Milnet.ca Forums

The Mess => Canadian Politics => Global Politics => Topic started by: FJAG on April 27, 2018, 00:55:17

Title: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on April 27, 2018, 00:55:17
I'm starting this thread under the guidelines issued by Mike on the April 26th, 2018 as set out at this link.

https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,127903.msg1531305.html#msg1531305 (https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,127903.msg1531305.html#msg1531305)

The aim here is to give a forum for discussion about events and activities that involve President Trump's administration. and include such issues as the Mueller probe, cabinet secretary level appointments and the like. I would suggest that we leave broader US Politics topics such as US Foreign policy, gun control, election results, Congress etc to separate topics.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on April 27, 2018, 00:57:07
Admiral Jackson has withdrawn his nomination to be appointed Secretary of the VA:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/politics/ronny-jackson-va-nominee/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/politics/ronny-jackson-va-nominee/index.html)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on April 27, 2018, 01:08:03
Senator Tester D from Montana, made up the negative stories about Radm Jackson.Anyway he just made the list for 2 stars.I suspect that in a few years he will get his 3d star and will be the USN's Surgeon General.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on April 27, 2018, 01:16:57
QUOTE

Senate Republicans express concerns about Trump’s choice to lead Veterans Affairs

Ronny L. Jackson, President Trump’s choice to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs, is facing mounting skepticism from Senate Republicans over whether he has the management experience to lead the nation’s second-largest bureaucracy.

Republicans say they know little to nothing about Jackson and are quickly studying up as they prepare for one-on-one meetings with the nominee.

The comments from several GOP senators, particularly those with influence on veterans’ issues, signal Jackson will have to work overtime to convince not just Democrats but also Trump’s own party that he is qualified to oversee the beleaguered agency. That challenge comes at a time when Senate Republicans are already juggling other controversial nominations that will consume much of the political oxygen on Capitol Hill.

“Certainly, I do have concerns about his experience, as far as managing people,” said Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), who sits on the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, which will vet Jackson’s nomination. “There is some concern about whether he’s been in a position to lead an organization like that.”

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), another committee member, also expressed worries about Jackson.
“The VA is a difficult place to manage, regardless of what your background experience is. I want to know more about how he believes that he’s capable of fulfilling those responsibilities, and I have a wide array of questions in regard to his experience and background,” Moran said. “I need to be convinced that he can make a difference at a department in which the culture and the upper echelons of its leadership need to have somebody who can take charge.”

At best, Jackson is getting a tepid reaction from Senate Republicans, many of whom had praised his ousted predecessor, David Shulkin, even if they occasionally clashed with him over policy.

A White House spokesman did not return a request for comment Tuesday on the Senate Republicans’ concerns surrounding Jackson’s qualifications.

More at link
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-republicans-express-concerns-about-trumps-choice-to-lead-veterans-affairs/2018/04/10/190696b2-3d02-11e8-912d-16c9e9b37800_story.html

END QUOTE
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on April 27, 2018, 01:23:30
Senator Tester D from Montana, made up the negative stories about Radm Jackson.

Do you have a source for that?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on April 27, 2018, 01:31:07
Of course I do but I doubt anyone cares.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on April 27, 2018, 01:38:06
Senator Tester D from Montana, made up the negative stories about Radm Jackson.Anyway he just made the list for 2 stars.I suspect that in a few years he will get his 3d star and will be the USN's Surgeon General.

I think that there were some twenty individual complainants but that isn't really what influenced my thinking. I think I stated before on another thread that the man was a navy Captain in October 2016 and has never run anything bigger than a medical platoon or the White House clinic which is around twenty to thirty some odd folks.

I'm not sure if he's a two star Rear Admiral (Upper Half) yet. He was substantially promoted to one star and I know his nomination for Rear Admiral (Upper Half) two star went into the Senate Committee on or about March 20th, but I haven't seen that he's confirmed yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronny_Jackson#Career (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronny_Jackson#Career)

See here for Shock Trauma Platoons generally: https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/31978/96Dec_Fuhrer.pdf;sequence=3 (https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/31978/96Dec_Fuhrer.pdf;sequence=3)

No matter how nice a guy he is, I can't see him qualified to handle an organization of 378 thousand folks with hundreds of facilities and a budget in excess of US$180 Billion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs)

Honestly. I think your veterans deserve better than that.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on April 27, 2018, 01:44:40
The link:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/04/trump-rips-smear-merchant-sen-jon-tester-over-admiral-jackson-lies-this-is-going-to-cause-him-a-lot-of-problems-video/

Here are previous VA heads.

https://www.va.gov/about_va/vahistory.asp

Edward Joseph Derwinski.
Anthony Joseph Principi.
Robert James Nicholson.
James Peake.
Robert A. McDonald.
Eric Shinseki.
David Shulkin.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on April 27, 2018, 01:57:16
I've been looking for Fox's comments on Trumps phone interview with Fox and Friends but can't find anything on their site. Does anyone have a link?

This is CNN's take on it:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/opinions/trump-fox-news-interview-dantonio-intl/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/opinions/trump-fox-news-interview-dantonio-intl/index.html)

And the Atlantic's:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/trump-fox-and-friends/558992/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/trump-fox-and-friends/558992/)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Blackadder1916 on April 27, 2018, 02:39:03
I'm not sure if he's a two star Rear Admiral (Upper Half) yet. He was substantially promoted to one star and I know his nomination for Rear Admiral (Upper Half) two star went into the Senate Committee on or about March 20th, but I haven't seen that he's confirmed yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronny_Jackson#Career (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronny_Jackson#Career)


According to the US Senate website his nomination is still in committee.

https://www.congress.gov/nomination/115th-congress/1764/actions
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: beirnini on April 27, 2018, 08:05:54
Since my post was the last in 'Global Politics' before this new guideline came out I apologize if it was in any way the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back".

