LOL pokerodox retroactively realizing that people have thought he was dumb his entire life

See this to watch him work his way to a childlike understanding of something in a White House meeting, something that was decidedly not for public consumption. I guess we'll agree to disagree about whether someone who struggles to gain such a basic understanding of things is dumb.

Not everyone assuming that rich people are smart and some of us judge people by their ideas and how they express them is a ****ing cruise missile to the self-esteem of a certain class of internet dude.

Not that I buy this, but even if Trump were really smart in some sense, say high IQ, it wouldn't make much of a difference because he knows nothing. He regularly displays his lack of knowledge on important topics, and basically any poker player should be ashamed if they can't spot his ignorance. So maybe he's a fast learner, which would be great, but he would have to be the world's fastest learner to compete with previous Presidents who have thought and read about the issues for years. The best hope for a Trump Presidency is that he delegates, delegates, delegates. To some extent, he may be doing this already, which would partly account for the massive dissonance between his words and deeds.

Also worth noting is that when he does receive new information, he doesn't question or investigate the source unless it conflicts with him in some way. Like look in goofy's link how willing he was to believe that the opponents of civil asset forfeiture were cartoon villains who wanted drug dealers to keep all their drugs, when his source was a Sheriff who directly benefits from the process.

Who would he delegate to besides Ivanka and Jared Kushner? I feel like Rex Tillerson and the State Department are the prime example of people he should be delegating to, but instead we read about how they're totally cut out of the loop, not being consulted on things the State Department should be consulted on, etc.

Even Ivanka and Jared would be a step up because they have some cosmopolitan values like not smashing LGBTQ people, probably taking some heat among their society friends for the Muslim ban, etc. They will of course ride roughshod over the poor just like dear old Dad. But mainly, yes, I meant delegate to the least incompetent members of his admin, like Tillerson.

Trump can't stop contradicting himself on healthcare - now he wants to try repealing again before moving on to tax issues, after previously giving up on repealing Obamacare after previously making it a signature campaign promise to repeal Obamacare

If I was a total nerd, I would go back through "quotes" and campaign promises of former Presidents and find that they sometimes change their minds or simply don't follow through.

I think the problem with most of you is that you don't know how to actually think. Your great at research and regurgitate/plagiarizing information. I however know how to think. I not only analyze past information but also extrapolate how that information can be used in the future. This is why many of you don't follow what I say.

Mostly I think Trump is Bush W but with more racism, and the racism part is what the non oligarchal Republicans like. The whole economic populism thing didn't hold any weight, Trump never really spelled out that the economic populism part really meant. The ethno-corporatism with corruption he has though, with Sessions being the ethno-nationalism enforcer while Trump laying out the oligarchical tax cuts for the corporatism part, Republicans just don't mind the corruption as long as they get ethno-nationalism.

I don't know. It's more like the difference between lagtard with a bunch of misguided theory "justifying" every move or a donk just clicking buttons. At the end of the day it amounts to about the same thing.

Kissinger was a genocidal hawk with a lot of grand theory which never proved insightful. Trump is an over aggressive moron with a much simpler rationale. They are both just aggressively ****ing **** up with no real handle on the outcomes. That Kissinger can serve up some highly refined bull**** which makes his moves look intelligent doesn't invalidate the fundamental comparison.

I heard W bush on NPR the other day giving some light critiques of the Trump administration. He was as basic as full of **** as ever, but it struck me how much more intelligent he is than Trump. I don't think Trump so much belongs in a close comparison with recent presidents. Although Trump has preserved the swamp, he is still largely unpredictable. Trump is best seen as an aberration, as what America puked up in its first real effort in many decades to get rid of the current crop of elites. Trump is part con man, part troll. Bush had a set agenda for exploiting the country and was serious about it- no part troll. Trump is just out there winging it, finding it increasingly tough to get value out of the moronic memes that resonated enough with the public to get him past the other worst candidate in history.

Commentators should stop comparing trump to some other recognizable name based on a clever trick they pulled. I'd rather look at motives and possible outcomes. It's irrelevant whether reagan or kissinger or whoever tried the same tactics. plenty of presidents tried the same ****, but what matters is what sort of change they effected. E.g. I can sorta see the WH-painted illusion that trump is some advanced negotiator, but him trying to appeal to everyone at once doesn't make me think it's anything but despair to find any ally who will rescue him from one of possible crises. Whether he luckboxes into such an ally doesn't make him a good diplomat. I need reporters to get the WH to answer who is influencing this administration towards a policy, to find out the ulterior reason they need troops on the ground fighting isis, or depose assad, or play naval warfare on the korean peninsula.

