Trump MAGAThread XII: A Tarriff-ic Thread!

[Telconi]

We've also had worse TBH. He may not be on the upper side, but he isn't some terrible outlier.

That doesn't excuse him from being bad.

Like saying a guy who broke into your house and smashed your tv with a hammer came to you and said "At least I didn't smash your tv and your plates."

Well I'm not saying it excuses him from being bad. But I mean, he's president... They kinda, well, smash things...

[Camicon]

There's an inherent problem in being forced to respect an individual that has absolutely no respect for anyone other than himself. Just as a few people are going to find out the hard way, being loyal to someone with no grasp of loyalty to others is a serious problem.

Respecting the Goldwater Rule is not the same as respecting the President.

The Goldwater Rule states that it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about people that they haven't examined, and that they haven't obtained consent to give from the person in question.

Nothing about the Goldwater Rule says that we laymen can't use the behaviour of Trump as evidence to argue that he is an idiot with little to no empathy for anyone or anything and the emotional maturity of a toddler.

[Geneviev]

Respecting the Goldwater Rule is not the same as respecting the President.

The Goldwater Rule states that it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about people that they haven't examined, and that they haven't obtained consent to give from the person in question.

Nothing about the Goldwater Rule says that we laymen can't use the behaviour of Trump as evidence to argue that he is an idiot with little to no empathy for anyone or anything and the emotional maturity of a toddler.

It is still unethical, especially when diagnosing a personality disorder or Dark Tetrad trait.

[Petrasylvania]

The Goldwater Rule states that it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about people that they haven't examined, and that they haven't obtained consent to give from the person in question.

Nothing about the Goldwater Rule says that we laymen can't use the behaviour of Trump as evidence to argue that he is an idiot with little to no empathy for anyone or anything and the emotional maturity of a toddler.

It is still unethical, especially when diagnosing a personality disorder or Dark Tetrad trait.

I don't recall anyone in this thread being a psychiatrist. Therefore the Goldwater Rule does not apply, and nobody seriously expects serious attention and response from Washington over an obscure forum making observations and deductions about Donnie.

[Geneviev]

It is still unethical, especially when diagnosing a personality disorder or Dark Tetrad trait.

I don't recall anyone in this thread being a psychiatrist. Therefore the Goldwater Rule does not apply, and nobody seriously expects serious attention and response from Washington over an obscure forum making observations and deductions about Donnie.

No, the White House would probably not respond. It is still making claims with no evidence regarding not only the physical health, but the mental stability and capacity for leadership of a sitting US president.

[Camicon]

The Goldwater Rule states that it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about people that they haven't examined, and that they haven't obtained consent to give from the person in question.

Nothing about the Goldwater Rule says that we laymen can't use the behaviour of Trump as evidence to argue that he is an idiot with little to no empathy for anyone or anything and the emotional maturity of a toddler.

It is still unethical, especially when diagnosing a personality disorder or Dark Tetrad trait.

It's only unethical if you're offering a professional opinion to the public. None of us are doing that.

I don't recall anyone in this thread being a psychiatrist. Therefore the Goldwater Rule does not apply, and nobody seriously expects serious attention and response from Washington over an obscure forum making observations and deductions about Donnie.

No, the White House would probably not respond. It is still making claims with no evidence regarding not only the physical health, but the mental stability and capacity for leadership of a sitting US president.

They are not claims without evidence. Trump's behaviour and actions are very well documented, there is plenty of material there to use as evidence when making arguments about Trump's mental state.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Pompeo's promise of raising living standards in North Korea to the same levels as the South, if they give up nuclear weapons, would be a great deal for the world. The trouble is offering such a deal at the same time as the US pulls out of the Iran deal.

[Venetorria]

Pompeo's promise of raising living standards in North Korea to the same levels as the South, if they give up nuclear weapons, would be a great deal for the world. The trouble is offering such a deal at the same time as the US pulls out of the Iran deal.

