Trump makes surprise Christmas visit to troops in Iraq in first trip to combat zone

[Beaker]

(12-28-2018, 02:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I make that assumption.

So it is just an assumption.

[fredtoast]

(12-28-2018, 05:04 PM)Beaker Wrote: You assumed his reasons and compared him to every other President. Maybe they did it only for approval ratinga also.....you dont know. (Neither do I).

The one thing we all do know is that he never did it before like every other President did.

So it is fair to say that he doe not have the same motive as every other President.  If he did then he would have done it long before now.

[Dill]

(12-28-2018, 04:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Be shocked all you want but IMO actions trump words.

As to Tom Cotton: Did Mad Dog just undercut his CiC or did he simply disagree with a move made by the administration?

West was never out of Control and a letter signed by 95 members of Congress support this.

Of course "actions trump words," but words are also actions (see "pig," "horseface," "interesting idea" and "fire and fury").

I don't have a problem with senators or cabinet members undercutting an out-of-control C-in-C.  I was assuming you would though.

West has long been out of control--very evident in his overseeing the torture of an Iraqi prisoner, and in his many comments about the defense of "Western Civilization" against Islam and the 81 Congressmen he supposes members of the Communist party.

(12-28-2018, 04:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Imagine my surprise that you only took issue with the GOP candidates listed.

Of course many in the Military support Mad Dog's character. So you need no longer be curious.

I only took issue with people you listed as those you would vote for. 

My question was not about "character" but foreign policy.  So still curious.

[Beaker]

(12-28-2018, 03:49 PM)Dill Wrote: Trump is not a good person and so does not act because he is a good person.

He is an idiot. But I still dont assume to know his motives.

[GMDino]

(12-28-2018, 05:04 PM)Beaker Wrote: You assumed his reasons and compared him to every other President. Maybe they did it only for approval ratinga also.....you dont know. (Neither do I).

I assumed nothing.

Other President's made the trip to see the troops so Trump gets no credit for doing what he should have done.

That is above and beyond Trump's (the "man") reasoning for going.  Find one time, any time, Trump didn't do something just to glorify Trump.  He spoke about himself and how HE would rebound at his father's funeral.  

Trump is all about promoting Trump.  Always was.  Nothing changed because he's POTUS...just like we all knew.  

So I do know.  Not because I know everything or because I "just know" but because we have over four decades of Trump in print and on video being Trump.

[Belsnickel]

(12-28-2018, 05:06 PM)Beaker Wrote: So it is just an assumption.

Of course it is. While I have evidence that supports my opinion, it can't be proven with it. Any opinion as to Trump's motives is an assumption unless Trump himself has stated his motives to you.

[GMDino]

Nope.  Read the rest of the post.

[Beaker]

(12-28-2018, 05:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: I assumed nothing.

Yeah, you still did.

Quote:So I do know.  

No, you really don't.

[Beaker]

(12-28-2018, 05:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Of course it is. While I have evidence that supports my opinion, it can't be proven with it. Any opinion as to Trump's motives is an assumption unless Trump himself has stated his motives to you.

Exactly.

[GMDino]

(12-28-2018, 05:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Of course it is. While I have evidence that supports my opinion, it can't be proven with it. Any opinion as to Trump's motives is an assumption unless Trump himself has stated his motives to you.

Trump has stated is motives over and over...to publicize Trump.

He lied to the troops while h was there...right to them too.

Anyone who thinks he did it for any other reason is just lying to themselves or have bought into the conman hook line and sinker.

[GMDino]

(12-28-2018, 05:13 PM)Beaker Wrote: Yeah, you still did.



No, you really don't.

100% I know.  If you don't then you don't know anything about DJT.

[Belsnickel]

(12-28-2018, 05:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: Trump has stated is motives over and over...to publicize Trump.

He lied to the troops while h was there...right to them too.

Anyone who thinks he did it for any other reason is just lying to themselves or have bought into the conman hook line and sinker.

This is evidence that supports my, and your, assumption. However, it doesn't prove his motive is the same in this instance. Now, we could make a strong case that the likelihood that Trump's motives were to improve his ratings rather than out of respect for the troops with a level of statistical significance, but we could never say with certainty what his motives are.

[Beaker]

(12-28-2018, 05:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: 100% I know. 

You 100% think you know...but you really don't. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-28-2018, 05:07 PM)Dill Wrote: Of course "actions trump words," but words are also actions (see "pig," "horseface," "interesting idea" and "fire and fury").

I don't have a problem with senators or cabinet members undercutting an out-of-control C-in-C.  I was assuming you would though.

West has long been out of control--very evident in his overseeing the torture of an Iraqi prisoner, and in his many comments about the defense of "Western Civilization" against Islam and the 81 Congressmen he supposes members of the Communist party.


I only took issue with people you listed as those you would vote for. 

My question was not about "character" but foreign policy.  So still curious.

