Thoughtful article, written from the perspective that Trump actually still has a working brain that he occasionally uses, an angle I hadn't previously considered.
Thoughtful article, written from the perspective that Trump actually still has a working brain that he occasionally uses, an angle I hadn't previously considered.
I mean, that’s one interpretation. The other is that he’s just not fit for his position and can’t fully absorb the information and make good decisions. This situation with high tensions with Iran...
I mean, that’s one interpretation. The other is that he’s just not fit for his position and can’t fully absorb the information and make good decisions. This situation with high tensions with Iran might have been avoided entirely if Trump hadn’t backed out of the Iran nuclear deal. The fact that Trump possibly took Tucker Carlson’s advice over that of the intelligence and military advisors should be extremely concerning whether or not you agree with where he landed. If he didn’t land there for good reasons, it’s no reason to be relieved.
I don't disagree with any of that. And furthermore, I'm not saying Trump actually thinks things through. I'm saying the article is written that way ... I wasn't being sarcastic, either. The...
I don't disagree with any of that. And furthermore, I'm not saying Trump actually thinks things through. I'm saying the article is written that way ...
I wasn't being sarcastic, either. The possibility that he's smarter than he appears, and actually considers the consequences of his actions, etc, that never really occurred to me. And true or not (okay, probably not), it does bring an interesting perspective to the guy.
Yes, I think it’s just generally dangerous to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. I felt uneasy with your characterization of the stance the article takes. I felt like it was more nuanced and...
Yes, I think it’s just generally dangerous to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. I felt uneasy with your characterization of the stance the article takes. I felt like it was more nuanced and ambivalent than your characterization. I realize you were just motivating why you found it interesting, not necessarily endorsing that stance.
Taken in isolation, the results of this one decision may be good. That isn’t any consolation, if the process by which Trump came to that decision was just as bad as his normal process for other...
Taken in isolation, the results of this one decision may be good. That isn’t any consolation, if the process by which Trump came to that decision was just as bad as his normal process for other decisions (not really understanding the domain, putting too much weight on advice from the wrong sources). IMO, a good result like this is just noise. I.e., a broken clock is still broken and shouldn’t be praised for being correct on the rare occasion that it happens to align with the current time.
I would say that I wouldn’t judge the foreign policy of this administration based on one decision. Process is important because that’s how you demonstrate reliability. If everyone thinks that...
I would say that I wouldn’t judge the foreign policy of this administration based on one decision. Process is important because that’s how you demonstrate reliability. If everyone thinks that Tucker Carlson (who isn’t part of the administration) has the ear of the president, that process is broken (regardless of the U.S.’s history of broken processes). If you think we can get reliably good results via Trump’s processes then I think we’re on very different pages.
Thoughtful article, written from the perspective that Trump actually still has a working brain that he occasionally uses, an angle I hadn't previously considered.
I mean, that’s one interpretation. The other is that he’s just not fit for his position and can’t fully absorb the information and make good decisions. This situation with high tensions with Iran might have been avoided entirely if Trump hadn’t backed out of the Iran nuclear deal. The fact that Trump possibly took Tucker Carlson’s advice over that of the intelligence and military advisors should be extremely concerning whether or not you agree with where he landed. If he didn’t land there for good reasons, it’s no reason to be relieved.
I don't disagree with any of that. And furthermore, I'm not saying Trump actually thinks things through. I'm saying the article is written that way ...
I wasn't being sarcastic, either. The possibility that he's smarter than he appears, and actually considers the consequences of his actions, etc, that never really occurred to me. And true or not (okay, probably not), it does bring an interesting perspective to the guy.
Yes, I think it’s just generally dangerous to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. I felt uneasy with your characterization of the stance the article takes. I felt like it was more nuanced and ambivalent than your characterization. I realize you were just motivating why you found it interesting, not necessarily endorsing that stance.
Ok, is this just some kind of cold strategizing or is Trump genuinely good for keeping America out of wars?
Taken in isolation, the results of this one decision may be good. That isn’t any consolation, if the process by which Trump came to that decision was just as bad as his normal process for other decisions (not really understanding the domain, putting too much weight on advice from the wrong sources). IMO, a good result like this is just noise. I.e., a broken clock is still broken and shouldn’t be praised for being correct on the rare occasion that it happens to align with the current time.
I would say that I wouldn’t judge the foreign policy of this administration based on one decision. Process is important because that’s how you demonstrate reliability. If everyone thinks that Tucker Carlson (who isn’t part of the administration) has the ear of the president, that process is broken (regardless of the U.S.’s history of broken processes). If you think we can get reliably good results via Trump’s processes then I think we’re on very different pages.