Not at all, North Korea has showed that it wants to change for the better, and is not threatening any US allies in the area anymore, unlike Iran, which remains an anti-Semitic theocracy bent on confronting the two principal US allies in the ME.
Besides, why do people undermine Kim's ability? Sure, he may seem weird to us, but, he has made a good gamble, trading in his nuclear program in return for an economy boost. It should also be noted that North Korea's ability to keep up it's nuclear program is quite questionable, considering reports of their test site actually destroying itself.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Pompeo's promise of raising living standards in North Korea to the same levels as the South, if they give up nuclear weapons, would be a great deal for the world. The trouble is offering such a deal at the same time as the US pulls out of the Iran deal.

Not at all, North Korea has showed that it wants to change for the better, and is not threatening any US allies in the area anymore, unlike Iran, which remains an anti-Semitic theocracy bent on confronting the two principal US allies in the ME.
Besides, why do people undermine Kim's ability? Sure, he may seem weird to us, but, he has made a good gamble, trading in his nuclear program in return for an economy boost. It should also be noted that North Korea's ability to keep up it's nuclear program is quite questionable, considering reports of their test site actually destroying itself.

I'm saying it makes the US seem less likely to keep their word.

[Venetorria]

Not at all, North Korea has showed that it wants to change for the better, and is not threatening any US allies in the area anymore, unlike Iran, which remains an anti-Semitic theocracy bent on confronting the two principal US allies in the ME.
Besides, why do people undermine Kim's ability? Sure, he may seem weird to us, but, he has made a good gamble, trading in his nuclear program in return for an economy boost. It should also be noted that North Korea's ability to keep up it's nuclear program is quite questionable, considering reports of their test site actually destroying itself.

I'm saying it makes the US seem less likely to keep their word.

Not at all, if anything, it can give them more hope that the deal is kept. Why?
This administration has showed to be "harder" than the last, at least when it comes to deal making, so, if Kim makes a deal with this administration, he is safe for a longer time, given that future elections could only have two outcomes: nothing changes, or, a new administration comes which would, according to some logic, be "softer".

We must also consider that most of Congress would be in favor of a deal with Kim, unlike the Iran deal, where even there were Democrats poised against it.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

I'm saying it makes the US seem less likely to keep their word.

Not at all, if anything, it can give them more hope that the deal is kept. Why?
This administration has showed to be "harder" than the last, at least when it comes to deal making, so, if Kim makes a deal with this administration, he is safe for a longer time, given that future elections could only have two outcomes: nothing changes, or, a new administration comes which would, according to some logic, be "softer".

We must also consider that most of Congress would be in favor of a deal with Kim, unlike the Iran deal, where even there were Democrats poised against it.

If I saw someone I was considering making a deal with, break a previous agreement, it would not make me keener to do a deal with them.

[Ifreann]

I'm saying it makes the US seem less likely to keep their word.

Not at all, if anything, it can give them more hope that the deal is kept. Why?
This administration has showed to be "harder" than the last, at least when it comes to deal making, so, if Kim makes a deal with this administration, he is safe for a longer time, given that future elections could only have two outcomes: nothing changes, or, a new administration comes which would, according to some logic, be "softer".

Trump certainly says that he's a tough negotiator. But personally. if all I had to go to assess a claim was that Donald John Trump claimed it to be true, then I would assume it to be false.

We must also consider that most of Congress would be in favor of a deal with Kim, unlike the Iran deal, where even there were Democrats poised against it.

It doesn't necessarily matter what Congress thinks.

[Hittanryan]

I'm saying it makes the US seem less likely to keep their word.

Not at all, if anything, it can give them more hope that the deal is kept. Why?
This administration has showed to be "harder" than the last, at least when it comes to deal making, so, if Kim makes a deal with this administration, he is safe for a longer time, given that future elections could only have two outcomes: nothing changes, or, a new administration comes which would, according to some logic, be "softer".

We must also consider that most of Congress would be in favor of a deal with Kim, unlike the Iran deal, where even there were Democrats poised against it.

The fact that the US will pull out of treaties on a whim because the government changed makes the US unreliable. How can anyone trust our word if we just flip the table every few years and walk away?

