to (MBS, Putin, etc) who take steps to emphasize their apparent strength all the time. Essentially, they put out the appearance that if you tangle with the bear, you're going to get mauled, and 45 believes it, because that's how he operates.

And it probably doesn't hurt that he is financially beholden to the Saudis and Russian oligarchs.

45's also incredibly shallow. His actions very clearly indicate that if something isn't "in your face" apparent, then it isn't true, because he cannot perceive what lies beneath. It's why he goes for the furnishings that would make Louis XIV go, "You should try to be less ostentatious." It's why he chose Mattis to be his SecDef, or keeps changing wives for younger and hotter models.

And he certainly doesn't get the idea of altruism - if its not to his benefit, then he doesn't care, or worse, sees it as a threat to be beaten back.

It would have taken effort to pick a worse person to be POTUS.