Trump Derangement Syndrome - Orange man bad. Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ) 🗿🗿🗿🗿

[TowinKarz]

Literally everybody agrees. There will never be another draft because it would immediately politically obliterate whichever party authorized it. It's a vestige from a bygone era where you just needed as many dudes to hand boots and a rifle to so they could run at machineguns.

Also, how much you want to bet those saying it's cowardly to dodge the draft turn around and argue that women should be exempt and if gender-equal conscription ever becomes a thing it's the duty of every woman to dodge?

 

[Jet Fuel Johnny]

What's funny is when someone tries to say "You can serve with bone spurs, LOL" and you point out that dozens, shit, probably low hundreds of people get separated every year for bone spurs. If you develop a bone spur during Basic Training... DING! Home you go.

 

[TowinKarz]

It's almost like the Army doesn't want you if you can't reliably be called upon to march somewhere and not suffer an injury from it.... it's like they need you to have good feet.... and that's just silly. What do foot soldiers have to do with feet?

 

[sketchtical]

Ya seem like a decent person, so I'll just point out something to you regarding this without my usual snarkiness. This will take a bit, but hang with me. You'll see why what you're suggesting is the language of defeat as soon as you utter the words in a military sense.

Spoiler: Full Metal Sperging

That "minimum" during pullout is the most dangerous time when you're disengaging from a war in a foreign nation. Look what happened with Vietnam. After the Tet Offensive, we had them fucking beat. Don't pay attention to the press saying the war was unwillable, they said that in the middle of a battle that the US forces were winning. We broke the back of the NVA and cost the VC most of their most experienced and skilled fighters. Reading tales from Vietnamese who were there, who survived it all, North Vietnam was ready to pack it in. It was fucking over. They'd barely dented us, and even blowing up the three ASP's hadn't mattered. We resupplied within days. But the US populace was told the war was unwillable, and it looked like the US political machine believed it. The North Vietnamese couldn't believe their luck. So instead of suing for peace, they just decided to hold on a little longer, see what happened.

We began talking about minimum force levels, structured withdrawl, actually cutting Vietnam in half (which the NVA hadn't actually managed to do with any real strength that couldn't have been shattered if the US had followed up the NVA withdrawl with armed force like a lot of commanders had wanted to), and slowly disengaging from the war.

holy shit, suddenly this war could be won.

Or at least, the war could end without them LOSING.

The tactics COMPLETELY changed. Gone were the days of Firebase Ripcord, instead it was, to quote Ali, float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. Kill one or two GI's and haul fucking ass. Toss a grenade into a vehicle from a crowd. Lob a few mortar shells and then haul ass. Never let the US military catch you or pin you down. Always stay moving. The North Vietnamese knew that if the US military pinned them down, they'd get ripped to shreds. The KD was still savage, but see, they were in a spot that nobody had ever foreseen.

They didn't have to beat the military, they just had to beat the US public's perception of the military.

This all ties into minimum force levels.

The US, when we say "We're only going to have 5,000 troops in the area", we pretty much mean it. There might be a few score snake eaters lurking about, but we're pretty open on which division is deployed even if we keep down where it can usually be traced to which nation its deployed in.

Which means, they have a target number.

Worse, "Minimum Force Levels in Theater" has changed its definition since the Cold War, when that meant the minimum amount of troops to secure and hold the objective with a 30% surplus, and was more often used to refer to MOS personnel levels. It's the Rumsfeld Doctrine, something he fell in love with during his first term of Sec-Def right after the Vietnam War, since he actually blamed fighting spirit and ability on the loss instead of the loss of political will. It used to mean the catastrophic bare minimum you needed to do the job, and you NEVER went to war with minimum force levels. You never held a fucking POPSICLE STAND with bare minimum force levels.

Minimum force levels you are AUTOMATICALLY ceding controls of the roadways, the rural areas, to the enemy. You are telling your allies in villages and outlying regions that you will no longer be protecting them. That outside of your military bases and military zones, you are completely absent.

You have ceded control of the nation, except for your small enclaves, to the enemy.

You have ceded victory to the enemy.

