- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 39,555
- Reaction score
- 23,280
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Instead of trying to parse out definitions, please spell out what you think Trump was talking about with Venezuela and Cuba and why that would be any more peaceful than anything Bolton was advocating towards other countries during the Trump admin. I don't care about whatever you consider to be a "hawk", I'm trying to understand why you think there is a genuine policy difference between Bolton and Trump during his admin that is bigger than which countries should be preemptively bombed.
Trump advocates free and fair elections in Cuba and Venezuela. That is differentiated from neo-Conservatism for its lack of US clandestine subversive measures in Cuba and Venezuela and overt military involvement.
Now you're using the term, neo-con, without specifically naming policies. Trump wanted regime change in Venezuela and was more interested in military intervention than Bolton. I would say he out neo-conned Bolton on that front.
Trump wanted free and fair elections in Venezuela. That isn't neo-conservative. To define it as you have would require us to accept democracy as "regime change".
Perhaps you could boil it down to simple pettiness on Bolton's part. If this was a one-off, then I suppose that narrative, based on some unprovable notions of what's going on inside of Bolton's head, would at least be tenable. But this is part of a clear and consistent pattern - anyone who calls out Trump is branded a liar and cast out. And it's not like ever see proof that these people lied, just aspersions thrown on their character and motivations dreampt up. This is justifiably comparable to cultish behavior of treating anyone who second guesses the leader as a heretic (not literally the same, but the fervor and lack eagerness to turn on any challengers is very similar).
Your are punching strawmen. The statements by the ex-Trump officials who had a beef with him all had the same MO of being fired, and their complaints were all basically that Trump didn't take their side on various issues, which their own personal narcissism painted as "dictatorial" ... which again is the role of the Chief Executive with regard to their cabinet.
It's also worth pointing out that his detractors were all fired, and they all made money from the various media outlets and publishing houses paying millions for Trump tell-alls.
Ultimately, it comes back to the idea that Trumpism isn't about policy, it's about loyalty to Trump. It doesn't matter whether regime change is a justified use of American resources, whether it's right to preemptively bomb a country, it's simply whether not Trump wants to do those things.
He wasn't seeking regime change in Cuba or Venezuela, he was calling on free and fair elections.
So if Trump threatened to bomb North Korea it wouldn't be ok in your book? In terms of characterizing a more peaceful policy towards any nation, what is the difference between bombing North Korea and bombing Iran?
If Trump "threatened" to retaliate against a North Korean attack that is OK, and should be expected. If he wants to pre-emptively bomb North Korea it isn't OK.
I have a feeling that the story you wanted to spring on me with this trap question is the former, not the latter.
As a matter of fact, as has already been discussed, John Bolton was more of a hawk with North Korea than Trump was, and it was one of Bolton's biggest complaints.