Trump

[sus]

Seemed pretty fucking bad to me... and he had a crack at the reich thing, dunno how near he got, but the fact that he had a stab at being eternal dictator and completely destroying the idea of American democracy is enough on its own to get a bit worked up I think.

Bro, FDR did four terms and packed the Supreme Court, people love him. Trump's not even in the bottom 10% of constitutionally egregious administrations.

 

[sus]

Most likely a triple bluff

Right, anyone who's seen Princess Bride or played rock'paper'scissors know how these nth-level mindgames work. Thomas Schelling and other strategists have mocked up similar scenarios and showed that your best move to counter such a mindgame lies in either ignoring your opponent (shutting out their messages so you can't receive them, and making a decision independently) or else, should that fail, making a decision from randomness.

 

[IdleRich]

Yeah of course the whole idea of nth level bluffing doesn't really make sense.
I think Putin was probably happy that Trump was in power, I mean he could barely keep from rubbing his hands with glee, but he was also smart enough to realise most people would not see that and those that did would assume he was lying, and those that thought he was smarter than that would ignore him, so... why not just be happy when you're happy?

 

[sus]

I'm obviously dense because i still don't understand you're point. re-read my post, I never implied people weren't upset and troubled, I clearly stated they were. no one is denying they were. liberal twitter, which I imagine is a big overlap with all your uni friends/classmates/professors, dwelled upon it but the lots of others were upset by his behavior as well.

so what are we talking about, again?

I dunno I don't want to fight this is the first productive conversation I've had on this board about politics let's just be friends

 

[IdleRich]

Bro, FDR did four terms and packed the Supreme Court, people love him. Trump's not even in the bottom 10% of constitutionally egregious administrations.

He tried to be. I judge his morality on what he wanted to do, not what he managed to do. You're talking about something else here. We've already agreed he was useless at everything he set out to do. Thank fuck.

 

[sus]

I think Putin was probably happy that Trump was in power, I mean he could barely keep from rubbing his hands with glee, but he was also smart enough to realise most people would not see that and those that did would assume he was lying, and those that thought he was smarter than that would ignore him, so... why not just be happy when you're happy?

It seems like you start from an assumption (Putin was happy) and then look for a barely plausible justification for that assumption (Putin decided to just show his happiness when happy, ie to set strategy aside and just "be honest about his feelings" in the geopolitical arena). Come on. This is Putin. He can get his dick sucked on a golden toilet by Ms. Russia 2020. He's not finding pleasure in abandoning his geopolitical mask. Indeed, probably much of his pleasure comes precisely from crafting and maintaining that strategic facade. Again, this is a guy who rose through KGB ranks mercilessly to the very top of imperial power.

 

[sus]

He tried to be. I judge his morality on what he wanted to do, not what he managed to do. You're talking about something else here. We've already agreed he was useless at everything he set out to do. Thank fuck.

But we're not adjudicating his "morality." I don't contest he's a scummy person. This conversation is about his administration's actual effects, policies, and consequences relative to 2016 projections. Not about whether he's a good person or not. He's obviously not, I agree, heck even half his supporters probably agree.

Indeed, there are also plenty of scummy, corrupt Dems who get voted into office because liberals like their policies (Cuomo is top of the list). This is just politically normal, more or less.

 

[IdleRich]

I start from the hypothesis that bad for America is good for Putin and from that I arrive at him being happy. Seems fairly simple to me.

 

[Leo]

peace.

also, Putin is very content with just sowing chaos. His "support" and "friendship" with Trump could very well be just a means to stir shit up and make US media hysterical. I'd imagine Putin would prefer a US president who didn't know or care about policy and history, and who's side (if not primary) interest was post-presidency business enrichment.

 

[IdleRich]

But we're not adjudicating his "morality." I don't contest he's a scummy person. This conversation is about his administration's actual effects, policies, and consequences relative to 2016 projections. Not about whether he's a good person or not. He's obviously not, I agree, heck even half his supporters probably agree.

Oh well we're on the same page. Countless times I've said that Trump's nastiness was undercut by his inability to concentrate, follow things, simply to understand the mechanisms of government. Luckily that was the main drag on the damage that he could inflict.