You CAN NOT win a defensive war.

Do you want to know why Iraq turned into such a cluster fuck from the get-go? Because of Rumsfeld and Cheney's "Minimum Force Level" bullshit combined with Cheney's "You go to war with the Army you have not the Army you want..." which is a quote that is supposed to be applied to a defensive posture at the beginning of the war, not when you're the aggressor.

We lost control of the country within the first week. The Powell Doctrine planning was discarded because the Rumsfeld Doctrine promised that the Iraq War wouldn't damage the economy too badly nor put any strain on the civilian populace or require Bush to ask Congress to change the force levels for the US Army and US Marines.

Minimum Force is what you use to accomplish strategically sensitive objectives, not what you deploy to accomplish those objectives.

Even bare bones leadership training used to specify that if the mission planning stated you needed at least 2 companies of infantry to achieve the objective, you shoot for five companies with another company in reserve for operational flexibility and in case of worse case scenarios. It stated you double estimated enemy strengths, assume worst case scenario for their offensive weaponry mix and defensive capabilities, and so you double or tripled up your force requirements with an additional 50% rapid ready reserves.

As soon as someone starts talking about "Minimum Force Levels" I know they don't understand the term or how it should be used. It's not their fault, it's usually that the people that they got the term from didn't understand it either. And it's gotten to the point where people who should know better believe the new definition of Minimum Force Levels.

Imagine, just for a moment, if we'd gone with the Powell Doctrine into Iraq in 2003. He wanted over 5X what was put in, said 15-20X would be better. Once the country was secure, he wanted the entire Iran/Iraq border constantly patrolled with any Iranian incursions treated as hostile Iraqi military forces returning to Iraq and to be met with overwhelming force. He wanted MP or infantry companies no more than 5 minutes from the smallest fucking village. He called for total US military control of the country for five fucking years, with then a provincial governor installed that answered to the US military. Rebuilding of the infrastructure to Western standards. Westernizing of the Iraqi legal code with draconian punishments for flaunting the law. His plan called for a 20-30 year occupation, modeled after Japan and Germany with a trace of South Korea thrown in.

Instead, we went minimum force because Cheney's a fat fucking asshole and Rumsfeld is an exceptional individual with delusions of granduer.

Now, you advocate minimum force before we pull out. Different generals will give you different answers. The nation itself you're extracting from will give you different answers. When you talk about going to minimum force levels, and the fact you're considering that will be discovered by the insurgents or the enemy, the enemy, if they know their 4th Gen warfare, will IMMEDIATELY drop their operational tempo. Usually after getting rid of a few commanders that might be problematic by allowing them to try to "push out the enemy while they're weak" which will make your advisors talk about how they're too weak to put up a fight now.

The minimum force level you get sold, by what apparently passes for military theory nowadays since "minimum force levels" seem to apply for anything past TO&E and MOS levels, is going to be a fraction of reality.

And now you have Iraq, pre-ISIS.

See the problem with leaving before the occupation has achieved it's objectives?

[/QUOTE]
That's interesting. It's a revisionist perspective on the Vietnam war I haven't heard before.

"Snake eaters" means Special Forces?

Here's my spergistic counterpoint to the ideas you've outlined.

Spoiler: Wall O Text on possible alternative US military strategy

My understanding of what was meant by it being an "unwinnable war" was that our objective wasn't obtainable by military means. By any objective, military, measure, we crushed our opponent. As far as I'm concerned, getting out was the right thing to do, as it became "someone else's problem."

Our involvement was founded on the cold war doctrine of preventing a "domino effect" of countries falling into the influence of the USSR. I think "containment" strategy against Soviet aggression was well founded, but I'm not sure, in retrospect, that the Soviets allying with third world countries was much of a threat. At the time, the military capacity and intention of the USSR was not well understood.

The bottom line was that the VNC were in an existential fight to the death. I think they were essentially patriots. They could only be defeated through annihilation and brutal oppression. The South Vietnamese were not "the good guys." They were a government that was connected to the recent colonial occupation by France. One side or the other was going to win, and it was going to be real ugly for a long time after that. I don't see much of an upside for staying in that mess. I think Vietnam has slowly but surely made a lot of progress since then (as far as third world standards go.)

