Trump makes sense if you "play a little game"

[paxmao]

Do you remember Game of Thrones? Little Finger speaking with Sansa Stark?

Sometimes, When I Try To Understand A Person’s Motives, I Play A Little Game...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grT40ImDGhM

I assume the worst. What’s the worst reason they could possibly have for saying what they say, or doing what they do? Then I ask myself, ‘how well does that reason explain what they say and what they do?

Let's play a little game then... Let's say that Trump is in cahoots with Putin. You do not have to believe it, just follow me for a while:

- Would Trump be questioning NATO and saying that he will not defend Europe?
- Would Trump be undermining constantly the US efforts to keep Ukraine as an independent nation?
- Would he be shuffling alliances in the Pacific (until now they have contained  China)?
- Would Trump be as divisive as possible in the US? To the point of rioting and calling names to opponents and having people speaking of Civil War?

Well, everything falls into place playing a little game it seems?

[legiteum]

Would every meeting's readout between Putin and Trump to the US press be delivered by the Kremlin instead of the Whitehouse, as has been the norm in any other presidency and for every other presidential meeting with a world leader?

Would Trump disallow any US translators in his meetings with Putin?

Would Trump praise Putin's invasion of Ukraine when it started?

Would Trump pressure Congress after he was out of office to cut off aid to Ukraine?

Would Trump attempt to extort Ukraine into starting a phony investigation into his main political rival, threatening to cut off their military aid (and thus leave them at the mercy of Putin)?

Would Trump publicly tell a Russian spy, before he was elected in 2016, that he would be more kind to Russia if he was elected?

Would Trump hire Putin's guy in Ukraine, Paul Manafort, to head up his campaign in 2016? Would Trump pardon this convicted criminal even though he was found guilty of stealing money from banks?

Unless you desperately, desperately want the Republicans to win the presidency and don't care what happens to the USA after that, you will have absolutely no doubt that Trump follows Putin's orders.

[darkangel11]

- Would Trump be questioning NATO and saying that he will not defend Europe?

Why does it even matter what he does? Do you believe that Europe can't defend itself?
Let's play that little game of yours in a different way.
What's the worst thing that could happen if Trump become the president? He never said he would withdraw from NATO, but let's say he'd become passive, not helping allies at all. What would happen according to you? Ukraine would have to work on a truce, give up some of its land, which is largely uninhabitable already because of the destruction and landmines...

[Hispo]

To me it makes sense Trump is somehow involved with some of the foes of the United States, for the same reasons you have pointed out, he seems to be divisive and pro-russian beyond the scope of coincidence in my opinion. He does not even hide it when comes to praising Putin in his invasion to a sovereign nation, the question is what is the people of the United States supposed to do in these cases when the enemy has influenced the most important political figures of the country. We are not even talking about a third party movement, but the Republican Party which is one of the largest ones in there.
Sadly, Trump seems to have changed all that party used to stand for and turned it into a branch of the Kremlin and Beijing in a very subtle way.

[darkangel11]

What's the worst thing that could happen if Trump become the president? He never said he would withdraw from NATO, but let's say he'd become passive, not helping allies at all. What would happen according to you? Ukraine would have to work on a truce, give up some of its land, which is largely uninhabitable already because of the destruction and landmines...

I have to wonder on what part of planet earth you live on that you think a broader war in Europe won't affect you...

The last time you "America First" folks had your way, 60 million people died in WWII (and it will be 10x that next time with modern warfare).

What broader war? There's no broader war and there's not going to be a broader war. I love how all the leftists like to cry wolf all the time with no reason. Who says Putin is going to attack the EU or NATO (with or without the US) He's not an idiot! He made a mistake of attacking Ukraine, thinking he can pull off a blitz scenario and underestimated NATO trained Ukrainian special forces that defended Kiev. He's not going to repeat that by attacking deeper into the EU with no chances to take control. Only people with no military knowledge can think that Russia will conquer Europe.

[paxmao]

- Would Trump be questioning NATO and saying that he will not defend Europe?

Why does it even matter what he does? Do you believe that Europe can't defend itself?
Let's play that little game of yours in a different way.
What's the worst thing that could happen if Trump become the president? He never said he would withdraw from NATO, but let's say he'd become passive, not helping allies at all. What would happen according to you? Ukraine would have to work on a truce, give up some of its land, which is largely uninhabitable already because of the destruction and landmines...