From The Atlantic article posted by FJAG;

Quote
[Fox'] Kilmeade stepped in to politely cut Trump off and to offer him a graceful closing. “We could talk all day but looks like you have a million things to do,” Kilmeade said, and brought the interview to an end. Trump has only one event listed on his public schedule for the day.

It's simply incredible we live in a world where the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES gets cut off and shoo'ed out of a live interview on a network and show that are his biggest cheerleaders. I can't stomach more than about 10 seconds of listening to his mangled and aimless streams of consciousness, so I can't imagine what brought Fox & Friends to finally say uncle.

Makes you wonder who really has the power in US politics.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Halifax Tar on April 27, 2018, 08:36:40
No matter how nice a guy he is, I can't see him qualified to handle an organization of 378 thousand folks with hundreds of facilities and a budget in excess of US$180 Billion.

How many people do have equivalent experience to that ?  That's a bloody huge and expensive organization.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on April 27, 2018, 08:58:17
Here is the promotion announcement.

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/1474252/flag-officer-announcement/

Here are some possiblities for VA.

https://www.armytimes.com/veterans/2018/04/26/five-candidates-to-be-the-next-va-secretary-nominee/
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on April 27, 2018, 11:34:25
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/04/trump-rips-smear-merchant-sen-jon-tester-over-admiral-jackson-lies-this-is-going-to-cause-him-a-lot-of-problems-video/

QUOTE

The Gateway Pundit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit#References
The Gateway Pundit is a far-right, pro-Trump website.

The website is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes

END QUOTE

I think your veterans deserve better than that.

 :cheers:

QUOTE

The Army Times

Trump’s Ronny Jackson disaster will make fixing the VA a lot harder
https://www.armytimes.com/veterans/2018/04/25/trumps-ronny-jackson-disaster-will-make-fixing-the-va-a-lot-harder/
WASHINGTON — The controversies surrounding President Donald Trump’s pick to take over the Department of Veterans Affairs have not only thrown the agency’s leadership into disarray but also threaten to undo years of work by previous officials to try and rehabilitate the massive bureaucracy’s public image.

END QUOTE
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on April 27, 2018, 11:42:48
How many people do have equivalent experience to that ?  That's a bloody huge and expensive organization.

True to an extent.  But Jackson's management experience is limited to what a small clinic would do.

One would think that leading, managing or even being a deputy/vice CEO or something of a large organisation might be some sort of pre condition to be picked.

The US likely has a plethora of Generals, CEOs and what not with that kind of experience with large organisations.  However, many wouldn't want that file at all and many don't exactly want to work for this President who has been rather unpredictable in his hiring and firing.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Rocky Mountains on April 27, 2018, 12:52:54
Senator Tester D from Montana, made up the negative stories about Radm Jackson.Anyway he just made the list for 2 stars.I suspect that in a few years he will get his 3d star and will be the USN's Surgeon General.


A matter of interest -The Surgeon General is head of The United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, a uniformed service of the US government.  The Surgeon General wears a uniform very similar to a USN uniform and has the rank of Vice Admiral.  The current Surgeon General, Jerome Adams, previously a civilian, was first commissioned as a Rear Admiral in The United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.  Jackson would still have a problem to be Surgeon General - Senate confirmation - and Trump would have to find a job for the current Surgeon General who was appointed not long ago.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on April 27, 2018, 13:25:15
here is write up for the Surgeon General of the Navy.Each service has one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgeon_General_of_the_United_States_Navy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgeon_General_of_the_United_States_Army


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgeon_General_of_the_United_States_Air_Force
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on April 27, 2018, 14:20:20
here is write up for the Surgeon General of the Navy.Each service has one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgeon_General_of_the_United_States_Navy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgeon_General_of_the_United_States_Army

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgeon_General_of_the_United_States_Air_Force

Exactly right. Each is a three star with numerous two and one stars who have management experiences of large complex organizations. In addition there is the Military Health System which is led by the Assistant Secretary of Defence  for Health Affairs who has an experienced senior staff and oversight of numerous complex service related medical facilities and programs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Health_System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Health_System)

Amongst these senior folks one would undoubtedly find someone with sufficient ability and knowledge to manage an entity like VA if there isn't already a capable leader within VA itself to take over.

And that just proves the point. With all this talent available, it makes little sense to pick someone for the job who was a mere Navy captain eighteen months ago and managed nothing bigger than a small clinic.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on April 27, 2018, 15:05:34
With regard to the VA,I think they are overwhelmed with war veterans from WW2,Korea,Vietnam,Iraq and Afghanistan.Facilities date from WW2.Not enough doctors and nurses.They do the best they can.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Blackadder1916 on April 27, 2018, 16:03:11
Here is the promotion announcement.