You can't really draw strong analogies from WWII through Vietnam to the current conflicts. As far as rebuilding Germany and Japan, that was only possible because we actually annihilated their societies. And that was only politically possible because they were genuine antagonists, nation states that declared total war on the US and Allies.

Reaping that kind of destruction on the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan would be horrible. Thankfully that kind of warfare has become an anathema to the citizens of the US.

The conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are closer to Vietnam than those of the WWII. They are civil wars.

As far as I can tell, the US has no support among the populations of those countries. So if we pick a side in the civil war, and annihilate their opponents, what have we won in exchange for committing atrocities against humanity? A shitload of new enemies.

In any case, if Colin Powell could not politically sell the "Power Doctrine" 'aint no one selling the "Powell Doctrine." Which renders it moot as a realistic strategy for these wars. I was totally against the Iraq war. At the time I thought Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz's plan was doomed to failure. But I would have been against the Powell approach as well. It was a war of choice, drummed up under false pretense, by neocon degenerates.

Actually, thinking back, I'm ashamed that for a couple of weeks I tentatively thought the war was justifiable, based on Powell's and Bush's propagandistic skills. I'm still dumbfounded that every freaking US Senator supported this war, except Obama. "War fever" is weird and frightening, it's like a spell is cast on a whole population.

The thing I was trying to get at with leaving small numbers of troops in areas we already have troops represents an evolution in my thinking. But it's just provisional, so when everyone started jumping down my throat about being a neocon, I kind of lost my train of thought. This stuff is frankly way 'above my paygrade', but as a citizen I do my best to formulate an opinion.

Essentially, the only current active threat to the US Homeland are asymmetric terrorist attacks like 9/11. Since there hasn't been another one since, maybe some credit is due to strategies pursued by the US over the past 18 years. But the price tag is stupendously high ($2.4 trillion and counting).

I'm thinking, there has to be a way to counter terrorist threats at a lower cost in both money and body count. It seems to me, just spitballin' here, that a strategy like the following could work (it's basically a variation on the current strategy) :

Overwhelming military force is not needed to counter terrorist activity. What's needed is good intelligence and the capacity to mobilize targeted military force where needed. Possibly air power and proxy forces could be used to 'disrupt' more organized projects aimed at standing up terrorist forces that could mount an actual threat to the mainland (like Isis).

My idea is that if there is a place that isn't openly hostile to us, or at least owes us militarily, we could maintain defensible bases of various sizes. The goal would be to have some infrastructure to support, for example, special operations, or drone bases. We might provide minimal military assistance or intelligence to one side in these civil conflicts if it gains us access to intelligence sources. Otherwise we let the locals fight it out.

We absolutely stop providing weapons to any ME entity, government, or militia. I subscribe to the theory that "the gun in the first act is going to go off in the third." To have our own weaponry used against us (or civilian non-combatants) is appalling. Selling weapons to the Saudi's is sickening. Some allies aren't worth it.

This strategy would also require empowered intelligence agencies (like we have now). Which means we sacrifice some civil liberties. In my calculus, this is worth it to avoid a hot war.

This is pretty close to what is going on now. The main tactics to implement would be:

-Pull the bulk of US troops out of active warzones, but maintain a skeleton force in locations that are defensible. The goal is to maintain intelligence gathering and staging of targeted military operations.

- When one of our bases is in a hot warzone with potential of being attacked, focus on defending the soldiers and staff at the location with maximum priority.

-Avoid antagonising local populations as much as possible.

-Stop all provisions of weaponry to the ME. For countries that require substantial aid to maintain military presence, we could focus on non-military aid.

-Stop futile nation-building projects. Try not to take sides in civil wars. If there is a solid potential ally that needs some modest help, decide to support on case basis.

-Implement an active program of diplomacy in as many countries as possible. We should be willing to talk to anyone (another area where I begrudgingly give Trump credit.)