Unsurprisingly, you do not seem to notice the basic principle of deterrence: there must be a certain, beyond any doubt and equivalent response to a nuclear attack. If there is any doubt that is going to happen, the whole system is undermined and might just give the wrong ideas to the wrong leaders about considering a nuclear attack.

Apart, Europe has signed an alliance with the US. This is only useful on full commitment from the US for even conventional responses. Else, Europe stops being an ally and starts building their own defence, investing in their own industries with it's own global agenda.

Trump questioning is very very costly in economic terms... to Europe, so let's play a little game... what would Trump say to make Europe worse off and Putin better off?

[darkangel11]

Unsurprisingly, you do not seem to notice the basic principle of deterrence: there must be a certain, beyond any doubt and equivalent response to a nuclear attack. If there is any doubt that is going to happen, the whole system is undermined and might just give the wrong ideas to the wrong leaders about considering a nuclear attack.

Apart, Europe has signed an alliance with the US. This is only useful on full commitment from the US for even conventional responses. Else, Europe stops being an ally and starts building their own defence, investing in their own industries with it's own global agenda.

Trump questioning is very very costly in economic terms... to Europe, so let's play a little game... what would Trump say to make Europe worse off and Putin better off?

But Europe has its own defenses both conventional and nuclear.
If the US withdrew from NATO that would put Russia in a better position, but there's many things that could do that. The US not sending weapons to Ukraine would have a much greater impact than being or not being a part of NATO. IMO Europe is perfectly capable of defending itself without the US.

[paxmao]

Unsurprisingly, you do not seem to notice the basic principle of deterrence: there must be a certain, beyond any doubt and equivalent response to a nuclear attack. If there is any doubt that is going to happen, the whole system is undermined and might just give the wrong ideas to the wrong leaders about considering a nuclear attack.

Apart, Europe has signed an alliance with the US. This is only useful on full commitment from the US for even conventional responses. Else, Europe stops being an ally and starts building their own defence, investing in their own industries with it's own global agenda.

Trump questioning is very very costly in economic terms... to Europe, so let's play a little game... what would Trump say to make Europe worse off and Putin better off?

But Europe has its own defenses both conventional and nuclear.
If the US withdrew from NATO that would put Russia in a better position, but there's many things that could do that. The US not sending weapons to Ukraine would have a much greater impact than being or not being a part of NATO. IMO Europe is perfectly capable of defending itself without the US.

Europe does not have an army. France, UK have nukes, the rest do not, and mostly would rather not have them.Europe can defend itself but would need to revitalise the industrial base and agree on a regional self-defence treaty no different from NATO. That is not there right now.

There is no doubt that the status-quo as on now is Europe relaying in NATO which has kept the nuclear powers from killing each other, if Trump questions it the risk is immense and costly.

[BADecker]

All that the US and Nato are doing is antagonizing the Russian Bear. All Russia wants to do is trade. Russia realizes that war does not help trade, except for the war machine manufacturers. Russia wants free and lucrative trade.

BRICS is growing. Russia and China are leaving the world USDollar behind, and are trading with each other in their own currencies. War with Russia will only hurt the US more. Nato's general weakness makes her almost irrelevant.

[paxmao]

All that the US and Nato are doing is antagonizing the Russian Bear. All Russia wants to do is trade.

Nope, if Ruzzia only wanted trade Putin would have not invaded Ukraine. You are answering yourself: war is not good to establish trade relations, so Ruzzia invading Ukraine is the opposite of "just wanting to trade". You have never been very good at logic dumBAss, have you?


The US does not want Ruzzia to fall into anarchy, that is all that is for now saving Putin from falling - there is no simple replacement that would offer similar guarantees.

[alani123]

The Kissinger doctrine should have been left with him in the grave. America has absolutely nothing to gain from war in Ukraine or from supporting either side. Trump may be an unhinged man at times but one thing he has realized is that he can do better than democrats when it comes to peace.

There's absolutely 0 point at supplying so many arms and aid to Ukraine. If anything, continued warfare has shaken the country and its institutions, shifted the country's population and made irreparable damage to future generations. Many Ukrainians would rather be in peace talks with Russia or have never entered the war. Instead the US fund literal neo nazis there just because they are willing to take over the war effort.

