HI54UNI wrote:
Only Milton was more likable.
Ivytalk wrote:That’s the current buzz around DC. Maybe Hannity will get Bolton to open up about it.CID1990 wrote:Five bucks says Bolton protested Trump inviting the Taliban to Camp David a little too forcefully. He would not have been happy about it.
The good news is that Bolton is gone. The bad news is that Trump is on his own.
You're finally on the Trump train!mainejeff2 wrote:Trump can do no wrong!
Try to fathom the caliber of the wackjobs you need to surround yourself with to make Bolton look like the reasonable one.CID1990 wrote:Five bucks says Bolton protested Trump inviting the Taliban to Camp David a little too forcefully. He would not have been happy about it.
AZGrizFan wrote:Suddenly Bolton is the reasonable one. My how the worm has turned now that he's out on his ass.
You donks are nothing if not predictable.
So now you've got a crystal ball? You donks are nothing if not predictable.dbackjon wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:Suddenly Bolton is the reasonable one. My how the worm has turned now that he's out on his ass.
You donks are nothing if not predictable.
No. Bolton was not reasonable. But your fuhrer is capable of appointing someone far worse, and your GOP lackeys in the Senate will rubber stamp the insanity, as usual.\
You conks are nothing if not predictable
It does in the twisted, fucked up, convoluted Donk world where Orange Man Bad no matter WHAT he does...CID1990 wrote:I’m hearing Bolton also protested when Trump contemplated lifting some Iran sanctions as an olive branch to get them to the table - that would make sense too
So basically, we have a neocon hawk who gets fired by a President who (through his own actions and statements) is in favor of nonintervention and also using the carrot on a stick to manipulate bad actors
and that neocon hawk is now being used as a yardstick for how wrong Trump is on foreign policy?
makes total sense
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The problem that I have with this analysis is that it presumes that Trump has the mental staying power/skill set “to manipulate bad actors” into some type of durable agreement. His instinct for a “deal” of any type is so evanescent-short term that nothing ever gets done. Exhibit A: The NorKors. Trump has no anchor to windward. Pompeo, at bottom, is a political hack who is using Trump for his own purposes.CID1990 wrote:I’m hearing Bolton also protested when Trump contemplated lifting some Iran sanctions as an olive branch to get them to the table - that would make sense too
So basically, we have a neocon hawk who gets fired by a President who (through his own actions and statements) is in favor of nonintervention and also using the carrot on a stick to manipulate bad actors
and that neocon hawk is now being used as a yardstick for how wrong Trump is on foreign policy?
makes total sense
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t think he does either - but through his words and actions he has demonstrated that he is a noninterventionist, and he has also demonstrated that he is willing to make security or trade deals on terms favorable to the US, optics be damned (Taliban at Camp David)Ivytalk wrote:The problem that I have with this analysis is that it presumes that Trump has the mental staying power/skill set “to manipulate bad actors” into some type of durable agreement. His instinct for a “deal” of any type is so evanescent-short term that nothing ever gets done. Exhibit A: The NorKors. Trump has no anchor to windward. Pompeo, at bottom, is a political hack who is using Trump for his own purposes.CID1990 wrote:I’m hearing Bolton also protested when Trump contemplated lifting some Iran sanctions as an olive branch to get them to the table - that would make sense too
So basically, we have a neocon hawk who gets fired by a President who (through his own actions and statements) is in favor of nonintervention and also using the carrot on a stick to manipulate bad actors
and that neocon hawk is now being used as a yardstick for how wrong Trump is on foreign policy?
makes total sense
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This. It's a good thing this warmongering neocon is out.Ivytalk wrote:For now, one less warmonger.
HI54UNI wrote:
Hey, don't spoil their "Orange Man Bad" fun.CID1990 wrote:I don’t think he does either - but through his words and actions he has demonstrated that he is a noninterventionist, and he has also demonstrated that he is willing to make security or trade deals on terms favorable to the US, optics be damned (Taliban at Camp David)Ivytalk wrote: The problem that I have with this analysis is that it presumes that Trump has the mental staying power/skill set “to manipulate bad actors” into some type of durable agreement. His instinct for a “deal” of any type is so evanescent-short term that nothing ever gets done. Exhibit A: The NorKors. Trump has no anchor to windward. Pompeo, at bottom, is a political hack who is using Trump for his own purposes.