-de-emphasise traditional military alliances (like NATO), and instead focus on trade and cultural alliances. Essentially, we want to be friends with as many countries as possible. The combined intelligence networks is a 'force multiplier.' If we actually need to mount a traditional military campaign, we want real allies to help.

-When we are aware of active terrorist plots, or opportunities to take out terrorist leadership with targeted drone strikes, we execute with the necessary force for that narrow objective.

-If we have an opportunity to prevent active military hostilities at a reasonable cost, we should do so (like on Syria border). A day without full on warfare is a good day. Muddling through counts as a strategy. If we can't, then we get our forces out of the way.

This is a relatively new way to think about this for me. I've traditionally been closer to an "isolationist" in my instinct. As I'm just some nobody on the internet, it's mostly an exercise to help myself understand what's happening, and who I might vote for. I'm sure there's major things I'm missing, so if you have any comments or feedback I'm curious to hear.

 

[Slap47]

About trump draft dodging

Wyświetl załącznik 1082141

It's pretty weird to see people make fun of Trump for skipping out on a war that they oppose and he opposed.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

It's almost like the Army doesn't want you if you can't reliably be called upon to march somewhere and not suffer an injury from it.... it's like they need you to have good feet.... and that's just silly. What do foot soldiers have to do with feet?

Are you implying that the military is there to like... fight in foreign conflict and kill enemies of America or something?

Get with the program, bigot. Its 20[20]! The military is there to spread diversity and pay for your titty skittles and dick amputation!

 

[Irwin M. Felcher]

It’s been nothing but doomsaying and fuck Trump; the sick part is that they’d probably be disappointed if WWIII didn’t happen.

Don't be ridiculous. If WWIII never happens, they'll be overjoyed... that they managed to prevent it.

 

[sketchtical]

I remember Bush Derangement Syndrome from when I was a kid, and in retrospect, it was kind of cringe. But I'd gladly take that over TDS.

At least with Bush Derangement Syndrome, it wasn't anywhere near as intense or as venomous as Trump Derangement Syndrome. You didn't have people getting assaulted for having a Bush-Cheney bumper sticker on their car or anything like the mistreatment of the Covington Catholic boys.

Also, with Bush, it helps that Bush was a legitimately terrible president who gave us two military quagmires (one of which is still ongoing while the other directly led to ISIS and the current Iran boogaloo) and implemented the Patriot Act, which created the corrupt NSA surveillance state that Edward Snowden publicly revealed back in 2013.

There's also the fact that in Bush's first term, the MSM actually went easy on him since 9/11 happened fairly early in his administration's time in office, and we didn't start seeing BDS until after his reelection.

While people would compare Bush to Hitler or worry about America turning into a theocracy, you could at least sort of follow the logic given things like the Patriot Act and Bush's affiliation with the Religious Right. His supporters didn't get ostracized and attacked like Trump supporters do.

If you were a regular citizen who supported Bush, the worst you'd likely get for it was Jon Stewart calling you a redneck on TV and that'd be the end of it. Compare that to innocent teenagers who had their lives ruined because they wore a Trump hat and made the mistake of smirking within so many yards of a Native American.

Bush Derangement Syndrome wasn't as bad as TDS, but Clinton Derangement Syndrome was close.

I no I convinced absolutely nobody here, but I think there is a similarity...Clinton was an obviously flawed person. But when any Republican's tried to point this out, Dems just refused to acknowledge it. OH, some bimbo eruptions, better have the First Feminist go and squash those ruthlessly by any means necessary. Then Lindsay Graham would go mental, and the Dems would be like, nyah nyah, not listening.

I think, obviously, it's Trump's personal qualities that inspire hatred in some (including me). Once TDS kicks, anything Trump does is filtered through the most negative lense possible. If Trump did it, it must be evil.

The denial of objective reality is what drives me insane.

Clearly Trump is a pathological liar and hopeless narcissist.

I don't trust him, but if I force myself to be as objective as I can, I do agree with some of his actions.

This kind of shit is no big deal if he's "your guy" but if he's not, the charms are rather lost. I don't think it's fair to say that he's for "average people." There is a large plurality of people he speaks to, but far more who dislike him. Those people are just as much "regular Americans" as your average MAGA hat wearing dude in Iowa.

