> Trump wasn't against war, as demonstrated by his calling Putin's aggression "genius"
I think I know what statement you are referring to and it wasn't an endorsement of war.
Recognising someone for doing something well even if it is amoral/immoral, isn't an endorsement of person or action.
e.g.
I don't like George Galloway or how he operates as a politician, nor do I like his politics, or his policies. I personally think that he is a scumbag.
However he is a very effective politician and his strategies, tactics and his communication skills are second to none. He is very good at chewing out BBC presenters which is pure Schadenfreude.
> He was just generally critical of anything the US did, because fundamentally he hates our country
You are making a similar mistake. Being critical of your own country doesn't mean that you hate it.
I live England. I am English. I love England. Do I hate a lot of things about my country currently? yes I do. Do I hate the country? no I don't (mostly).
People with morals don't sing the praises of other people for immorally executing well, rather they view it as an unfortunate failing. And "genius" is solidly in the territory of praise - contrast with your distancing of "very effective politician" and "don't like".
That's just one touchpoint though. There's a larger but handwavier argument about how Trump's whole technique is to engage in negative-sum destructive aggression, causing pain to other parties so they capitulate and "make a deal". War is entirely on-brand for him.
Really though we should probably be relieved that he turned his focus to a foreign enemy rather than spending most of his energy escalating attacks against the State of California.
> Being critical of your own country doesn't mean that you hate it
Read the sentence right after the one you quoted. I most certainly understand good faith criticism! I'm a libertarian - I actually care about many of the issues currently being burnt on the bonfire of credibility by Trump and the fake "libertarians" that actually only care about their own "rights".
> People with morals don't sing the praises of other people for immorally executing well, rather they view it as an unfortunate failing. And "genius" is solidly in the territory of praise - contrast with your distancing of "very effective politician" and "don't like".
You are deliberately misunderstanding the point being made, while simultaneously making an argument for tone policing. It is quite tiresome.
I stated that George Galloway is a complete scumbag. I think he is utterly amoral. I can still praise his (quite frankly) amazing rhetorical ability that gets even someone like myself who dislikes him, to cheer for him. That is how good he is. Does that make me immoral for stating an obvious fact? no it doesn't. I suspect you know this though.
The exact same logic applies to Trump's statements about Putin.
> Really though we should probably be relieved that he turned his focus to a foreign enemy rather than spending most of his energy escalating attacks against the State of California.
Quelling actual riots and enforcing immigration law is not attacking a state. I don't want to get into an argument over this, because I know there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.
I think the gangs, violent thugs and state governors that encourage law breaking (that what he was doing) should be crushed. I say this as someone that used to call themselves a Libertarian.
> Read the sentence right after the one you quoted.
I did. It doesn't negate what I said. Even if Trump criticism were made to tap into such a feeling, that doesn't mean they are incorrect, or that he hates the country.
Tony Blair said something to effect "You need to actually obtain power to be able to enact the change". That means manipulating the voter base. Every effective politician does this btw.
> I most certainly understand good faith criticism! I'm a libertarian - I actually care about many of the issues currently being burnt on the bonfire of credibility by Trump and the fake "libertarians" that actually only care about their own "rights".
Libertarians are just as bad as any other group in engaging in bad faith arguments.
As for the credibility of Libertarians, that was in tatters well before Trump. I used to call myself a Libertarian (a very lonely position in the UK). I realised that many of the people that claimed to be one had never read any of the foundational material and what Libertarianism meant was "I want to smoke weed". You just have to watch some of the convention footage of the Libertarian party conference (which as I understand was the third biggest party after the Dems/GOP in the US) to understand that what I am saying is 100% correct.
I suspect though that isn't want you referring to. I suspect you are lambasting the Libertarian Party under the Chairmanship of Angela McArdle and some of the other more Right-wing Libertarians associated with Trump. All I can say about her Chairmanship is she managed to get Ross Ulbricht freed, which makes her objectively more effective than most Libertarians.
No, I am not "tone policing". I am talking about deliberate nuance. You were careful to reject endorsing George Galloway - not just once, but again even stronger the second time. Because you're treading a balance between praising one qualified aspect, and condemning the overall person. The more you praise that one aspect, the more you want to make sure it's clear you're distancing yourself from that person over all.
Trump does not distance himself from Putin in this way - rather he compliments often, and then only occasionally backpedals when pressed. The sensible interpretation is that overall he supports Putin, and the occasional critical remark is just part of his signature contradictory word salad.
