Interpretation of Trump's personality & behavior

[TGHusker]

 

 

Do you think we should have sent in the CIA to overthrow Iran's leadership?

No - it didn't work out for Carter did it (though that wasn't the CIA). Or for Kennedy in Cuba. I think some discussion I heard at the time was to see what we could do to find the right people within Iran to do it themselves. My friends main concern was the lack of moral support. It may have been the same story under GWB if it had occurred then. Regardless, we and the Britts have mismanaged our relationship with Iran since the early 1950s - when the Shaw was placed in power - basically as a puppet for western interests. My friend remembers his dad and grandpa telling stories that things were ok under the Shaw but the country was ready for change in the later 1970s but most people didn't think the change would end up wt the Islamic state they have now.

 

My friend has gotten back to me. Full disclosure, she's an Obama fan. I asked her what she thought the US could have done to better assist the Green Movement, and if the Green Movement's failure was Obama's fault. She said the US should work on building a better relationship with Iran. She thinks the US is too bossy and wants its own way, and that we have screwed up the world by messing where we don't belong. She said, kinda echoing your friend, that it would have been nice to have more support from America, but I'm asking her to clarify that because she has always been adamant that we act like bullies with our military. She is not impressed with America's armed forces. She said it's scary for people to go into the streets to protest over there. She does not agree that the Green Movement was a revolution, but she did say that it was not like the Women's Marches, either. Our march was a protest, and they wanted the government to change (although I think our Women's March people would like a new government too, so whatever).

 

Yes, I think they are the same page. He too said it is a scary place over there. If someone says something negative about the govt today, they are gone tomorrow. Kind of hard to start a democratic revolution under that oppression. I think personally that we will have to find a way to work wt the present situation wtout being the big policeman again. We'd create a mess and I think GWB's decision to surround Iran wt wars in Iraq and afgan were tragic failures - yes ok to knock out the Taliban and Osma's training camps in Afgan but wrong to think we were going to bring democracy to that whole region - especially trying to do so via force. His plan was to bring democracy to Afgan and Iraq and then somehow force it into Iran - probably another war was in the works by the neo-cons.

[Moiraine]

Thinking out loud here about the "bully" thing.

 

I don't get who the people are who think it's bad that we get along with the world and work with them. Why do we have to be a bad ass, domineering ally? It doesn't mean we're letting people walk over us or causing the "p*****ication" of America as idiots like to call it (whatever "it" is - it's an imaginary thing, just like Obama's so-called "apology tour").

 

It means we're being good neighbors. Why are we so obsessed with being uber-masculine?

[TGHusker]

Thinking out loud here about the "bully" thing.

 

I don't get who the people are who think it's bad that we get along with the world and work with them. Why do we have to be a bad ass, domineering ally? It doesn't mean we're letting people walk over us or causing the "p*****ication" of America as idiots like to call it (whatever "it" is - it's an imaginary thing, just like Obama's so-called "apology tour").

 

It means we're being good neighbors. Why are we so obsessed with being uber-masculine?

You have to look back a few decades. Going back to WW2, we were the only 'intact' major democracy- all of Europe was rebuilding including England, Japan and the rest of the western Pacific was in shambles. Through the Marshall plan we began to rebuild Europe as we felt it was in our best interest to rebuild these countries and help democracy to once again gain a foothold - otherwise the Soviets would come in and turn them into satellite states like eastern Europe. With that came our duty to defend the rest of the world against communism wherever it raised its head - Korea, Vietnam, Central America, Cuba, etc. The great Military Industrial Complex rose in power within DC and it was a fierce animal to keep feeding. With the fall of the Soviet empire, we had to find a new villain to save the world from - and also justify the insatiable appetite of the MIC. Thus we have the Mideast wars. I think our country after WW2 felt the obligation to defend everything good in the world even if it meant war because no one else could. We were the big brother trying to keep the bullies out of the neighborhood. At times we probably acted like that same bully in an 'ends justifies the means' way. I think with globalization, modern communication and how we are all tied together more in more, we have to learn to relinquish some of that role, and trust others to help. Our budget cannot afford it any longer either. If you think of it, Trump has a great opportunity to do so - he says he wants no more wars like Iraq, he says he wants other to pay their fair share for their defense - now is the time to be inclusive. While he may be America First on trade, he could strike a more conciliatory tone by being more inclusive in foreign affairs and act like a partner instead of a policeman.