Edit: for those that weren't there, Clinton's nickname amongst his antogonists was "slick Willy"...

 

[AprilRains]

The denial of objective reality is what drives me insane.

No, the causality in your case is the other way around.

 

[dopy]

The denial of objective reality is what drives me insane.

read nietzsche

 

[The Great Citracett]

Oh god we're being completely annihilated by the superior Iranians' ground troops!

Help us Mexico!



These people are seriously delusional.

 

[sketchtical]

You seem to want choir boys to be president. But choir boys sing in the choir, they don't fucking run for president.

Washington, Adams and Jefferson all owned slaves. Hell, all presidents until Lincoln either owned slaves or didn't stop slavery.
Jackson was behind the Trail of Tears.
Wilson used to hold screenings of The Birth of a Nation on the White House lawn.
Franklin Roosevelt put American citizens in internment camps based solely on race.
Johnson was famously racist against black people, or as he like to say, niggers.
George W Bush stumbled us into a war we still haven't gotten ourselves out of almost two decades, thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars later.
Obama set race relations back 50 years and rubbed elbows with Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton.
But Trump says mean words on Twitter, ZOMG!

On the list of the worst, most evil presidents, Trump doesn't even make the top quarter. Hell, he's in the top quarter best. Forty four men have been the president of these United States. Please, name eleven that are less racist than Trump. I'll even spot you Carter. Good Ol' church going Jimmy is probably less racist than Trump. Now name ten more.

You and perspective? Not even once.

I agree with you in the main, but I don't think you're analysis is quite right.

For the sake of argument, grant that Sociopathic Personality Disorder is a thing, and that the most evil people have something like this. An utter disregard for other's humanity. Think of a psycho who abducts women and imprisons them for sexual gratification.

Objectively, the behavior of Jefferson and other Founding Fathers was pretty much totally sociopathic by moderns standards. They actually owned human beings as property, including their children. They could do anything they wanted to them, including raping at will, which Jefferson did.

But that doesn't imply, necessarily, that Jefferson was a sociopath. From his writings he doesn't sound like it. And you could have another slaveholder who actually is sociopathic, but because the violence inherent in slavery was socially sanctioned he could conduct his evil behavior within the boundaries of the law. This is an objective reality about a person's psychological state.

Sociopathic characteristics aren't necessarily evil, it's just that this type of psychology is associated with it, because sociopaths tend to lack remorse or empathy. This pattern is often found in leaders. It turns out that not caring about hurting peoples feelings and being highly tuned into how to manipulate others by understanding intuitively how they functions allows people to succeed in some contexts. Like politics, or business leadership. If it's kept in check, such people can be very high achievers, and channel these impulses into constructive paths.

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a related condition, essentially a variation on a theme. These people are less likely to be evil, but their extreme self centeredness makes them insensitive to other's feelings. They tend to see people as a means to an end. They like people who flatter them, and consider those who don't as being enemies. (IMO, this is the root of Trumps personal failings.)

Anyone who gets close to the presidency is going to have some of these characteristics.

What I hate about Trump is his utter obliviousness to his own behavior. He never admits he's wrong. He blames others for his own problems. He feels justified in slandering someone as being a liar just because they said something that hurt his feelings, even though it's true. He demands loyalty, but doesn't return it. He will throw anyone under the bus without a second thought if they are no longer useful to him. (I don't think he would do this to his kids, but I think anyone else is fair game.) He is a pathological liar, because as long as the lie helps him, he thinks there is nothing wrong with it. You are either with him, or you're against him. He pits people against each other for his own ends.

I don't trust him, because he lacks insight and discipline to moderate his boorish behavior to accommodate others. I think this makes him dangerous, because it prevents him from being able to separate his own self interest from that of the United States and her citizens. I think Trump is astonished that he's getting shit for his shenanigans with Ukraine, because to him the idea that we are giving them $300m should at least entitle him to ask for a measilly little favor...

So it's a matter of degree. Obviously you disagree, but I think Obama had good self insight to his own egoism, and could keep in check when appropriate. I don't see the same issue you do with race relations, so in my perspective Obama did about a good job as anyone could as President.