Nah Trump is the culmination of conservativism, not some aberration. George W presented himself much in the same way as Trump. A self made business man who spoke simple truths as an Everyman against the effeminate, feckless, and corrupt liberal elites. Bush's faux pas were multiple as well as the standard deregulation, tax cuts for the rich, and strong man foreign policy. Trump just figured out the con and realized that even the bare minimal administrative competency requirements didn't apply if you could double down on the preformative part.

You have never said anything in this entire thread that warranted a response of original thought. You don't make arguments, you make assertions. You don't cite facts, you cite feelings. You don't have principles, you simply believe whatever Trump does is right. The things you post are not complicated to refute, so there's no point in making them complicated when responding if a simple link that proves your BS wrong will suffice.

You are far, far too generous to yourself if you think your posts rise to the level of needing serious brainpower to respond to.

Kissinger approved Suharto's taking of East Timor in 1975 (as long as it was done fast), resulting in the extermination of one-quarter of the Timorese population over the next few years. Not to mention his support of Operation Condor and the Latin American death squads.

So, yeah, I definitely see some Kissinger in Trump.

That's actually one of your better responses, too bad you're wrong.

Lol

Lol

Young man, it's LOLs all the way down.

A hyperaggressive culmination spurred on by this white privilege tantrum behind having to endure that goddamned n****r president.

Responds with an assertion. lol. The self-ownage is at least humorous.

Absolutely. The right wingers would love to pretend as if this is all some lofty intellectual debate where things are complicated and confusing and who knows what the truth really is. That plays right into their hands. The truth is these matters are mostly very simple and straightforward, and we won't play into their hands by pretending there is much to "debate" about most of these issues.

Even with presidents who were, let's say, more "collaborative" with the corporate media, ulterior reasons are, at most, only faintly suggested by the media. Trump, having declared the press an enemy, is a tougher read as now basic facts as well as explanations with which to draw conclusions are less available.

Some media outlets have reported that Trump stands to benefit financially from some of his policies, including the use of the MOAB. With a conventional president these accusations would be easy to dismiss because that simply isn't how the grift works, so directly. However, an always important consideration with Trump is that he isn't really a part of the networks running DC in recent decades. This means his motives aren't necessarily to strictly serve to the entrenched elite interests. His background and his actions so far suggest that his narcissism, theatrical instincts, and straight grift inform his motives. So he could have definitely dropped the MOAB to increase his personal wealth. Or he could have done it for his personal aggrandizement.

Trump's opposition to involvement in Syria was one of his most consistent positions. What really changed? He sees some pictures of gassed children and shifts. Does he really feel for those kids? No. But he does want to look like a powerful protector on the world stage, at least this week. He is pathologically over concerned with how he is perceived, and one definitely gets the sense that his obsession with that will trump any considerations of the effects of his actions on the people of this or other countries.

My speculation is that his geo-political perspective is like some kind of simple game board with the main pieces being military icons, maybe a cut out of his face would be seen sticking up from a slot in a plastic battleship piece in this board game like perception. He seems to think on the extreme high level (meaning birds eye view, not high intelligence), far away from details or complex considerations of consequences. So Assad offends him with using chemical weapons, and Trump is on the phone with the generals asking them ways to move this piece there in response. Putin threatens to attack U.S. forces if they attack again, and Trump is asking how to make a big show of force and goes with the MOAB. North Korea tests a missile and Trump moves "his" destroyers and cruisers closer to NK.

There don't seem to be principles (corresponding to stated objectives of past administrations) or even rational strategy (corresponding to the ulterior motives of past administrations) guiding policy. Trump's individual psychology is probably the best basis for speculating about his policies. Given his narcissism/egoism and lack of in-depth understanding, it is probably best to view his actions through a sort of symbolic interaction lens.

He consolidated the racist pricks. That gave him a big bump in a hopeless field, but that is not the whole of the republican party and definitely not enough to compete in the general. He then went on to a populist agenda which saw him win the same swing states where Bernie beat Hillary. He pandered to the worst (racism) in people and the best (railing against Goldman Sachs and realizing worker equity in U.S. corporations). Only focusing on the racism is missing a critical point.

Democrats like Obama tirelessly promote a Trump narrative laser focused on the racism because to include the populist elements responsible for Trump's electoral success would implicate them as the corporatists they are. Let's deal with reality instead of being partisan to a fault. Trump's manipulation was multi-dimensional. People in the Midwest who voted for Bernie in the primary and Trump in the main are not hardcore racists. They are people who have been cruelly left behind by the policies enacted by both parties.