> Quelling actual riots and enforcing immigration law is not attacking a state
It is the job of the local and state governments to strike the balance between the right to protest and keeping order. The elected officials were handling that just fine - there was no "riot", especially not some kind of ongoing one not being handled by LAPD. Deputizing the national guard against the direction of the state governor to perform domestic enforcement duties is an attack on that state authority. It had the exact opposite effect of restoring order, resulting in a predictable escalation for a TV stunt.
But if you're drinking this level of fascist Kool-Aid, then there's really no point in continuing this discussion. I do have to wonder why you're so invested in American politics not even being American though. I'm guessing you're emboldened by not actually having to suffer the inevitable poor results of Trump's destructive bluster-and-back-down approach. Contrast with say, if you lived in Los Angeles.
(And sure, it's great that Ulbricht was freed. But I'm not going to be placated by one small bone from an overwhelmingly freedom-destroying fascist movement)
> No, I am not "tone policing". I am talking about deliberate nuance. You were careful to reject endorsing George Galloway - not just once, but again even stronger the second time. Because you're treading a balance between praising one qualified aspect, and condemning the overall person. The more you praise that one aspect, the more you want to make sure it's clear you're distancing yourself from that person over all.
Yes you are doing exactly that. "Nuance" is a cop-out. The logic is precisely the same.
> Trump does not distance himself from Putin in this way - rather he compliments often, and then only occasionally backpedals when pressed. The sensible interpretation is that overall he supports Putin, and the occasional critical remark is just part of his signature contradictory word salad.
No that isn't the sensible interpretation. You are doing mental gymnastics.
> It is the job of the local and state governments to strike the balance between the right to protest and keeping order. The elected officials were handling that just fine - there was no "riot", especially not some kind of ongoing one not being handled by LAPD. Deputizing the national guard against the direction of the state governor to perform domestic enforcement duties is an attack on that state authority. It had the exact opposite effect of restoring order, resulting in a predictable escalation for a TV stunt.
Dude the footage can be found on Youtube of the riots. I also remember watching in real time with American friends over live streams of the riots in the summer of 2020. I forget which city it was (Minneapolis) but I saw this huge building collapse live. So please don't gaslight me that the local government was handling these things just fine. They weren't.
> But if you're drinking this level of fascist Kool-Aid,
No, I've barely looked at the news at all over the last month. The weather in the UK has been exceptionally nice and I've been spending my time cycling.
I have watched live-streams of riots and seen stores being looted in real time, guys burning cars etc. There is one guy that literally rides around the city on his electric motorbike thing and documents it that a friend and I were watching the other night.
Apparently I imagined all of the things that were captured on candid camera?
> then there's really no point in continuing this discussion. I do have to wonder why you're so invested in American politics not even being American though.
I am interested in American politics because I have many American friends that I speak to regularly. I have also Canadian friends. Most of them are actually left wing.
The reason I don't pay attention to Politics in the UK is very stale, boring, depressing and I know my vote is literally meaningless. Even people in my family that were very much "You must go out and vote" have told me in private that they no longer bother because all they get is more of the same. My father told me he has never voted because he knows whoever you vote for, you end up get shafted anyway.
> I'm guessing you're emboldened by not actually having to suffer the inevitable poor results of Trump's destructive bluster-and-back-down approach. Contrast with say, if you lived in Los Angeles.
I actually know someone that lives in Los Angeles and I talk to them about this very subject maybe a few days ago. They told me that if you live in certain parts of the city, you may never even know there were horrific problems in the other parts.
BTW. I live near Manchester and recently visited Cardiff. Both cities while much smaller are having similar problems to Los Angeles. There are a large number of drug addicts that are literally passed out on the streets, there are homeless people everywhere (my friend regularly has to walk over homeless people camping in his doorstep) and both cities are in a state of decay.
I've seen plenty of real time footage of Los Angeles and other American cities that have similar problems. Unfortunately the same thing is now happening in our cities.
I think I know what statement you are referring to and it wasn't an endorsement of war.
Recognising someone for doing something well even if it is amoral/immoral, isn't an endorsement of person or action.
e.g.
I don't like George Galloway or how he operates as a politician, nor do I like his politics, or his policies. I personally think that he is a scumbag.
However he is a very effective politician and his strategies, tactics and his communication skills are second to none. He is very good at chewing out BBC presenters which is pure Schadenfreude.
> He was just generally critical of anything the US did, because fundamentally he hates our country
You are making a similar mistake. Being critical of your own country doesn't mean that you hate it.
I live England. I am English. I love England. Do I hate a lot of things about my country currently? yes I do. Do I hate the country? no I don't (mostly).