Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

So what did we learn this week? Trump potentially cares about lives... that's heart warming and all but isn't that something you never disclose to the other side? He just folded massively again... and very publicly. Maybe not having set himself up for failure with his nonstop jawboning on twitter would have helped avoid some of this. This is supposed to be the stable genius huh.

agip wrote:

Droning wrote:

But we "know" there absolutely was a drone doing drone stuff--surveillance? spying? Maybe the U.S. should stop sending drones along the borders of other countries. Because if the same happened in the U.S. the military would shot them down, and recover them, regardless of where they fell down--even if the cars was in a foreign country (Iraq, Syria, Egypt...).

False.

The US would not shoot down a drone along its borders if the drone was in international waters. If it came into US waters...then maybe. Doubt it.

Disagree on your blanket disapproval of spying. It's absolutely necessary to have information on hostile nations. Seems self evident to me so I wont' say much more on that.

In 2008 the U.S. conducted a shot down of its own spy satellite (USA-193) claiming it was in danger of falling (it had just been launched). One shot, direct strike, satellite destroyed--by the Navy in international water. Russia cried foul and claimed that the shot down was a very weak claim to test an illegal space missile system.

Art of the deal wrote:

So what did we learn this week? Trump potentially cares about lives... that's heart warming and all but isn't that something you never disclose to the other side? He just folded massively again... and very publicly. Maybe not having set himself up for failure with his nonstop jawboning on twitter would have helped avoid some of this. This is supposed to be the stable genius huh.

Let's do give props for Trump doing the right thing here. A disproportionate strike could have been monumentally disastrous.

But most importantly, it was right and good to spare those human lives. And that is something you always want to show to the other side. If you want peace, you must show that you are a peaceful man. Trump showed that this week and I am thankful.

Let's pray he is brave enough to continue with peaceful actions.

I think the point is he didn’t need to corner himself into this situation in the first place. It was completely unnecessary. So while he rightfully didn’t pull the trigger last second, he did the wrong thing all the way leading up to this, starting with dismantling the Iran deal to soothe his ego. In the long run that first decision might end up costing many more lives than the projected 150. I am thankful he exposed himself once again as a simpleton that should not be taken seriously and I pray that in a couple of years we never have to hear about this guy again.

Yeah, but he was already aware of the potential casualties when he initially approved the strikes. With Trump, you can't accept at face value what he claims to be was his rational for cancelling the attacks.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Yeah, but he was already aware of the potential casualties when he initially approved the strikes. With Trump, you can't accept at face value what he claims to be was his rational for cancelling the attacks.

rationale

I couldn't find the video, but Trump was asked in an interview, during his campaign, about how he would have negotiated the Iran deal. He said he would told Iran's negotiators that, because of our debt, we didn't have the $150 Billion to pay them. He would have also, brilliantly, demanded that Iran release hostages before starting any negotiations.

Even now, it's not that clear that Trump understands it was Iran's money and not a payment to them.

This mess is a result of Trump terminating an agreement based on being anti-Obama rather than on any personal understanding of the deal.

The link to the interview in this article doesn't work, but Trump's quotes are in there:

You are correct, of course.

But when Trump does do the right thing, it should be praised and encouraged.

Fat hurts wrote:

Art of the deal wrote:

I think the point is he didn’t need to corner himself into this situation in the first place. It was completely unnecessary. So while he rightfully didn’t pull the trigger last second, he did the wrong thing all the way leading up to this, starting with dismantling the Iran deal to soothe his ego. In the long run that first decision might end up costing many more lives than the projected 150. I am thankful he exposed himself once again as a simpleton that should not be taken seriously and I pray that in a couple of years we never have to hear about this guy again.

You are correct, of course.

But when Trump does do the right thing, it should be praised and encouraged.

Ok, but by now it should be clear by now that Trump does whatever he feels like and says whatever he feels like whenever he feels like it, without any thought and with no particular strategy (other then to blame everyone else) or coherent set of beliefs. In fact that's exactly why people voted for him.

Some of the things he feels like doing or saying from time to time are bound to be the 'right thing'.

Droning wrote:

agip wrote:

We don't know. We don't know if Iran did collect debris. We don't know where they collected it from. We don't know if some US commander decided not to intercept Iranian warships heading out to the debris field. We don't know if any US ships were in the vicinity.

But we "know" there absolutely was a drone doing drone stuff--surveillance? spying? Maybe the U.S. should stop sending drones along the borders of other countries. Because if the same happened in the U.S. the military would shot them down, and recover them, regardless of where they fell down--even if the cars was in a foreign country (Iraq, Syria, Egypt...).

My neighbor is a drone operator for the Air Force.

Let's just say if it's of strategic importance we likely have a drone flying overhead, likely out of range of detection and not likely to be shot down.