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/1474252/flag-officer-announcement/


Actually, it is only an announcement of the "nomination".  Before RAdm Jackson can be promoted, Senate confirmation is required in the same way that confirmation was needed before;
his promotion to his current rank - Senate confirmation 13 July 2016 (https://www.congress.gov/nomination/114th-congress/1465/actions?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22ronny%22%2C%22ronny+l.+jackson%22%5D%7D&r=6), or
promotion to Captain - Senate confirmation 21 June 2012 (https://www.congress.gov/nomination/112th-congress/1669?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22ronny%22%2C%22ronny+l.+jackson%22%5D%7D&r=19), or
promotion to Commander - Senate confirmation 2 Aug 2006 (https://www.congress.gov/nomination/109th-congress/1845?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22ronny%22%2C%22ronny+l.+jackson%22%5D%7D&r=43)

It is possible, hell, maybe probable that RAdm Jackson will get his second star.  Most nominations, even at the flag level, seem to be rubber stamped by the Armed Services Committee and pass by simple voice vote in the Senate.  However, not everyone gets that treatment.  While I haven't found any that were worded as "rejected", there are cases of nominations to flag rank that have been returned to the President without action.  I suppose that instead of a public "frig you" to the President it is easier to simply not send the nomination to the floor for a vote.  Based on the public attention that has already been focused on RAdm Jackson due to the VA Sec nomination, I think it likely that further action about this nomination will not be the usual pro forma.  There have been questions about his qualifications to manage large, complex organizations and they won't magically disappear now that he is no longer slated for the VA.  Whether such accusations are valid or not is no longer the issue, he has now become political and it is unlikely that his nomination to RAdm will pass without question.

As for his future military career, my personal opinion is that he will retire shortly after leaving the White House Medical Unit.  He has basically been there since promotion to Commander and though he may have the chops to fill a position as a 2 star doctor, he has been away from the world of Navy Medicine.  He is not the first military physician to get his/her stars by being the President's sawbones, but of the ones in the last several administrations they did not seamlessly transition back into their individual services leapfrogging over the doctors whose CVs had decades of progressively more responsible clinical, command and staff experience.

A couple of examples of individuals (not medical types) who had their nominations to RAdm (lh) returned to the president.

https://www.congress.gov/nomination/115th-congress/765
https://www.congress.gov/nomination/112th-congress/1390
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 27, 2018, 23:41:42
Great post BA. Best one so far, imo.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on April 28, 2018, 00:02:21
You're right Jackson's promotion hasnt been approved its held up by Senate democrats while the allegations are investigated.

https://twitter.com/AliWatkins/status/989822690813980673/photo/1?tfw_site=WSBT&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwjla.com%2Fnews%2Fnation-world%2Fwhite-house-records-dispute-allegations-against-jackson
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on April 28, 2018, 15:38:59
Jackson's promotion nomination was submitted on Mar 20th and referred to the US Senate Committee on Armed Services:

https://www.congress.gov/nomination/115th-congress/1764/actions?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22ronny+l.+jackson%22%5D%7D&r=1 (https://www.congress.gov/nomination/115th-congress/1764/actions?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22ronny+l.+jackson%22%5D%7D&r=1)

Current makeup of the committee is: Rep 14, Dem 13

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Armed_Services#Members,_113th_Congress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Armed_Services#Members,_113th_Congress)

I think it speaks well for the committee that they are taking their time deliberating over someone with such little experience.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Blackadder1916 on April 28, 2018, 16:18:16
I suppose it's easy to attribute calm and non-partisan deliberation to the Armed Services Committee when viewed through the lens of Adm Jackson's promotion nomination alone.  However, when looking at the list of nominations still sitting in committee (https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nom_cmten.htm) suddenly Adm Jackson's case does not seem that delayed when there are some nominations to general or flag rank that were submitted back in March 2017.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on May 03, 2018, 01:45:31
Interesting new book just out. Arranging to get a copy.

The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in an Age of Lies by Michael V Hayden. Hayden was a former USAF four star and Director of the National Security Agency from 1999 - 2005.

https://www.amazon.com/Assault-Intelligence-American-National-Security-ebook/dp/B07B2K8CYZ (https://www.amazon.com/Assault-Intelligence-American-National-Security-ebook/dp/B07B2K8CYZ)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hayden_(general) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hayden_(general))

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: QV on May 10, 2018, 18:04:32

Here is the book I was thinking about:  https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Deep-State-Fight-President/dp/1630061026

Amazing to see progress for the Koreas, released hostages, and Iran being put back in a box. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on May 10, 2018, 18:15:54
Here is the book I was thinking about:  https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Deep-State-Fight-President/dp/1630061026

References about the author,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Corsi#References

"In 2017, he became the Washington, D.C. bureau chief for the conspiracy theory website InfoWars."
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on May 10, 2018, 18:57:50
Getting a little tired of ad hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) follow-ups.  I'll grant that many on-line authors are cranks; but consider either tackling the message - shouldn't be difficult if the author really is a crank without much of a clue - or conserving bandwidth.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on May 10, 2018, 19:12:39
I'll grant that many on-line authors are cranks;

Your word. Not mine.

I just wanted to see his references and reviews, before deciding to buy his book.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on May 10, 2018, 21:33:21
Getting a little tired of ad hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) follow-ups.  I'll grant that many on-line authors are cranks; but consider either tackling the message - shouldn't be difficult if the author really is a crank without much of a clue - or conserving bandwidth.

And pretty well all anti Republican, Trump or Ford. Try be an equal opportunity Ligilo Majstro. Maybe you can dig up some stuff about the other side for a better perspective? Just a thought.

Honestly Mario, I've quit following your political links, as I find the messages pretty well the same. Maybe try give a reason you agree or disagree with the link, or add some context to it. Then a proper discussion can take place. Right now it just looks that your posting things so the article can say your ad hominems and derision without you falling afoul of the rules. Not accusing you of that, just saying that's what it looks like, to me anyway.
Maybe I'm out to lunch, you certainly don't have to listen to me.

How's that work for you?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Loachman on May 11, 2018, 01:47:05
Non-stop entertainment...