Whether he is a master deal maker or a charlatan is immaterial. Using John Bolton’s departure as some kind of a canary in the coal mine on Trump’s foreign policy is the height of hypocrisy for Trump’s opponents. It is truly an “Orange Man Bad” moment
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But Trump hasn’t followed through to cut a single deal on security, and his record on actual trade agreements remains to be seen. It seems to be a matter of showmanship with him. Plus he has a notoriously short attention span beyond the next news cycle, leading him to treat Kim Jong-un like a yo-yo with nothing to show for it. I agree on his apparent noninterventionist instincts but, again, we need to see follow-through. Afghanistan troop withdrawal will be a clearer sign, if it happens.CID1990 wrote:I don’t think he does either - but through his words and actions he has demonstrated that he is a noninterventionist, and he has also demonstrated that he is willing to make security or trade deals on terms favorable to the US, optics be damned (Taliban at Camp David)Ivytalk wrote: The problem that I have with this analysis is that it presumes that Trump has the mental staying power/skill set “to manipulate bad actors” into some type of durable agreement. His instinct for a “deal” of any type is so evanescent-short term that nothing ever gets done. Exhibit A: The NorKors. Trump has no anchor to windward. Pompeo, at bottom, is a political hack who is using Trump for his own purposes.
Whether he is a master deal maker or a charlatan is immaterial. Using John Bolton’s departure as some kind of a canary in the coal mine on Trump’s foreign policy is the height of hypocrisy for Trump’s opponents. It is truly an “Orange Man Bad” moment
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Seriously - up is down with some of these peopleSDHornet wrote:Hey, don't spoil their "Orange Man Bad" fun.CID1990 wrote:
I don’t think he does either - but through his words and actions he has demonstrated that he is a noninterventionist, and he has also demonstrated that he is willing to make security or trade deals on terms favorable to the US, optics be damned (Taliban at Camp David)
Whether he is a master deal maker or a charlatan is immaterial. Using John Bolton’s departure as some kind of a canary in the coal mine on Trump’s foreign policy is the height of hypocrisy for Trump’s opponents. It is truly an “Orange Man Bad” moment
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe- but my point is that he has repeatedly indicated that we don’t belong in overseas quagmires, and he hasn’t escalated while Iran shows their collective ass and China becomes much mire provocative in the S China Sea. He has done nothing to indicate that he is interested in expending American blood and treasure in what should be other people’s fights. And he’s fired the hawks that have been in his ear. So for me, in terms of overseas adventurism, Trump is an A while Obama was a C- and Bush was an F. And firing Bolton makes up for the idiocy of hiring him in the first place.Ivytalk wrote:But Trump hasn’t followed through to cut a single deal on security, and his record on actual trade agreements remains to be seen. It seems to be a matter of showmanship with him. Plus he has a notoriously short attention span beyond the next news cycle, leading him to treat Kim Jong-un like a yo-yo with nothing to show for it. I agree on his apparent noninterventionist instincts but, again, we need to see follow-through. Afghanistan troop withdrawal will be a clearer sign, if it happens.CID1990 wrote:
I don’t think he does either - but through his words and actions he has demonstrated that he is a noninterventionist, and he has also demonstrated that he is willing to make security or trade deals on terms favorable to the US, optics be damned (Taliban at Camp David)
Whether he is a master deal maker or a charlatan is immaterial. Using John Bolton’s departure as some kind of a canary in the coal mine on Trump’s foreign policy is the height of hypocrisy for Trump’s opponents. It is truly an “Orange Man Bad” moment
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I like this assessment. Trumps pattern is obvious - he tweets and staggers from one thing to another with no real promise or action being taken towards the goal. Aside from his mere presence lifting the stock market, he really hasn't accomplished anything of long term value - at least nothing that I can think of at the moment. He's for the quick gain, nothing more. For a guy that was going to hire the best people, he certainly has picked some duds. Or has been erratic enough to chase off some that were actually worth a damn (Kelly, Haley, Mathis, for example).CID1990 wrote:Maybe- but my point is that he has repeatedly indicated that we don’t belong in overseas quagmires, and he hasn’t escalated while Iran shows their collective ass and China becomes much mire provocative in the S China Sea. He has done nothing to indicate that he is interested in expending American blood and treasure in what should be other people’s fights. And he’s fired the hawks that have been in his ear. So for me, in terms of overseas adventurism, Trump is an A while Obama was a C- and Bush was an F. And firing Bolton makes up for the idiocy of hiring him in the first place.Ivytalk wrote: But Trump hasn’t followed through to cut a single deal on security, and his record on actual trade agreements remains to be seen. It seems to be a matter of showmanship with him. Plus he has a notoriously short attention span beyond the next news cycle, leading him to treat Kim Jong-un like a yo-yo with nothing to show for it. I agree on his apparent noninterventionist instincts but, again, we need to see follow-through. Afghanistan troop withdrawal will be a clearer sign, if it happens.