On the other hand, GW Bush was a menace, because while he did have a reasonable level of self awareness, he became convinced of his own righteousness, and by extension any decision he took was justified as being the choice of "GOD". He was a true believer, and these people are the most dangerous. "Freedom is On the March" became his slogan for the ME. People always described Bush as someone you could "grab a beer" with, and for what he was, I saw that.

Due to some of the conversations I am adjusting my opinion of Trump, and on reflection, I prefer him over some the other modern era Presidents, like Bush45, Johnson, or Nixon. But I could never see myself voluntarily subjecting myself to his company. I know people like him, they suck to be around.

I have my own theory about why Hillary would have been a dangerous President. The challenge with being President, is that you are forced to do some nasty shit for the sake of the job, as you described. Hillary is very sharp, but she's the kind of person who has to believe she is "good." So suppose there's a need to launch a military operation to protect the oil production in a given country. It's just one of those things, can't be too fussy about it, not a job for a "choir boy" as you say.

But Hillary can't stand to think of herself as just a mercenary. So instead she would try to convince herself that it's actually a military action needed in the name of "justice." Similarly to Bush, once she convinced herself of the righteousness of her decisions, it allows for far more extreme actions, as they can be justified on a "humanitarian" basis. This was allowed her to lead such fiascos like the Libya actions.

So, while I agree with your thesis mainly, there is a matter of degree. The President needs to have the self awareness and discipline these darker aspects of the job with social norms. It is this balance that Trump lacks, IMO.

So far, Trump hasn't been nearly as bad as I feared, and I really am trying to be objective about it. He's not my kind of person, but perhaps he is the right guy for job after all. It's hard for me to admit that, because there is just something about him that makes me want to punch him in his big fat face, but whatever.

 

[The Great Citracett]

This took longer than I thought it would:

 

[Crystal Golem]

It's hard for me to admit that, because there is just something about him that makes me want to punch him in his big fat face, but whatever.

This sentence is a microcosm of the whole TDS movement.

 

[AprilRains]

I agree with you in the main, but I don't think you're analysis is quite right.

For the sake of argument, grant that Sociopathic Personality Disorder is a thing, and that the most evil people have something like this. An utter disregard for other's humanity. Think of a psycho who abducts women and imprisons them for sexual gratification.

Objectively, the behavior of Jefferson and other Founding Fathers was pretty much totally sociopathic by moderns standards. They actually owned human beings as property, including their children. They could do anything they wanted to them, including raping at will, which Jefferson did.

But that doesn't imply, necessarily, that Jefferson was a sociopath. From his writings he doesn't sound like it. And you could have another slaveholder who actually is sociopathic, but because the violence inherent in slavery was socially sanctioned he could conduct his evil behavior within the boundaries of the law. This is an objective reality about a person's psychological state.

Sociopathic characteristics aren't necessarily evil, it's just that this type of psychology is associated with it, because sociopaths tend to lack remorse or empathy. This pattern is often found in leaders. It turns out that not caring about hurting peoples feelings and being highly tuned into how to manipulate others by understanding intuitively how they functions allows people to succeed in some contexts. Like politics, or business leadership. If it's kept in check, such people can be very high achievers, and channel these impulses into constructive paths.

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a related condition, essentially a variation on a theme. These people are less likely to be evil, but their extreme self centeredness makes them insensitive to other's feelings. They tend to see people as a means to an end. They like people who flatter them, and consider those who don't as being enemies. (IMO, this is the root of Trumps personal failings.)

Anyone who gets close to the presidency is going to have some of these characteristics.

What I hate about Trump is his utter obliviousness to his own behavior. He never admits he's wrong. He blames others for his own problems. He feels justified in slandering someone as being a liar just because they said something that hurt his feelings, even though it's true. He demands loyalty, but doesn't return it. He will throw anyone under the bus without a second thought if they are no longer useful to him. (I don't think he would do this to his kids, but I think anyone else is fair game.) He is a pathological liar, because as long as the lie helps him, he thinks there is nothing wrong with it. You are either with him, or you're against him. He pits people against each other for his own ends.