DiGenova: Lawyers daring Mueller to prove his Russia case https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4A1VhwmERo
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: QV on May 11, 2018, 09:20:32
DiGenova nails it.  It will be interesting to watch all this play out.

Honestly though, you can not like Trump but still like what he’s doing.  It seems to me many of his policies are on point so far.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on May 11, 2018, 09:33:18
McCain brought the made up dossier to the FBI and has no regrets.He came out against the CIA nominee because of so called torture which has been outlawed by Congress.A retired LTG said that MCain should know that its effective because it worked so well on him when was a POW he had a nickname "songbird john".Funny now but not at the time I bet.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on May 11, 2018, 09:45:47
A retired LTG said that MCain should know that its effective because it worked so well on him when was a POW he had a nickname "songbird john".Funny now but not at the time I bet.

Does not seem "funny now" from reports I have read,
https://www.google.com/search?ei=mo71WpW9HoTt5gLWirDACQ&q=%22songbird+john%22+mccain+McInerney+&oq=%22songbird+john%22+mccain+McInerney+&gs_l=psy-ab.12...418022.420283.0.422040.2.2.0.0.0.0.152.275.0j2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.AJ0hqar2KKI

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: TheHead on May 11, 2018, 11:02:27
McCain brought the made up dossier to the FBI and has no regrets.He came out against the CIA nominee because of so called torture which has been outlawed by Congress.A retired LTG said that MCain should know that its effective because it worked so well on him when was a POW he had a nickname "songbird john".Funny now but not at the time I bet.

There is absolutely no proof that John McCain "sang" to the Vietnamese other than the lies he told them.  Fox News even apologized for that segment.  A rare move by Trump's mouthpiece.  The attacks on this man, his military service  and mocking of his health condition are proof that Republicans hold no moral authority on respect for veterans. 

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on May 11, 2018, 11:14:36
There is absolutely no proof that John McCain "sang" to the Vietnamese other than the lies he told them.  Fox News even apologized for that segment.  A rare move by Trump's mouthpiece.  The attacks on this man, his military service  and mocking of his health condition are proof that Republicans hold no moral authority on respect for veterans.

There is evidence that he did.Under torture I don't know how you can avoid giving up something.While John Mccain served the country heroically as a POW,I think his anti Trump comments may hurt his legacy.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/john-mccain-pow/story?id=32574863

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on May 11, 2018, 11:23:28
There is evidence that he did.Under torture I don't know how you can avoid giving up something.While John Mccain served the country heroically as a POW,I think his anti Trump comments may hurt his legacy.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/john-mccain-pow/story?id=32574863

That link doesn't seem to show any evidence of him "singing".  Looks more like he signed whatever confession they wanted him to.

I don't know if his anti Trump comments hurt his legacy so much as Trump supporters are trying to destroy his legacy to discredit him.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: TheHead on May 11, 2018, 11:30:57
Your link proves my point not yours.  That McCain is a war-hero and Trump has no respect for Veterans or POWs.    McCain criticizing Trump cements his legacy. He's shown that after all the awful things Trump has said about him he won't bend the knee unlike the other wimps in the Republican party like Ted Cruze and Mitt Romney.  I could only imagine if a democrat said those things about a man with storied military career that McCain has.  The tears would be glorious.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on May 11, 2018, 11:50:56
There is absolutely no proof that John McCain "sang" to the Vietnamese other than the lies he told them.  Fox News even apologized for that segment.  A rare move by Trump's mouthpiece.  The attacks on this man, his military service  and mocking of his health condition are proof that Republicans hold no moral authority on respect for veterans.

Tens of millions of Republicans exist. I'll need you to provide at least 10 more examples of such statements and then maybe we can accept your statement. After all, some Republicans are good people.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on May 11, 2018, 11:59:02
The statement "Republicans hold no moral authority" might be understood to simply mean they are not "the authority".  Maybe no-one holds any "moral authority" on the matter.

There is plenty of stuff that can be thrown back into McCain's face without unfairly dragging his war record into it.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: TheHead on May 11, 2018, 12:02:46
Tens of millions of Republicans exist. I'll need you to provide at least 10 more examples of such statements and then maybe we can accept your statement. After all, some Republicans are good people.

Most republicans are good people.  We're always hearing how those damn liebral, snowflakes hate the military and veterans and that republicans have some type of moral high-ground when it comes to respecting Veterans.   That's not the case.  Tens of millions voted for a man who openly insulted a war-hero while dodging the draft because of bone spurs.  Republicans don't have the high-ground anymore.  What's more concerning is there was not an inkling of outrage when he made those comments.  None,  even from fellow right-wing Veterans.   

I could just go on the swamp the is The_Donald on reddit and drudge up dozens and dozens of comments celebrating John McCain's cancer but I won't because most of them are probably from Russian bots ;)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 11, 2018, 12:38:15
Quote from: TheHead
.   

I could just go on the swamp the is The_Donald on reddit and drudge up dozens and dozens of comments celebrating John McCain's cancer but I won't because most of them are probably from Russian bots ;)

And the **ck you nah **ck you nah **ck you makes its anticipated return   ;)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: TheHead on May 11, 2018, 12:45:38
And the **ck you nah **ck you nah **ck you makes its anticipated return   ;)

There was none of that.  At all as per the new guidelines of this site.    Just stop.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 11, 2018, 12:56:57
It honestly looks the same to me.
Replublicn voter base sucks.
Democrat voter base are dummies.
So and so made cancer jokes.