As I said folks can rightfully be appalled by words. but many understand the difference between them and actions. 


Of course I have no issue with anyone questioning a CiC; as long as they understand the line between rational difference and insubordination.

Out of control does not equal I disagree with it.

I also listed Webb and Moulton as people I would have voted for and have said so openly.

I'm more of an expert on Character than foreign policy, it's above my pay grade; so you'll have to take your curiosity elsewhere

[Beaker]

(12-28-2018, 05:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is evidence that supports my, and your, assumption. However, it doesn't prove his motive is the same in this instance. Now, we could make a strong case that the likelihood that Trump's motives were to improve his ratings rather than out of respect for the troops with a level of statistical significance, but we could never say with certainty what his motives are.

You sir, make a clear and lucid argument. 

[GMDino]

(12-28-2018, 05:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is evidence that supports my, and your, assumption. However, it doesn't prove his motive is the same in this instance. Now, we could make a strong case that the likelihood that Trump's motives were to improve his ratings rather than out of respect for the troops with a level of statistical significance, but we could never say with certainty what his motives are.

(12-28-2018, 05:21 PM)Beaker Wrote: You 100% think you know...but you really don't. 

Again...all evidence points towards.  If someone shows me that one time Trump did something not just to promote Trump in front of the camera then I'll believe there is even a 1% chance it wasn't purely to promote Trump.

[Dill]

(12-28-2018, 05:09 PM)Beaker Wrote: He is an idiot. But I still dont assume to know his motives.

Strictly speaking, no one can absolutely "know" anyone's motives. We can only assume.  But it's not like all assumptions are equal, or equally grounded.

In some contexts there is little motive for assuming anything.  Why is the guy at the supermarket checkout working that job--to make money, because he loves the work, or to make the world a better place?  There are grounds for assuming some motives more likely than others, but little motive to expend the energy to think through the question, so long as his work is ok for me.

In other contexts, assumptions about motives are important because 1) we have to make them to earn a living, and 2) wrong assumptions have consequences for us. E.g., I have a rental unit and I do make assumptions about who is likely to make a good or bad tenant.  I am better at this than my wife; I tend to get the Asian graduate student who pays on time and doesn't break furniture because she is motivated to get a college degree and doesn't want trouble; my wife tends to get drug addict who is "nice" when interviewed but isn't motivated to work and keep up payments, and so falls behind two months in rent and disappears with the toaster we loaned her.  As time goes by, feedback from experience of previous tenants grounds new assumptions about new applicants. My assumptions have gotten more reliable over time.

Same for politicians. It's not about "really" knowing their motives. It's about empirical observation: looking at their words and behavior and making grounded assumptions about their character and behavior. Thus, unless one is flipping a coin or simply voting for party, everyone who votes for a candidate makes assumptions about motives, and that does not stop after election.  The majority of threads in this forum are about whether the current "tenant" of the White House is more like the graduate student who will eventually want a reference or the 18-year-old living away from home the first time who trashes the carpet.

It is certainly possible that Trump was suddenly inspired to visit Troops in the Middle East because he thought, "Darn it, those guys put their lives on the line for us. This goes far beyond just working for profit; I want to show them, as Chief Exec and Commander-in-Chief, that I and all Americans appreciate what they do. Damn the polls and critics."  But this train of thought would be difficult to reconcile with Trump's other judgments about the inadequacy of POWs, his disdain for professional military advice, apparent lack of awareness of the consequences of moving troops around the globe on a whim, constant reference to his popularity vis-a-vis Obama, and sneers about "presidential" bearing.

[ballsofsteel]

Those soldiers aren't dumb. They know Trump is a fraud. If their morale was boosted it was from looking at Melanie. She wouldn't have gone over there herself probably so from that standpoint the trip was good.

[Dill]

(12-28-2018, 05:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said folks can rightfully be appalled by words. but many understand the difference between them and actions. 


Of course I have no issue with anyone questioning a CiC; as long as they understand the line between rational difference and insubordination.

Out of control does not equal I disagree with it.

I also listed Webb and Moulton as people I would have voted for and have said so openly.

I'm more of an expert on Character than foreign policy, it's above my pay grade; so you'll have to take your curiosity elsewhere

LOL, most everyone, including you, is operating above his pay grade in this forum.  You've dodged a most interesting and critical question.

You don't disagree with "out of control"? 

Presidential words are "actions."  They move the stock market up and down, may comfort enemies and send allies looking for diplomatic re-alignment.  They set--and can lower--standards of public discourse, especially for the impressionable young.  They can uplift a nation--or shame it.

[Dill]

(12-28-2018, 06:24 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Those soldiers aren't dumb. They know Trump is a fraud. If their morale was boosted it was from looking at Melanie. She wouldn't have gone over there herself probably so from that standpoint the trip was good.

LOL  Not ALL of them know this.  Same with the general population of voters.