You like him because you think he believes the bullshit he says? That just means he's an idiot. Also notice he has appointed probably the most incompetent cabinet in history. He doesn't want competence, he wants bootlickers.
Also, he is prohibited by the Constitution from running again.
With any luck, a whole bunch of them are going to end up in prison before this is all over.
If he is an idiot, the "bullshit" that he says would be inconsistent.
The problem with Trump is perception. That what Trump says can appear to be inconsistent if you are looking for it. Or if you want to project that impression. I will give you an example.
This [1] is a comment in one of the /r/worldnews post mocking a comment made by Trump.
>Stable Genius Doctor Jesus on November 16, 2011: “Our president [Obama] will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He's weak and he's ineffective.”
> But to start a war in order to get elected, and I believe that's going to happen, would be an outrage.
> Iran can be taken down in many ways. Their population is in turmoil. They look at what's happening in Syria and other countries where it looked like it was an impossibility. And it looks like that one is going to collapse also. So Iran can be taken.
> I would never take the military card off the table and it's possible that it'll have to be used because Iran cannot have nuclear weapons, but you've gotta exhaust other possibilities. And we're in a great position to do it.
And I think this fits perfectly with what he is trying to do right now, I mean where he says..
> but you've gotta exhaust other possibilities.
So this is what I said earlier. He is not stupid. But he speaks freely. You can cherry pick sentences from what he say and can paint a completely different picture.
It's true that Trump was generally a reasonable person in 2011, albeit brash and certainly someone I had many disagreements with. Here's a post he made about Iran a few days ago, reproduced in full to ensure I'm not cherrypicking sentences:
> For those people, fewer in number now than ever before, that are reading The Failing New York Times, or watching Fake News CNN, that think that I am “anxious” to end the War (if you would even call it that!) with Iran, please be advised that I am possibly the least pressured person ever to be in this position. I have all the time in the World, but Iran doesn’t — The clock is ticking! The reason some of the Media is doing so poorly with Subscribers and Viewers is because they no longer have credibility. Iran’s Navy is lying at the bottom of the Sea, their Air Force is demolished, their Anti Aircraft and Radar Weaponry is gone, their leaders are no longer with us, the Blockade is airtight and strong and, from there, it only gets worse — Time is not on their side! A Deal will only be made when it’s appropriate and good for the United States of America, our Allies and, in fact, the rest of the World. President DONALD J. TRUMP
To me this seems pretty stupid. If someone wrote this message in a social media argument I would block them.
No, not surprising. But some of your statements are hard to square with the current circumstances, so help us understand where you're coming from:
> When he says "I will end the war in three days", I think he genuinely believes it. So I think he is genuine.
This is what Putin said about his "Special military operation" that has stretched on for 4 years now. Hostomel turned into an irreversible, taxing conflict on the Russian people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antonov_Airport
If the United States' hubris costs it half as much as Russia's did, we'll never be respected on the global stage again. The best option was to honor and enforce Iran's JCPOA agreement with the IAEA, but that's not possible now that America and Israel climbed the escalation ladder. Any deal we strike under duress will be worse and cost taxpayers more than peacetime diplomacy.
I think we can see eye-to-eye with each other, but I'd have to hear how you think this type of strategy benefits America. From the macro-scale, this does nothing to bolster a conflict over the First island chain and weakens America's strategic credibility abroad. Iran and Israel are a sideshow compared to the eventual conflict with China, and the results we've seen from the Persian Gulf do not bode well for America's power projection.
Largely agreed but if one expects any sort of escalation with China that actually makes this (and Ukraine) quite useful by providing real world data about the recent technological changes to war as well as serving as a minor stress test for the military's organizational structures. To be clear I don't mean to imply that as being even remotely reasonable as justification.
Kinda? The US already has materiel and operators on the ground in Ukraine and exercising with NATO. This is mostly practice for the US Navy, and the PLAN looks nothing like the IRGC's Navy. One's in the missile age, the other uses FACs with .50 cals as their anti-shipping weapon.
The other US forces like the Army, Marines and Special Forces/Pararescue really really risk attriting and dulling themselves if CENTCOM demands more troops.
>I'd have to hear how you think this type of strategy benefits America
The only answer I have is the one that Trump keep on repeating, about how Iran should not have a nuclear weapon.
> JCPOA agreement
If I am the POTUS and is really concerned about what happens to US after my term, I would be very concerned about what happens when the term of the agreement expires. This fits with Trump has been saying. That he became the POTUS because he found those that came before him not doing a good job. So it follows that he might think his successors also would not do a good job. So when he says he want a permanent solution to Iran's nuclear threat, I think that is why.
This is what I said before. If you take what Trump says and do, in different contexts, it matches. I mean, he has an underlying philosophy and world view that he has built up, and is not derived from the thoughts and philosophy of others. This is another reason why I like him, but causes a huge majority of intellectuals to hate him. Because most of the intellectuals derive or outsource their view and thinking to other thought leaders...
Are you aware of what trump did so that Iran could have a nuclear weapon? Look up his last term, about which former president already had a successful agreement in place to prevent that.
> The only answer I have is the one that Trump keep on repeating, about how Iran should not have a nuclear weapon.
Then you don't have an answer. The Israeli media played that line for close to 40 years, lamenting Iran being "mere months" away from a nuke - for decades at a time.
Iran has nothing to do with American homeland security. America's involvement in Iran is purely for political and economic reasons, there is no credible threat to America in Iran any more than there is in Sudan or Yemen.
> If I am the POTUS [...] I would be very concerned about what happens when the term of the agreement expires.
Genuinely, why? The JCPOA is a joint plan, America's opinion only matters insofar as we can compel Iran to comply. Pulling out increases the likelihood that Iran races to build a bomb with their HEU. Bombing them, like in the Twelve-Day War and Operation Midnight Hammer, did not compel any compliance. The uranium is still a problem.
> So when he says he want a permanent solution to Iran's nuclear threat, I think that is why.
I think that is bogus. Iran is not a credible nuclear threat to the United States or it's citizens, so the US would only be going to war to protect Israel. In which case, we don't even need the nuke pretext and we can just admit that it's a protectionist war to defend our fragile satellite state instead of lying about ICBM threats.
It is true that you can't easily point out many lies, he's indeed not lying all the time, and he is indeed not stupid, he knows very well how to talk. I must agree that I've also been surprised by his relative intelligence.
But I think ultimately he is a classic politician in the way that he has his own agendas and motivations that he doesn't talk about, but he knows very well how to frame it into a picture that sounds good for the public.
And I think he is actually exceptionally good at it, but also bad at it at the same time. Because yeah he hasn't been very seriously been openly caught for an obvious crime. Well.. apart from being convicted for covering up his sex scandal. But he knows how to persuade a lot of people. And he knows how to play the business game without being caught.
But people that look more closely and critically can see that not all actions add up to what he says, he keeps changing his mind and his talk, and other concerning movements are happening on the background, that when Trump is being confronted with, he goes into denial, defense and even attack.
Next to that, I think his attitude is unprofessional, unkind, unthoughtfull and often even offensive. And I think his attitude is driving an ongoing polarization in society. I feel he is rather dividing the country than uniting it.