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

Droning wrote:

But we "know" there absolutely was a drone doing drone stuff--surveillance? spying? Maybe the U.S. should stop sending drones along the borders of other countries. Because if the same happened in the U.S. the military would shot them down, and recover them, regardless of where they fell down--even if the cars was in a foreign country (Iraq, Syria, Egypt...).

My neighbor is a drone operator for the Air Force.

Let's just say if it's of strategic importance we likely have a drone flying overhead, likely out of range of detection and not likely to be shot down.

Alan

Strategic importance is a two-way street. Iran did exactly what the U.S. would have done -- shot the drone down, in the case of the U.S. even if was in "international" waters. The U.S. opinion does not honor the national waters made by many countries.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Let's do give props for Trump doing the right thing here. A disproportionate strike could have been monumentally disastrous.

But most importantly, it was right and good to spare those human lives. And that is something you always want to show to the other side. If you want peace, you must show that you are a peaceful man. Trump showed that this week and I am thankful.

Let's pray he is brave enough to continue with peaceful actions.

Yeah, but he was already aware of the potential casualties when he initially approved the strikes. With Trump, you can't accept at face value what he claims to be was his rational for cancelling the attacks.

It's one of those situations where you hope he's not being truthful.

A scenario where the chain of command is really so chaotic that president truly wasn't briefed on probable consequences of the military response is more frightening than than than the scenario where he's simply bullshitting about not being told.

Monkeys typing wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Yeah, but he was already aware of the potential casualties when he initially approved the strikes. With Trump, you can't accept at face value what he claims to be was his rational for cancelling the attacks.

It's one of those situations where you hope he's not being truthful.

A scenario where the chain of command is really so chaotic that president truly wasn't briefed on probable consequences of the military response is more frightening than than than the scenario where he's simply bullshitting about not being told.

Much more frightening is that Trump was initially told the casualty count was less than 150. That there was some number of dead he was willing to accept as payback for knocking down an unmanned drone. That it was only when the count got politically too high that Trump backed off and came up with his pointing the finger at someone else.

Monkeys typing wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Yeah, but he was already aware of the potential casualties when he initially approved the strikes. With Trump, you can't accept at face value what he claims to be was his rational for cancelling the attacks.

It's one of those situations where you hope he's not being truthful.

A scenario where the chain of command is really so chaotic that president truly wasn't briefed on probable consequences of the military response is more frightening than than than the scenario where he's simply bullshitting about not being told.

note that both sides de-escalated.

Iran said that it chose not to target a manned surveillance plane, in order to save lives

the US said that it chose not to attack Iran, to save lives.

While we can't believe a single word either Trump or the Iranians say - they are in the same league of deceitfulness - even words like these are good, even if based on lies.

Frightening wrote:

Monkeys typing wrote:

It's one of those situations where you hope he's not being truthful.

A scenario where the chain of command is really so chaotic that president truly wasn't briefed on probable consequences of the military response is more frightening than than than the scenario where he's simply bullshitting about not being told.

Much more frightening is that Trump was initially told the casualty count was less than 150. That there was some number of dead he was willing to accept as payback for knocking down an unmanned drone. That it was only when the count got politically too high that Trump backed off and came up with his pointing the finger at someone else.

don't believe anything trump says. My guess is that he made up the whole process - or planned to pull back at the last minute on purpose. He loves to bluff and he loves to be the one guy in the room who makes everyone else do something.

Planning to come within an hour of an attack and then pulling the plug is just like Trump's fave negotiating tactic - walk into a room, bang on the table, call the other sides names and walk out. Seriously, that's in one of his books. It's part of his crazy man theory of negotiating - to not let the other side know what to expect.

Just sayin'... wrote:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201812/complete-psychological-analysis-trumps-support?fbclid=IwAR3u_Fg1ds38phH1vNk6GGR0WmNVzyyRh4KkH-pWdBJ8MyYmQia45FS6IoA

Trump is going to win again.

There's a whole list of reasons why different people vote for him.

Nothing Trump has done as president changes any of those scenarios.

This is especially true since he has survived the first half of this year without getting impeached.

The 2018 election changing the House combined with the completion of the investigation should have done it.

What could possibly change the impetus of an impeachment now?

His message that he has been exonerated rings true for his supporters. His political opponents didn't even charge him with anything when they had leverage.

All Trump has to do to win is not impose new tariffs or revoke the ones that are there. Pretend he has a deal with China.

The question will then be what would a lame duck Trump presidency look like and how will he transition out of office in January 2025?

Incorrect. Some independents voted for Trump because they actually thought he was a good businessman or at least figured he was less corrupt than Clinton. Both have proved to be wrong. I see a number of 2016 Trump voters simply sitting out in 2020 and enough swing voters switching to ensure he loses WI/MI/PA. He will lose more, and possibly even TX because of his immigration and wall stance. He will even lose ground, but not states, in the heartland due to farmers being hit hard by tariffs. Also an economic slowdown is inevitable, it's just a matter of when.

Trump loses in the largest electoral landslide in 20 yrs.

Alan