-->
@Greyparrot
You are right, I don't have the money to buy a Slovenian sex worker. Wait, how much does a North Korean sex worker cost?
Madman Theory
Posts
Total:
50
-->
@FLRW
Wow, imagine flexing so hard with imaginary money to buy someone’s affection that you still come up broke. You might not be able to afford a Slovenian or North Korean sex worker, but at least you’ve got your self-deprecating humor on layaway, right? Big win for you there.
And let’s not forget, fantasizing about paying for human connection really screams "I’ve got this life thing all figured out." Maybe, instead of shopping the globe for price tags on people, you could work on securing a personality upgrade. Spoiler alert: that’s free, and it might even get you a conversation with a real woman. Wild concept, I know.
But hey, who needs self-respect when you can pretend to haggle over fictional prices for women from different countries? That’s the kind of low-T bravado that will surely win over... no one. Good luck with that world tour of delusion!
-->
@FLRW
Man, AI has the best roasts!
-->
@Greyparrot
I have been married to my second wife for 38 years. How long have you been married?
-->
@FLRW
I am happy your wife found a fellow wife. Girl power!
Just don't get caught slapping your ex-girlfriends like Kamala's low-T beta wife did.
-->
@Greyparrot
Are you ok? It's a question about existential threats...
The title of the thread is called Madman Theory, the op explains what that is and goes step by step explaining why it's nonsense. If you want to talk about something else, just say that (which is exactly what I gave you the opportunity to express in response). But don't sit here pretending your question was relevant to the op, it wasn't.
To answer your irrelevant question, I think we are closer to WW3 than we were in 2016. What is your point?
-->
@FLRW
What about the 27 letters exchanged between North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and then-US President Donald Trump between April 2018 and August 2019?
Kim Jong Un was doing the same thing to Trump that Harris did on the debate stage - using his ego and narcissism to manipulate him. Every world leader knows how easy this is, and it was demonstrated once again for the entire world a few weeks ago.
-->
@Double_R
I think we are closer to WW3 than we were in 2016.
That's definitely not the mainstream media spin. What steps do you think the next president could do to convince a return to peace agreements?
Would Madman be a part of that strategy?
-->
@Double_R
Kim Jong Un was doing the same thing to Trump that Harris did on the debate stage - using his ego and narcissism to manipulate him. Every world leader knows how easy this is, and it was demonstrated once again for the entire world a few weeks ago.
So all Soleimani had to do was say nice things and then Trump would not have assassinated him? Ok bro.
-->
@Greyparrot
Man, AI has the best roasts!
Please AI, roast me next. I want it, I want it, I want it!
-->
@Greyparrot
What steps do you think the next president could do to convince a return to peace agreements?
In Russia? Nothing. The only thing Putin will accept is surrender.
Would Madman be a part of that strategy?
No. Like I already pointed out, you can't have it both ways. Either Trump is not the madman he pretends to be, in which case Putin knows this. Or he is the Madman you guys talk about, which makes him by definition a threat to our safety and stability.
So all Soleimani had to do was say nice things and then Trump would not have assassinated him?
Yes, just like every other dictator Trump fawns over. Trump doesn't care about any of this, he onlydid it for the photo op (yes, that's a real story. He literally called the generals back in afterwards to pretend they were reacting in real time for the camera).
-->
@Double_R
Trump doesn't care about any of this, he only did it for the photo op
Sounds like at least one dictator wasn't able to predict Trump. Madman theory vindicated.
Putin will only accept surrender...
Doubtful he ever said that or that he would follow through under any circumstance. Even the USA can't hold that position forever (see Vietnam, Cuba, and Afghanistan)
Also, your insistence that "nothing" can be done is a big reason why DEFCON is trending towards 1. Be more imaginative, or be extinct.
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump doesn't care about any of this, he only did it for the photo opSounds like at least one dictator wasn't able to predict Trump.
Madman Theory has nothing to with making predictions. You don't even know what this conversation is about.
Putin will only accept surrender...Doubtful he ever said that
No one claimed he said that. It's an inference based on evidence.
Also, your insistence that "nothing" can be done
Stating ones position is not "insistence"
-->
@Double_R
Madman Theory has nothing to with making predictions. You don't even know what this conversation is about.
I suppose such a low-effort response deserves a slightly patronizing AI re-education on "Madman theory"
The Madman Theory, a strategy often associated with President Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War, actually hinges on unpredictability. The idea behind the theory is that a leader, in this case Nixon, behaves erratically or cultivates a reputation for irrationality in order to keep adversaries uncertain about how far he might go—potentially even to extreme measures like using nuclear weapons. This unpredictability is meant to pressure opponents into concessions out of fear that the "madman" could do something drastic.
The key is that unpredictability is central to the theory. If a leader is seen as predictable, opponents would calculate their moves accordingly and may not be deterred. However, by appearing unpredictable, a leader can create a sense of danger and irrationality, making adversaries more cautious or even willing to negotiate to avoid escalation. Nixon reportedly used this tactic to keep the North Vietnamese on edge during the negotiations.
So, in essence, Madman Theory relies on the threat of unpredictability as a tool to achieve diplomatic or military goals.
-->
@Double_R
No one claimed he said that. It's an inference based on evidence.
Sure, let's see your "evidence"
Defending absolutes where you claim there is an "only" solution must be tiring at some point.
-->
@Greyparrot
Madman Theory has nothing to with making predictions. You don't even know what this conversation is about.I suppose such a low-effort response deserves a slightly patronizing AI re-education on "Madman theory"The Madman Theory, a strategy often associated with President Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War, actually hinges on unpredictability.
The whole point of madman theory is that the enemy doesn't know what to think, so they often find themselves believing or at the very least operating as if the madman will do something extreme, even when he won't. In other words, it's a strategy for getting away with bluffing.
I know you think you are really clever with that response, but all it shows is how lost you are in this conversation. Again, either Trump is a madman or he's pretending to be one. If he's pretending, then his entire strategy is predicated on the idea that others will not call him out on his bluffs, in which case your point here regarding Solomanie failing to predict him was utterly irrelevant. If he really is a madman then you are voting for someone who is by definition a threat to the safety and security of this country. It's one or the other.
No one claimed he said that. It's an inference based on evidence.Sure, let's see your "evidence"
Look at his actions and use those critical thinking skills you've been tucking away. If you're not going to put effort into the conversation them neither will I.
-->
@Double_R
Look at his actions
I did. He assassinated a dictator.
Madman theory vindicated. Your turn.
If he really is a madman then you are voting for someone who is by definition a threat to the safety and security of this country.
False premise. Let's look at the evidence. The last 4 years, we had a very predictable president. Far more predictable than the Obama/Hillary administration. (Obama assassinated dictators)
Obama for the most part kept the world from engaging in conflicts. USA was pretty safe under Obama due to Madman theory. You already admitted 2024 is a very dangerous time for the USA. I don't even have to win this argument since you already agree.
Look at his actions
Well, he did raise the National Debt 40 percent. The USA will be his biggest bankruptcy. I wonder how many Trump Bibles Gp bought?
-->
@Greyparrot
Look at his actionsI did. He assassinated a dictator.Madman theory vindicated. Your turn.
A Madman is not "someone who takes bold action". It means someone who would go so far as to act with recklessness. Do you consider the act of assassinating Soleimani to be reckless? Yes or No. Extra bonus if you could actually explain why.
Obama for the most part kept the world from engaging in conflicts. USA was pretty safe under Obama due to Madman theory.
You're misusing what the phrase. No reasonable observer ever accused Obama of being a madman.
You already admitted 2024 is a very dangerous time for the USA. I don't even have to win this argument since you already agree.
You don't even know what we're arguing about. All you're doing is pushing back on what madman theory is by watering it down, and resorting to the usual fallacies.
You're now arguing that there were no serious global conflicts then as a way to argue that Madman Theory is good. Even if your premise is accepted that doesn't change anything. Of course there is less of a chance of conflict when you have someone like that in charge, people will be more hesitant to act of they think the other party might respond with overt and unnecessary force. The problem is that there is also an increased risk of catastrophic consequences, which by definition makes us less safe.
This isn't about definitions, I made that clear in the op. You have yet to address the actual point; you either believe Trump is capable of reckless actions such that every other country on earth should fear us, or you don't. If you don't, then the deterrent Trumpers boast about is to you non existent. If you do, then you believe by the very definition of the words you are responding to that we will be in greater danger with him at the helm.
One or the other, pick one.