[Internationalist Bastard]

A sign was posted in Maryland, threatening to use second amendment rights if Trump is impeached. The support for this statement has been concerning me

[Cekoviu]

A sign was posted in Maryland, threatening to use second amendment rights if Trump is impeached. The support for this statement has been concerning me

This came up already, actually:

Seems like some conservatives in Maryland have a billboard insinuating violent things should Trump be impeached.

[Ifreann]

A sign was posted in Maryland, threatening to use second amendment rights if Trump is impeached. The support for this statement has been concerning me

It's an amusing threat, if you think about it. "If you want to impeach Trump, better get your guns" or something like that. Only, Congress does have guns. Like, loads of them. Capitol Police has over two thousand officers, I'd be surprised if they couldn't arm them all. What does Some Lad In Maryland think he's going to accomplish against all of them?

[Internationalist Bastard]

A sign was posted in Maryland, threatening to use second amendment rights if Trump is impeached. The support for this statement has been concerning me

It's an amusing threat, if you think about it. "If you want to impeach Trump, better get your guns" or something like that. Only, Congress does have guns. Like, loads of them. Capitol Police has over two thousand officers, I'd be surprised if they couldn't arm them all. What does Some Lad In Maryland think he's going to accomplish against all of them?

Not much but a number of people seem to agree which is more of threat

[Geneviev]

A sign was posted in Maryland, threatening to use second amendment rights if Trump is impeached. The support for this statement has been concerning me

Wait, so if President Trump gets impeached they want to own guns? Maryland is odd, apparently.

[Ifreann]

A sign was posted in Maryland, threatening to use second amendment rights if Trump is impeached. The support for this statement has been concerning me

Wait, so if President Trump gets impeached they want to own guns? Maryland is odd, apparently.

No, they are suggesting that President Trump's impeachment, if it happens, will be resisted by force, and if the liberals want to see the impeachment through they will need to muster a greater force. They're basically threatening an armed rebellion and the overthrow of Congress.

[Geneviev]

Wait, so if President Trump gets impeached they want to own guns? Maryland is odd, apparently.

No, they are suggesting that President Trump's impeachment, if it happens, will be resisted by force, and if the liberals want to see the impeachment through they will need to muster a greater force. They're basically threatening an armed rebellion and the overthrow of Congress.

Okay, that's concerning. Very much so.

[Venetorria]

No, they are suggesting that President Trump's impeachment, if it happens, will be resisted by force, and if the liberals want to see the impeachment through they will need to muster a greater force. They're basically threatening an armed rebellion and the overthrow of Congress.

Okay, that's concerning. Very much so.

It is, and even if it wasn't concerning, it is paifully childish and absurd. But then again, is there really any fair ground to impeach Trump?

[Ifreann]

Okay, that's concerning. Very much so.

It is, and even if it wasn't concerning, it is paifully childish and absurd. But then again, is there really any fair ground to impeach Trump?

That remains to be seen.

[Geneviev]

Okay, that's concerning. Very much so.

It is, and even if it wasn't concerning, it is paifully childish and absurd. But then again, is there really any fair ground to impeach Trump?

There is no reason to impeach him, as far as I know. But people are pushing for impeachment anyway.

[Valrifell]

A sign was posted in Maryland, threatening to use second amendment rights if Trump is impeached. The support for this statement has been concerning me

Well, Trump got away with dancing around saying he wanted his political enemies killed by using the euphemism "second amendment people," so now other people think they can get away with the same.

For the record the violent rhetoric + political polarization is very dangerous, it's only a matter of time before (more) people follow through on the threats that their preferred politicians made. And that's how you get the Roman Empire.

[Valrifell]

It is, and even if it wasn't concerning, it is paifully childish and absurd. But then again, is there really any fair ground to impeach Trump?

There is no reason to impeach him, as far as I know. But people are pushing for impeachment anyway.

Oh, no, you could definitely nab him on obstruction of justice whenever you want. It's just that obstruction of justice is usually a really weak charge for impeachment.