I don't trust him, because he lacks insight and discipline to moderate his boorish behavior to accommodate others. I think this makes him dangerous, because it prevents him from being able to separate his own self interest from that of the United States and her citizens. I think Trump is astonished that he's getting shit for his shenanigans with Ukraine, because to him the idea that we are giving them $300m should at least entitle him to ask for a measilly little favor...

So it's a matter of degree. Obviously you disagree, but I think Obama had good self insight to his own egoism, and could keep in check when appropriate. I don't see the same issue you do with race relations, so in my perspective Obama did about a good job as anyone could as President.

On the other hand, GW Bush was a menace, because while he did have a reasonable level of self awareness, he became convinced of his own righteousness, and by extension any decision he took was justified as being the choice of "GOD". He was a true believer, and these people are the most dangerous. "Freedom is On the March" became his slogan for the ME. People always described Bush as someone you could "grab a beer" with, and for what he was, I saw that.

Due to some of the conversations I am adjusting my opinion of Trump, and on reflection, I prefer him over some the other modern era Presidents, like Bush45, Johnson, or Nixon. But I could never see myself voluntarily subjecting myself to his company. I know people like him, they suck to be around.

I have my own theory about why Hillary would have been a dangerous President. The challenge with being President, is that you are forced to do some nasty shit for the sake of the job, as you described. Hillary is very sharp, but she's the kind of person who has to believe she is "good." So suppose there's a need to launch a military operation to protect the oil production in a given country. It's just one of those things, can't be too fussy about it, not a job for a "choir boy" as you say.

But Hillary can't stand to think of herself as just a mercenary. So instead she would try to convince herself that it's actually a military action needed in the name of "justice." Similarly to Bush, once she convinced herself of the righteousness of her decisions, it allows for far more extreme actions, as they can be justified on a "humanitarian" basis. This was allowed her to lead such fiascos like the Libya actions.

So, while I agree with your thesis mainly, there is a matter of degree. The President needs to have the self awareness and discipline these darker aspects of the job with social norms. It is this balance that Trump lacks, IMO.

So far, Trump hasn't been nearly as bad as I feared, and I really am trying to be objective about it. He's not my kind of person, but perhaps he is the right guy for job after all. It's hard for me to admit that, because there is just something about him that makes me want to punch him in his big fat face, but whatever.

Resolved: TDS is comorbid with verbose narcissism.

 

[Shield Breaker]

I agree with you in the main, but I don't think you're analysis is quite right.

For the sake of argument, grant that Sociopathic Personality Disorder is a thing, and that the most evil people have something like this. An utter disregard for other's humanity. Think of a psycho who abducts women and imprisons them for sexual gratification.

Objectively, the behavior of Jefferson and other Founding Fathers was pretty much totally sociopathic by moderns standards. They actually owned human beings as property, including their children. They could do anything they wanted to them, including raping at will, which Jefferson did.

But that doesn't imply, necessarily, that Jefferson was a sociopath. From his writings he doesn't sound like it. And you could have another slaveholder who actually is sociopathic, but because the violence inherent in slavery was socially sanctioned he could conduct his evil behavior within the boundaries of the law. This is an objective reality about a person's psychological state.

Sociopathic characteristics aren't necessarily evil, it's just that this type of psychology is associated with it, because sociopaths tend to lack remorse or empathy. This pattern is often found in leaders. It turns out that not caring about hurting peoples feelings and being highly tuned into how to manipulate others by understanding intuitively how they functions allows people to succeed in some contexts. Like politics, or business leadership. If it's kept in check, such people can be very high achievers, and channel these impulses into constructive paths.

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a related condition, essentially a variation on a theme. These people are less likely to be evil, but their extreme self centeredness makes them insensitive to other's feelings. They tend to see people as a means to an end. They like people who flatter them, and consider those who don't as being enemies. (IMO, this is the root of Trumps personal failings.)

Anyone who gets close to the presidency is going to have some of these characteristics.