This spite policy with Russia has to end. Countries like Ukraine need to use diplomacy and stop using NATO and NATO arms as a show of power. If Ukraine was a testing ground for NATO defense, it fsiled completely with so much of the country already under occupation. 

And now Ukrainians invaded in Russia proper in Kursk? This isn't an ally we need. Trump is right to say the west should drop suppritbtk Ukraine. Our life has already been disrupted enough. To support their embargoes on Russia we have to sustain doubling and tripling of electricity prices, tripling of food prices, no cheap fertilizers for our fields, increased fuel prices... It's enough already. Commerce with Russia must continue and Ukrainians should be afforded a peace deal and the opportunity to return to their homes to rebuild.

[legiteum]

There's absolutely 0 point at supplying so many arms and aid to Ukraine.

You wouldn't say this if Putin invaded your country.

And if you live anywhere near Europe, he very well might if Putin is given leeway to take Ukraine.

[alani123]

There's absolutely 0 point at supplying so many arms and aid to Ukraine.

You wouldn't say this if Putin invaded your country.

And if you live anywhere near Europe, he very well might if Putin is given leeway to take Ukraine.

Putin did nothing to my country. Elected officials in the Ukraine prior to the America appointed dictator Zelensky did nothing to my people either. On the contrary it was Zelensky that banded with the neo-nazis and put a chokehold on Greek communities, labour unions and anyone their chrinies deemed a "traitor to national causes".

Now because they are warmongers and refuse a diplomatic deal we have to support them financially by diminishing our income because some burreocrats decided to sanction Russia. This isn't our war to fight. And it seems that many Ukrainians don't want to fight and would rather flee as well.

Now 44% of Ukrainians think it's time for a peace deal: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/12/in-ukraine-peace-talks-no-longer-taboo-as-russias-war-rages-on

So for how long will Zelensky keep pushing elections suspended to keep his pushing people into war they themselves don't want? The only party benefiting from this war is the war industry and no one else.

[legiteum]

There's absolutely 0 point at supplying so many arms and aid to Ukraine.

You wouldn't say this if Putin invaded your country.

And if you live anywhere near Europe, he very well might if Putin is given leeway to take Ukraine.

Putin did nothing to my country.

Yes I know, it's called a hypothetical question. Try reading my post again and starting over.

[metamorphosyys]

God Bless Americs! 
I would like to live in the USA....

[TwitchySeal]

Would Trump hire Putin's guy in Ukraine, Paul Manafort, to head up his campaign in 2016? Would Trump pardon this convicted criminal even though he was found guilty of stealing money from banks?

Would he consider rehiring him to work for his 2024 campaign?

[BADecker]

God Bless Americs!  
I would like to live in the USA....

Now is the time. With the open borders, it never has been better. Do it before Trump gets back in. Trump will probably close the borders.

[liebefreund]

Trump is also a windbag, but the lesser of two evils.

[BADecker]

Trump is also a windbag, but the lesser of two evils.

Trump is such a great 'lesser' of two evils that nobody would ever see his 'badness' if you stood him side by side with anybody else except, maybe, RFK.

[TwitchySeal]

Trump is also a windbag, but the lesser of two evils.

Trump is such a great 'lesser' of two evils that nobody would ever see his 'badness' if you stood him side by side with anybody else except, maybe, RFK.

Nobody that's 'good' would ever see his 'badness' you mean.  Because lot's of people obviously see it, but they must not be 'good'.  Or do you not consider them people?

Authoritarian leaders make their followers feel good by repeatedly and forcefully proclaiming that the latter are good people, and that their enemies are bad.
The opening move of the authoritarian dynamic is the stark division between the good in group and the bad (evil, disgusting, poisonous) out group.
Going back to Mussolini, authoritarian strongmen have presented themselves as liminal figures endowed with special powers to protect the in group from an evil world,
often by restoring the in group’s lost greatness.

In her book “Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present” (2021), historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat notes that the common attributes of authoritarian leaders,
as perceived by their adoring followers, include proof of masculine virility (Trump’s sexual exploits work in his favor),
a primal ferocity focused on winning at all costs and the invocation of a providential mission (being an instrument of God) during a time of national crisis.

Dan P. McAdams, The Mass Psychology of Trumpism