[ColoNoCoHusker]

 

Thinking out loud here about the "bully" thing.

 

I don't get who the people are who think it's bad that we get along with the world and work with them. Why do we have to be a bad ass, domineering ally? It doesn't mean we're letting people walk over us or causing the "p*****ication" of America as idiots like to call it (whatever "it" is - it's an imaginary thing, just like Obama's so-called "apology tour").

 

It means we're being good neighbors. Why are we so obsessed with being uber-masculine?

You have to look back a few decades. Going back to WW2, we were the only 'intact' major democracy- all of Europe was rebuilding including England, Japan and the rest of the western Pacific was in shambles. Through the Marshall plan we began to rebuild Europe as we felt it was in our best interest to rebuild these countries and help democracy to once again gain a foothold - otherwise the Soviets would come in and turn them into satellite states like eastern Europe. With that came our duty to defend the rest of the world against communism wherever it raised its head - Korea, Vietnam, Central America, Cuba, etc. The great Military Industrial Complex rose in power within DC and it was a fierce animal to keep feeding. With the fall of the Soviet empire, we had to find a new villain to save the world from - and also justify the insatiable appetite of the MIC. Thus we have the Mideast wars. I think our country after WW2 felt the obligation to defend everything good in the world even if it meant war because no one else could. We were the big brother trying to keep the bullies out of the neighborhood. At times we probably acted like that same bully in an 'ends justifies the means' way. I think with globalization, modern communication and how we are all tied together more in more, we have to learn to relinquish some of that role, and trust others to help. Our budget cannot afford it any longer either. If you think of it, Trump has a great opportunity to do so - he says he wants no more wars like Iraq, he says he wants other to pay their fair share for their defense - now is the time to be inclusive. While he may be America First on trade, he could strike a more conciliatory tone by being more inclusive in foreign affairs and act like a partner instead of a policeman.

 

 

It started in earnest in 1904/05 with the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. It declared that the Western Hemisphere was closed to colonization by Europe powers, but the US had the responsibility to preserve peace & order in every Western Hemisphere country. However, our involvement was of the banana republic and canal zone variety. We demonstrated a total lack of concern for the populations involved.

 

Add into that the post-WWII rebuilding, Truman Doctrine, etc you outlined above and it really was a situation of forced bedfellows. Politically, it was embarrassing for many of the European powers to go from a Paternal position of power to that of a dependent within 50 years.

[knapplc]

You know that friend who says they reply to your texts all the time, but either doesn't or makes you wait and wait for a reply?

 

That friend is annoying.

[TGHusker]

 

 

Thinking out loud here about the "bully" thing.

 

I don't get who the people are who think it's bad that we get along with the world and work with them. Why do we have to be a bad ass, domineering ally? It doesn't mean we're letting people walk over us or causing the "p*****ication" of America as idiots like to call it (whatever "it" is - it's an imaginary thing, just like Obama's so-called "apology tour").

 

It means we're being good neighbors. Why are we so obsessed with being uber-masculine?

You have to look back a few decades. Going back to WW2, we were the only 'intact' major democracy- all of Europe was rebuilding including England, Japan and the rest of the western Pacific was in shambles. Through the Marshall plan we began to rebuild Europe as we felt it was in our best interest to rebuild these countries and help democracy to once again gain a foothold - otherwise the Soviets would come in and turn them into satellite states like eastern Europe. With that came our duty to defend the rest of the world against communism wherever it raised its head - Korea, Vietnam, Central America, Cuba, etc. The great Military Industrial Complex rose in power within DC and it was a fierce animal to keep feeding. With the fall of the Soviet empire, we had to find a new villain to save the world from - and also justify the insatiable appetite of the MIC. Thus we have the Mideast wars. I think our country after WW2 felt the obligation to defend everything good in the world even if it meant war because no one else could. We were the big brother trying to keep the bullies out of the neighborhood. At times we probably acted like that same bully in an 'ends justifies the means' way. I think with globalization, modern communication and how we are all tied together more in more, we have to learn to relinquish some of that role, and trust others to help. Our budget cannot afford it any longer either. If you think of it, Trump has a great opportunity to do so - he says he wants no more wars like Iraq, he says he wants other to pay their fair share for their defense - now is the time to be inclusive. While he may be America First on trade, he could strike a more conciliatory tone by being more inclusive in foreign affairs and act like a partner instead of a policeman.