Is going on reddit and cutting and pasting comments here really an option? If not why bring it up? Seems just as ad homien to me.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: TheHead on May 11, 2018, 13:03:38
No one is saying any of those things.   Are you even following along or just cherry picking and trolling?  I was obviously being sarcastic in regards to the reddit comment.  Next time I'll add more winking emojis and a few /s to clarify.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 11, 2018, 13:19:28
Perfect. Thank you.

;)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: QV on May 11, 2018, 14:30:59
Does anyone have any opposing or supporting views on Trump's Iran move?  That might be an interesting discussion...  (you can still hate the guy even if you agree with the decision on Iran...I won't judge!)

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on May 11, 2018, 14:35:29
Iran is already in violation of said agreement.I think its hard to monitor and with EU nations involved its like their so called climate agreement both are a shame.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on May 11, 2018, 14:50:15
Iran is already in violation of said agreement.I think its hard to monitor and with EU nations involved its like their so called climate agreement both are a shame.

Shame?
Sham?
Or both?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on May 11, 2018, 14:53:45
Does anyone have any opposing or supporting views on Trump's Iran move?  That might be an interesting discussion...  (you can still hate the guy even if you agree with the decision on Iran...I won't judge!)

That's my take on the Korea situation.  I happen to agree with Trump despite my dislike for him.

My dislike for him as a human is separate from my dislike or like of policy.

I think Iran needs a different approach.  I think he is really relying on the Israelis' info on the situation.  There's been a bit of a shadow war there that should be no surprise to anyone.  The middle east is a different kettle of fish than NK but the status quo doesn't seem to be working so wait and see?

I'm not against his move per se but I'll admit not having enough info to say. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on May 11, 2018, 14:57:46
Don't forget the cash that Obama gave to Iran which probably went to their war in Yemen and Syria.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on May 11, 2018, 15:34:15
Don't forget the cash that Obama gave to Iran which probably went to their war in Yemen and Syria.

I don't recall that Obama ever "gave" cash to Iran. I do recall that in the deal, sanctions were lifted which allowed Iran to again access their own sums of money which had been frozen and that there was a negotiated settlement whereby the US returned a certain sum of money that Iran had paid to the US for military equipment that it bought from them and the US had never delivered.

 [cheers]
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on May 11, 2018, 16:14:42
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/03/01/was-obamas-1-7-billion-cash-deal-with-iran-prohibited-by-u-s-law/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f7194e357231
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Thucydides on May 27, 2018, 14:32:41
The current "spy" scandal in the United States may be far larger than the iconic "Watergate" (which has given its name to every scandal since). This article in American Thinker has lots of timeline details, including a timeline showing the Obama administration using private contractors to access raw FISA data as far back as 2015. This end run around FISA puts the use of FISA warrants against members of the Trump campaign team and using questionable information to secure FISA warrants in some more context.

The article also goes through other actions of the Obama Administration. If this were a movie, it would not be "All the Presidents Man" but rather something like the MCU series, with an "Infinity war" like ending in the Obama White House.

The end result is still unknown, but one thing seems clear: if high ranking public officials, Administration members and bureaucrats are being unmasked in this scandal and are not being tried and put in prison, then there will be a serious breakdown in the public trust of American institutions, which can only accelerate the unravelling of American's social capital and destruction of a high trust society.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05/the_great_unmasking.html
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Journeyman on June 10, 2018, 10:11:41
With Trump and Kim now in Singapore, the Guardian provides a perspective (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/08/trump-master-negotiator-meeting-kim-jong-un-art-of-deal) on how it may play out (and how it will likely be reported, regardless).
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 10, 2018, 10:30:52
Quote
The dangers are clear. The North Koreans will play Trump. They’ve reportedly studied The Art of the Deal, learning how to manipulate him and his ego:

Like a modern day Patton  ;D
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on June 10, 2018, 12:04:21
With Trump and Kim now in Singapore, the Guardian provides a perspective (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/08/trump-master-negotiator-meeting-kim-jong-un-art-of-deal) on how it may play out (and how it will likely be reported, regardless).

An interesting perspective.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 10, 2018, 15:59:45
I suppose it's easy to attribute calm and non-partisan deliberation to the Armed Services Committee when viewed through the lens of Adm Jackson's promotion nomination alone.  However, when looking at the list of nominations still sitting in committee (https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nom_cmten.htm) suddenly Adm Jackson's case does not seem that delayed when there are some nominations to general or flag rank that were submitted back in March 2017.

Senator Tester is accused of making the allegations against Dr Jackson. Tester is facing a tough re-election fight.We shall see if his voters turn him out. 8)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on June 10, 2018, 16:12:30
Senator Tester is accused of making the allegations against Dr Jackson.

QUOTE

GOP chairman 'doesn't have a problem' with Tester's handling of Jackson allegations
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/385317-gop-va-committee-chair-does-not-have-a-problem-with-testers-handling-of
Sen. Johnny Isakson (Ga.), the Republican chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, does not “have a problem” with how misconduct allegations against Navy Rear Adm. Ronny Jackson were handled, his office said Saturday.

END QUOTE
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on June 12, 2018, 19:44:31
I find it interesting that immediately after the Singapore US/NK summit that Fox news is not headling anything about the summit's outcome.

The articles headlined include Rosenstein's threats to subpoena records of a Republican led House committee; CNN's Acosta shouting questions during the signing ceremony; Trump's tweet regarding Di Niro. The only on-point article seems to be on from a former CIA staffer on Korea who points out that the signed document does not necessarily state that the North will de-nuclearize.