What I hate about Trump is his utter obliviousness to his own behavior. He never admits he's wrong. He blames others for his own problems. He feels justified in slandering someone as being a liar just because they said something that hurt his feelings, even though it's true. He demands loyalty, but doesn't return it. He will throw anyone under the bus without a second thought if they are no longer useful to him. (I don't think he would do this to his kids, but I think anyone else is fair game.) He is a pathological liar, because as long as the lie helps him, he thinks there is nothing wrong with it. You are either with him, or you're against him. He pits people against each other for his own ends.

I don't trust him, because he lacks insight and discipline to moderate his boorish behavior to accommodate others. I think this makes him dangerous, because it prevents him from being able to separate his own self interest from that of the United States and her citizens. I think Trump is astonished that he's getting shit for his shenanigans with Ukraine, because to him the idea that we are giving them $300m should at least entitle him to ask for a measilly little favor...

So it's a matter of degree. Obviously you disagree, but I think Obama had good self insight to his own egoism, and could keep in check when appropriate. I don't see the same issue you do with race relations, so in my perspective Obama did about a good job as anyone could as President.

On the other hand, GW Bush was a menace, because while he did have a reasonable level of self awareness, he became convinced of his own righteousness, and by extension any decision he took was justified as being the choice of "GOD". He was a true believer, and these people are the most dangerous. "Freedom is On the March" became his slogan for the ME. People always described Bush as someone you could "grab a beer" with, and for what he was, I saw that.

Due to some of the conversations I am adjusting my opinion of Trump, and on reflection, I prefer him over some the other modern era Presidents, like Bush45, Johnson, or Nixon. But I could never see myself voluntarily subjecting myself to his company. I know people like him, they suck to be around.

I have my own theory about why Hillary would have been a dangerous President. The challenge with being President, is that you are forced to do some nasty shit for the sake of the job, as you described. Hillary is very sharp, but she's the kind of person who has to believe she is "good." So suppose there's a need to launch a military operation to protect the oil production in a given country. It's just one of those things, can't be too fussy about it, not a job for a "choir boy" as you say.

But Hillary can't stand to think of herself as just a mercenary. So instead she would try to convince herself that it's actually a military action needed in the name of "justice." Similarly to Bush, once she convinced herself of the righteousness of her decisions, it allows for far more extreme actions, as they can be justified on a "humanitarian" basis. This was allowed her to lead such fiascos like the Libya actions.

So, while I agree with your thesis mainly, there is a matter of degree. The President needs to have the self awareness and discipline these darker aspects of the job with social norms. It is this balance that Trump lacks, IMO.

So far, Trump hasn't been nearly as bad as I feared, and I really am trying to be objective about it. He's not my kind of person, but perhaps he is the right guy for job after all. It's hard for me to admit that, because there is just something about him that makes me want to punch him in his big fat face, but whatever.

TLDR: Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to TDS.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

This has always left me befuddled, because the same people who praised the draft dodgers rip Trump for doing the exact same thing. Are you for or against draft dodging, what is it? So what he used his privilege to dodge it; anyone who’s looking to dodge the draft would look for anything to do it. When you have the means to do something effectively and with little cost, you take it. That’s being smart and pragmatic.

These people have no principles, and when they come up with reasons, (like him being rich) it’s absolute bullshit.

When they have no principles, they practice double-standards. If Trump was still Democrat instead of Republican, I won't be surprised if they closed an eye on this.

 

[verissimus]

I guess the Iraqis didn't get the Orange-man-bad memo 917B - 13 : https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ir...e-street-after-soleimanis-killing-pompeo-says

 

[TaimuRadiu]

This took longer than I thought it would:

Wyświetl załącznik 1082305

This is why we didn't help them when actual Voldemort took over the Wizarding World of Great Britain.

 

[SBG]

Tucker criticized Trump for the Salami hit and his boomer fans on facebook aren't happy.

Brian Stelter on Twitter

“Some of Tucker Carlson's Qs: "Is Iran really the greatest threat we face? Who's actually benefiting from this? Why are we continuing to ignore the decline of our own country in favor of jumping into another quagmire from which there is no obvious exit?" https://t.co/WLHcgI1u3Q”

twitter.com