 

 

It started in earnest in 1904/05 with the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. It declared that the Western Hemisphere was closed to colonization by Europe powers, but the US had the responsibility to preserve peace & order in every Western Hemisphere country. However, our involvement was of the banana republic and canal zone variety. We demonstrated a total lack of concern for the populations involved.

 

Add into that the post-WWII rebuilding, Truman Doctrine, etc you outlined above and it really was a situation of forced bedfellows. Politically, it was embarrassing for many of the European powers to go from a Paternal position of power to that of a dependent within 50 years.

 

Great addition to my comments. I suppose one could even add 'manifest destiny' to the puzzle - the "enlightened" view that we were destined to rule all of North America - thus failed forays into Canada (War of 1812) and of course our involvement under Polk in Mexico - and seizing what is now most of SW USA. Our "God given right" to civilize and protect NA as a whole. This expanded to Cuba & Philippians (Spanish American War). Some of the political cartoons regarding Philippian people were pretty racist and degrading - showing them as untamed apes. One could say a similar mindset was shown by the neo-cons who thought they had to democratize all of the Middle East.

[ColoNoCoHusker]

We could take it back pretty far in our history, no doubt When the Monroe Doctrine was declared, freedom fighters like Simon Bolivar (George Washington of South America) were excited the US would help in their wars of independence. Instead, we slapped the yolk of economic imperialism around their necks and hung them out to dry. Non-US sources have very interesting views around this.

 

For the Mexican-American war, it was obviously a land grab. Reading Mexican/Spanish/South American contemporary sources, it was also viewed on their side as an anti-Catholic war (Protestant vs Catholic). This view was reinforced by the regiments of Catholic soldiers (mostly Irish) that defected from the US Army to fight on the side of the Mexicans.

 

Anyway, agree our history is very interesting...

[AR Husker Fan]

[AR Husker Fan]

 

 

And how many deferments did that cowardly so-called president have? Five? Seven?

[ColoNoCoHusker]

The fact Trump filed re-election paperwork within 5 hours of being sworn-in is amazing. I did not realize he also started raising re-election funds and trademarking re-election slogans. His ego has no bounds...

 

There is speculation this was done to hamstring non-profits being able to criticize Trump...

 

https://twitter.com/resisterhood/status/825576323791847424

Funds raised
Re-election filing

Trademark slogan
2020 Campaign Committees

[Danny Bateman]

 

Putin: This treaty is terrible. I want it to go away.

 

Donald: *click* What is this New START thingy?

 

Aide: Obama did it, sir.

 

Trump: *click* This is an awful, terrible deal. Quite possibly the worst ever made. I agree. I can make a much better deal. Believe me.

[AR Husker Fan]

[AR Husker Fan]

I get the sense that this is a growing feeling amongst many of the so-called president's supporters. And for good reason.

 

[TGHusker]

I get the sense that this is a growing feeling amongst many of the so-called president's supporters. And for good reason.

 

Yes, I had hoped the twitter feed would have been removed from him but this is just getting so old, so quickly. Just govern - that is what he was elected to do - and not to give commentary on every little irritant that he sees, hears, or feels. So thinned skinned. He's becoming a distraction to whatever good he does do - such as his SC nominee and Trumps comments about judges that Gorsuch had to distance himself from .

[Danny Bateman]

 

I get the sense that this is a growing feeling amongst many of the so-called president's supporters. And for good reason.

 

Yes, I had hoped the twitter feed would have been removed from him but this is just getting so old, so quickly. Just govern - that is what he was elected to do - and not to give commentary on every little irritant that he sees, hears, or feels. So thinned skinned. He's becoming a distraction to whatever good he does do - such as his SC nominee and Trumps comments about judges that Gorsuch had to distance himself from .

 

 

This is what we elected my friend.

 

Yes, he was elected to govern, and we all hope he does that, fairly and in manner that all of us can be proud of. But it's become readily apparent that there is no divorcing Trump the Executive from Trump the Character.

 

If we're going to get the former, we're going to have to live with the latter.

 

But you're right. I wonder how much the latter is going to hinder his ability to perform as the former.