Puzzling.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 13, 2018, 09:28:29
Wargames can be reinstated at any time.The North has agreed to helping to repatriate soldiers that were killed during the war.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Colin P on June 13, 2018, 11:36:09
I don't recall that Obama ever "gave" cash to Iran. I do recall that in the deal, sanctions were lifted which allowed Iran to again access their own sums of money which had been frozen and that there was a negotiated settlement whereby the US returned a certain sum of money that Iran had paid to the US for military equipment that it bought from them and the US had never delivered.

 [cheers]

Regardless of the source, that cash was released and was used to prop up a regime that is the sworn enemy of the US and it's pretty clear a good chunk of it went Iranian Revolutionary Guard and it's proxies. Particularly as there have been internal protests that none of those funds were apparently used to fix domestic issues.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Blackadder1916 on June 13, 2018, 13:36:43
Regardless of the source, that cash was released and was used to prop up a regime that is the sworn enemy of the US and it's pretty clear a good chunk of it went Iranian Revolutionary Guard and it's proxies. Particularly as there have been internal protests that none of those funds were apparently used to fix domestic issues.

So what?  The money belonged to Iran and could be used as decided by the government of Iran.  As much as we may object to the internal domestic issues of Iran and its foreign policies, we (nor the American government, nor many Iranian citizens for that matter) have a vote in how that country operates.  After all the accounting, juggling the books and making legally binding (as per American courts) reparations to injured parties, the US government returned the assets that they seized froze nearly forty years previous.  The rest is just political bluster.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 13, 2018, 17:20:39
The left usually rant about denuclearization.Instead its about giving in on war games. ;D
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 13, 2018, 17:55:26
The left usually rant about denuclearization.Instead its about giving in on war games. ;D

Seen that. It's actually pretty funny. Trump is not a nice person because he's  not negotiating with Korea. Then when he successfully negotiates with Korea he's not a nice person because he canceled wargames. Or my favourite he's a horrible negotiator because he  treated their leader like an equal. I crap you not.

If Trump discovered the cure for cancer people would attack him over all the cancer researchers who lost their job.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on June 13, 2018, 18:46:40
"There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea."
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1006837823469735936

That's wonderful news.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Colin P on June 14, 2018, 15:03:35
So what?  The money belonged to Iran and could be used as decided by the government of Iran.  As much as we may object to the internal domestic issues of Iran and its foreign policies, we (nor the American government, nor many Iranian citizens for that matter) have a vote in how that country operates.  After all the accounting, juggling the books and making legally binding (as per American courts) reparations to injured parties, the US government returned the assets that they seized froze nearly forty years previous.  The rest is just political bluster.

Just as sanctions were having a real effect on the regime and their proxies. That cash saved the regime and guaranteed likely another decade plus of oppression of the Iranian people by the Revolutionary Guard and Clerics. Not to mention keeping their proxies supplied with arms and cash. The citizens of Iran will never benefit from that money.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Infanteer on June 22, 2018, 23:27:05
Changing tack a bit:

Quote
Trump attacked the entire political class, including all political factions of both parties, the immense corruption in American government, the bias of the national media, and the ludicrous interventions of Hollywood airheads masquerading as the political conscience of the nation. Trump called for the reassertion of the American national interest and the public sensed this. An annual trade deficit of $865 billion could not be tolerated. Nor could the steady inflow of 500,000 to a million illiterate migrants a year from Central America and Mexico, or a Western Alliance where the United States paid most of the bill for everyone, guaranteed everyone’s national security, and got little but carping, whining and hypocrisy from its so-called allies. Germany has been the greatest power in Europe since Bismarck unified it in 1871. Chancellor Angela Merkel could have wielded enormous power on the continent, as a kind of Bismarck-in-drag, if you will, but instead she spends almost nothing on defence, appeases Russia in Ukraine while buying its natural gas, and has admirably but unwisely, admitted over a million refugees from the Middle East and Africa in the past three years.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-trump-is-grating-but-hes-a-true-leader-and-america-needs-him

I always find Conrad Black's editorials worth reading.  His contempt for the U.S. system that imprisoned him is ever apparent, and he has remained an ardent supporter of the President, indicating that it's important to look past the tweets.  He makes points that are worthy of discussion.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Thucydides on June 23, 2018, 11:48:41
Agree with Infanteer's post. President Trump has clearly decided the status quo is no longer working (or even relevant, for the most part) and is working to upend it in favour of a newer and more "balanced" system (balance for America may not equal "balance" for the rest of the world).

The G-7 summit is a great example of that actually. President Trump has serious concerns about nations using trade agreements to do end runs around US concerns (such as using cheap Chinese steel for imports then sent to America), the size of the trade deficit America is running and keeping the American economy going long term. His offer was actually dropping tariffs and subsidies within the trade block, but the response can be characterized by a breakfast meeting on how Gender issues affect free trade. In effect the G-7 leadership showed their concern about America's concerns.

The introduction of heavy tariffs by the US then made the status quo untenable, and early on it already has the German car industry making overtures, which suggests many EU organizations and interest groups are now going to fight the EU over access to the US market. President Trump has laid their interests bare in one fell swoop, and done so publicly, forcing leaders like Trudeau to take public positions right away.

The US now has the high cards, knows people's positions and can tweak whatever rules they like since they have a commanding position in many economic areas, as well as a strong domestic position to negotiate from (what Americans will be happy to say "we should continue to run multi billion trade deficits forever!"). Note this also strengthens his domestic political position as well (Running against the Democrats he can answer the question about trade deficits as a negative to them).

The guy is like a wreaking ball because he needs to be a wreaking ball to break the status quo which no longer is working for what he sees as American interests.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on June 25, 2018, 10:09:11
So...Donald Trump has a point?  ;)

QUOTE

The Fake News is working overtime. Just reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else, 91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake). Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/994179864436596736

END QUOTE

QUOTE

"You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so that when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/22/trump-told-lesley-stahl-he-bashes-press-to-discredit-negative-stories.html

END QUOTE

Negative news is fake news?  :)

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on June 25, 2018, 11:05:34
Everyone remember when the President was championing the stock market, and record gains?

The Dow Jones has currently fallen to November levels, effectively wiping out 7 months of growth.

MAGA.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 26, 2018, 01:04:48
Good time to buy more index funds.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on June 26, 2018, 07:16:22
Good time to buy more index funds.

Yes and mine are holding strong!  Warren Buffett says every person should own stock in an S&P 500 Indexed Fund. 

I own stock in an S&P 500 Index ETF, the growth over the past 10 years has been impressive, even with recessions and other events.  The market always bounces back and compound interest is a powerful thing!

Everyone remember when the President was championing the stock market, and record gains?

The Dow Jones has currently fallen to November levels, effectively wiping out 7 months of growth.

MAGA.

Not really a big deal, markets appreciate and depreciate all the time.  I don't invest for short term gains though, buying and holding is the name of them game because the market will always bounce back.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 26, 2018, 07:27:08
Not a very nice person.

Quote
Maxine Waters Calls For Attacks On Members Of Trump Administration


Already, you have members of your Cabinet that are being booed out of restaurants ... who have protesters taking up at their house, who say, ‘No peace, no sleep! No peace, no sleep!'” Waters continued.

"God is on our side!" Waters declared.

Waters then called for attacks on individual members of the Trump administration, saying, "Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up and if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere."


https://www.dailywire.com/news/32232/watch-maxine-waters-calls-attacks-members-trump-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on June 26, 2018, 09:21:17
Not a very nice person.

Her comments  were completely inappropriate. Especially for an elected official.

The Dailywire is pushing their narrative a bit too far I think but yes, her comments could be viewed as incitement.   

Unfortunately many people in US politics are leading the way with these types of things...

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on June 26, 2018, 11:27:48
The Dailywire is pushing their narrative a bit too far I think   

Ryan Saavedra
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4572812/Breitbart-staff-appalled-tweets-amid-London-terror.html

but yes, her comments could be viewed as incitement.   

Speaking of incitement,
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-incitement-violence/

Perhaps former FLOTUS Michelle Obama had the best advice, "When they go low, we go high."

Otherwise, if they aren't already, they are going to find themselves in a race to the bottom.



Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on June 26, 2018, 11:41:38
Travel ban upheld by Supreme Court. Notice it doesn't say Muslim ban as been stated by some.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban-n873441 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban-n873441)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 26, 2018, 16:35:32
Ryan Saavedra
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4572812/Breitbart-staff-appalled-tweets-amid-London-terror.html

I think that's the 10th time you've posted that link in response to an article authored by Saavedra MM.  Have you considered putting it in your signature block? ;)

Quote

Speaking of incitement,
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-incitement-violence/


Some whataboutisim with that but I think what she did rates a bit higher than just the typical rethoric. I hope she gets in a lot of crap for running her mouth like that.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on June 26, 2018, 16:48:20

I think that's the 10th time you've posted that link in response to an article authored by Saavedra MM.  Have you considered putting it in your signature block? ;)
 

Some whataboutisim with that but I think what she did rates a bit higher than just the typical rethoric. I hope she gets in a lot of crap for running her mouth like that.

She likely will. Unlike a few others on the other political spectrum.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on June 26, 2018, 16:58:13
I think that's the 10th time you've posted that link in response to an article authored by Saavedra MM. 

I was also agreeing with this,

The Dailywire is pushing their narrative a bit too far I think

Daily Wire - False stories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Wire#False_stories

QUOTE

According to Snopes, "DailyWire.com has a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified."[11] Among the falsehoods published on The Daily Wire include protesters digging up Confederate graves, Democratic congresspeople refusing to stand for a fallen Navy SEAL's widow, and Harvard University holding segregated commencement ceremonies.[11]

FactCheck.Org found that The Daily Wire was the source of a false story which credited Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson with finding over $500 billion in accounting errors made by the Obama administration. FactCheck.org found that the errors were discovered and published by HUD's independent inspector general before Carson became secretary.[12]

The Daily Wire has published a number of articles which cast doubt that climate change is occurring and that humans contribute to climate change. Experts have described the articles as inaccurate and misleading.[13][14][15]

END QUOTE

References 11 - 15.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Wire#References


Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 26, 2018, 17:39:50
She likely will. Unlike a few others on the other political spectrum.

Anyone who tries to incite harassment or assault should be dealt with by the law. Maybe it's time Americans cut back on being so polarized and stated treating each other more humainely.


Only when you post him as your source.  :)


Why though?
Wouldn't posting your own insight and views be a better  addition to the conversation here than just reposting the same link over and over?



True to form President Trump took to Twitter to respond calling her low iq and saying "Be careful what you wish for Max!”.

Im not really surprised but the media seems to be concentrating on Trump's" threat" (careful what you wish for) and not Mrs Waters for inciting harassment and trying to deny public services to people.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on June 26, 2018, 17:46:59
Why though?