 

[WashYourHands]

Classic game theory says conclusively: Putin didn't want a Trump presidency.

bs, no global leader wanted Trump more, Putin has been basking in the sunshine of this glow like a 4 year summer

Add Trump’s kids being half-Russian, there’s a deeper loyalty too there kiddo

 

[Mr. Tea]

I don't necessarily disagree, this is perfectly unimpeachable in the abstract, but 1) part of the reason he would feel threatening to these types was because of his coverage by the media, i.e. if you represent reality you're responsible for the mental health of people who internalize your representation; 2) Latino votes for Trump were a huge part of his 2020 turnout; 3) partisan affiliation is a way way higher predictor of "feeling threatened by Trump" than being a minority immigrant, ie white liberals were hysterical while black conservatives trolled for lols. And 4) This isn't what our conversation about, it's about the actual policies not about his rhetoric.

I don't think it's because of negative press covfefe that "these types" (women, black people) are aware that Trump has been accused of sexual harassment, assault or rape by 26 women, or that he once paid for a newspaper ad calling for the death penalty for five black youths for a crime they didn't commit.

People know about those things because of the media, but you're getting dangerously close to saying that anything that makes him look bad is unfair and (edit: biased, obvs), even if it's just a factual account of his behaviour.

 

[sus]

Putin is very content with just sowing chaos. His "support" and "friendship" with Trump could very well be just a means to stir shit up and make US media hysterical. I'd imagine Putin would prefer a US president who didn't know or care about policy and history, and who's side (if not primary) interest was post-presidency business enrichment.

The last sentence here seems totally possible, and I'll cede it to you and Rich. I think this started with WYH saying that Putin's support for Trump was "nuff said." I just think we shouldn't take Putin's support so straightforwardly: it could mean a lot of things, including, plausibly, that a Trump presidency is actually undesirable (for reasons we can't imagine because we're not experts on Russian foreign policy goals). In other words, the first two sentences of your message here.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Classic game theory says conclusively: Putin didn't want a Trump presidency.

You can't seriously be naive enough to believe that, surely?

 

[sus]

I don't think it's because of negative press covfefe that "these types" (women, black people) are aware that Trump has been accused of sexual harassment, assault or rape by 26 women, or that he once paid for a newspaper ad calling for the death penalty for five black youths for a crime they didn't commit.

People know about those things because of the media, but you're getting dangerously close to saying that anything that makes him look bad is unfair and unbiased, even if it's just a factual account of his behaviour.

Bruh Biden was accused by multiple women and the New York Times launched an emergency investigation to clear his name. Note that this was unprecedented for the MeToo movement: the NYT had more or less uniformly believed & supported accusers up to the point an election was at stake.

"Dangerously close"—maybe, but being "close" to some other meaning I didn't intend is unimportant from any perspective other than optics. Besides, I listed 4 reasons you were wrong Tea. You're still debating the first. It doesn't matter! There are three others that are even more conclusive.

 

[WashYourHands]

The last sentence here seems totally possible, and I'll cede it to you and Rich. I think this started with WYH saying that Putin's support for Trump was "nuff said." I just think we shouldn't take Putin's support so straightforwardly: it could mean a lot of things, including, plausibly, that a Trump presidency is actually undesirable (for reasons we can't imagine because we're not experts on Russian foreign policy goals). In other words, the first two sentences of your message here.

it wasn’t nuff said though was it

i type this in bootcut jeans without grubby, fraying trouser bottoms and snakeskin shoes @dissensus

 

[sus]

You can't seriously be naive enough to believe that, surely?

No, my tone was aphoristic and ironic, but it's still less naive than assuming Putin wants a Trump presidency cuz he said so on Twitter.

 

[sus]

OK I'm out, I got work to attend to! Eat my dust Dissensus

 

[Mr. Tea]

Last time Padraig showed his face here I beat him so badly he's never come back

Oh, man.

 

[WashYourHands]

No, my tone was aphoristic and ironic, but it's still less naive than assuming Putin wants a Trump presidency cuz he said so on Twitter.

Putin’s on Twitter? Mind blown