Realpolitik alone will keep us in Afghanistan. But I guarantee that if there’s one person who can pull us out - consequences be damned - it is Trump.
And mark my words - if any of these Dems wind up in the Oval Office in 2020 we will be in Afghanistan for their entire tenure. MAYBE Yang would pull us out. Maybe.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Huh. Who would have thunk it?Ivytalk wrote:But Trump hasn’t followed through to cut a single deal on security, and his record on actual trade agreements remains to be seen. It seems to be a matter of showmanship with him. Plus he has a notoriously short attention span beyond the next news cycle, leading him to treat Kim Jong-un like a yo-yo with nothing to show for it. I agree on his apparent noninterventionist instincts but, again, we need to see follow-through. Afghanistan troop withdrawal will be a clearer sign, if it happens.CID1990 wrote:
I don’t think he does either - but through his words and actions he has demonstrated that he is a noninterventionist, and he has also demonstrated that he is willing to make security or trade deals on terms favorable to the US, optics be damned (Taliban at Camp David)
Whether he is a master deal maker or a charlatan is immaterial. Using John Bolton’s departure as some kind of a canary in the coal mine on Trump’s foreign policy is the height of hypocrisy for Trump’s opponents. It is truly an “Orange Man Bad” moment
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
CID's rocking this thread and Ivy's asking good questions.CID1990 wrote:Maybe- but my point is that he has repeatedly indicated that we don’t belong in overseas quagmires, and he hasn’t escalated while Iran shows their collective ass and China becomes much mire provocative in the S China Sea. He has done nothing to indicate that he is interested in expending American blood and treasure in what should be other people’s fights. And he’s fired the hawks that have been in his ear. So for me, in terms of overseas adventurism, Trump is an A while Obama was a C- and Bush was an F. And firing Bolton makes up for the idiocy of hiring him in the first place.Ivytalk wrote: But Trump hasn’t followed through to cut a single deal on security, and his record on actual trade agreements remains to be seen. It seems to be a matter of showmanship with him. Plus he has a notoriously short attention span beyond the next news cycle, leading him to treat Kim Jong-un like a yo-yo with nothing to show for it. I agree on his apparent noninterventionist instincts but, again, we need to see follow-through. Afghanistan troop withdrawal will be a clearer sign, if it happens.
Realpolitik alone will keep us in Afghanistan. But I guarantee that if there’s one person who can pull us out - consequences be damned - it is Trump.
And mark my words - if any of these Dems wind up in the Oval Office in 2020 we will be in Afghanistan for their entire tenure. MAYBE Yang would pull us out. Maybe.
When did you become a Bolton fan?houndawg wrote:Try to fathom the caliber of the wackjobs you need to surround yourself with to make Bolton look like the reasonable one.CID1990 wrote:Five bucks says Bolton protested Trump inviting the Taliban to Camp David a little too forcefully. He would not have been happy about it.
Sweet!CID1990 wrote:Oh and BTW....
Mornin Ivy!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk