> There's a lot of examples where Trump supposedly tried to do something extreme, and those around him were able to restrain him.
Or, described in a less sensational and hostile manner, Trump discussed something with his advisors and took the advice that appears to be prudent even to his hostile observers. I am not sure you're proving you…
> There's a lot of examples where Trump supposedly tried to do something extreme, and those around him were able to restrain him.
Or, described in a less sensational and hostile manner, Trump discussed something with his advisors and took the advice that appears to be prudent even to his hostile observers. I am not sure you're proving your case here.
> For example, trying to pull out of NATO is pretty loose cannon-y.
Except he didn't try pulling out of NATO. Please do not confuse sensationalized reporting from the hostile partisan press with actual actions. Can you name any action that Trump did to pull out of NATO?
> Maybe the reports are wrong
They are. Or, more precisely, the sensationalist and hostile partisanship covering the facts in those reports is. If you want to get to the truth, you will have to peel it off.
> I am concerned that he will be surrounded more with sycophants
What basis is there to suppose his second term would have more sycophants than his first one? He's got his measure of sycophants on the first one - and his measure of vehement hashtag-resistance too - and yet nothing loosey-cannony happened, quite the contrary. Isn't there a time to update your priors?
> be more likely to do something extreme (like pull out of NATO)
Again, he never did anything like that, so suggestion he might do something like that is completely baseless, and can be equally applied to any politician, and thus can represent no basis for claims that Trump is a loose cannon. Please provide some argument that is not circular "Trump is loose cannon because he might do something extreme, and I know he might do something extreme because he's a loose cannon". That's not an argument, it's a mantra.
> There's a lot of examples where Trump supposedly tried to do something extreme, and those around him were able to restrain him.
Or, described in a less sensational and hostile manner, Trump discussed something with his advisors and took the advice that appears to be prudent even to his hostile observers. I am not sure you're proving your case here.
> For example, trying to pull out of NATO is pretty loose cannon-y.
Except he didn't try pulling out of NATO. Please do not confuse sensationalized reporting from the hostile partisan press with actual actions. Can you name any action that Trump did to pull out of NATO?
> Maybe the reports are wrong
They are. Or, more precisely, the sensationalist and hostile partisanship covering the facts in those reports is. If you want to get to the truth, you will have to peel it off.
> I am concerned that he will be surrounded more with sycophants
What basis is there to suppose his second term would have more sycophants than his first one? He's got his measure of sycophants on the first one - and his measure of vehement hashtag-resistance too - and yet nothing loosey-cannony happened, quite the contrary. Isn't there a time to update your priors?
> be more likely to do something extreme (like pull out of NATO)
Again, he never did anything like that, so suggestion he might do something like that is completely baseless, and can be equally applied to any politician, and thus can represent no basis for claims that Trump is a loose cannon. Please provide some argument that is not circular "Trump is loose cannon because he might do something extreme, and I know he might do something extreme because he's a loose cannon". That's not an argument, it's a mantra.