I've never asked why you quote an individual who tweets this sort of thing, "People think I'm kidding when I say this but the crusades need to come back."
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 26, 2018, 17:48:14
 Democrats are telling her to shut up because they are afraid she will hurt their chances in November. :rofl:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 26, 2018, 19:57:36
I've never asked why you quote an individual who tweets this sort of thing, "People think I'm kidding when I say this but the crusades need to come back."

I post stories from the dailywire which includes Ryan as an author. The stories I post where upon he is the author are not solely covered by him, I just like the Dailywire and usually read it first. You do you and I'll do me I guess  ;D
I'll PM you about something as well.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on June 27, 2018, 15:08:14
Could President Trump get a second pick for the Supreme Court?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/27/justice-kennedy-retiring-opening-supreme-court-seat/952716001/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/27/justice-kennedy-retiring-opening-supreme-court-seat/952716001/)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on June 27, 2018, 15:23:10
Could President Trump get a second pick for the Supreme Court?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/27/justice-kennedy-retiring-opening-supreme-court-seat/952716001/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/27/justice-kennedy-retiring-opening-supreme-court-seat/952716001/)

He better hope he can get one before the primaries.  If the primaries don't go his way, you know the Democrats will do exactly what McConnell did to Obama.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on June 27, 2018, 15:26:57
He better hope he can get one before the primaries.  If the primaries don't go his way, you know the Democrats will do exactly what McConnell did to Obama.

Thta's fair, as when McConnell did it.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on June 27, 2018, 15:31:30
Here is the White House list of potential nominees issued in 2017.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-supreme-court-list/ (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-supreme-court-list/)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on June 27, 2018, 15:39:26
Thta's fair, as when McConnell did it.

Yeah, difference is that McConnell stonewalled for a year.  The Dems would have to Stonewall for almost 2.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 27, 2018, 16:03:31
If the dem's lose seats in the Senate in November the Republicans can force their SCOTUS choice through.They wont stand for another conservative otherwise.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on June 27, 2018, 17:01:32
In other news.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-korea-still-building-at-nuclear-research-facility-despite-summit-diplomacy-1530100351

Did the President get played like a fiddle? Does this mean that the Nobel prize is at risk?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on June 27, 2018, 17:06:41
In other news.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-korea-still-building-at-nuclear-research-facility-despite-summit-diplomacy-1530100351

Did the President get played like a fiddle? Does this mean that the Nobel prize is at risk?

No, sanctions are still on.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on June 27, 2018, 17:20:13
No, sanctions are still on.

So no de-nuclearisation?

What about the cancelled wargames?  Still cancelled or back on?

Looks like Kim got what he wanted. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on June 27, 2018, 17:26:55
So no de-nuclearisation?

What about the cancelled wargames?  Still cancelled or back on?

Looks like Kim got what he wanted.

Don't panic yet, it is still early.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on June 27, 2018, 17:30:45
Don't panic yet, it is still early.


No panic.  Some people have been anticipating this. 

Why would one upgrade ones facilities after committing to dismantle their nuclear program?

And I think time is exactly what NK is banking on...

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 27, 2018, 17:45:51
So no de-nuclearisation?

What about the cancelled wargames?  Still cancelled or back on?

Looks like Kim got what he wanted.

The ol satellite images out of Washington. :Tin-Foil-Hat:

But really, it's sad at how many Americans are probably happy to read that headline and excited about the possibility of Trumps negotiation not working.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Colin P on June 27, 2018, 17:59:43
The difference is that DT will just as quickly turn around and crank up the sanctions on NK and won't dither doing it. The US has given up little to get this far, the Wargames had just finished, so they have a full year to assess NK actions before actually stopping them. I suspect NK will play along hoping to out wait Trump and then back to business as usual.   
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on June 27, 2018, 19:08:51
The ol satellite images out of Washington. :Tin-Foil-Hat:

But really, it's sad at how many Americans are probably happy to read that headline and excited about the possibility of Trumps negotiation not working.

First of all, they weren't really negotiations. NK came to the table with a proposal and then Trump gave away a bunch of extra stuff.

Second. We're not "happy" but we are ready to unload a whupa** full of "I told you so."   ;D

Too early though. We'll wait.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FSTO on June 27, 2018, 20:56:50
The President of the United States is speaking in Fargo North Dakota tonight (its on youtube on the Trump TV Network if anyone is interested). Since I'm from just north of there and know a few folks from the Dakotas I'm curious as to what he'll say tonight being so close to Canada.

I hope this is as entertaining as North Carolina was. :pop:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: dapaterson on June 27, 2018, 20:59:41
I hope this is as entertaining as North Carolina was. :pop:

Entertaining in an "end of western civilization" kind of a way?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FSTO on June 27, 2018, 21:05:02
Entertaining in an "end of western civilization" kind of a way?

It's the never ending train wreck that I cannot stop looking at.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 28, 2018, 00:22:14
At least its not Maxine speechifying. ;D
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FSTO on June 28, 2018, 07:23:20
Now I know this was a partisan rally for the Republican candidate but wow, absolute zero pretence that this guy is the leader for all Americans.

It did seem that the crowd was losing steam about 1/2 way through the rally. Maybe it was that northern plains reserve that was kicking in, you betcha!
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Retired AF Guy on June 28, 2018, 19:29:08
Here is the White House list of potential nominees issued in 2017.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-supreme-court-list/ (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-supreme-court-list/)

According to Vox  here are the nine (https://www.vox.com/explainers/2018/6/28/17512106/anthony-kennedy-retirement-supreme-court-trump) most likely conservative candidates.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 01, 2018, 07:06:24
Putting this here even though it is related to e.g. US vs NATO and US vs G7 ...

It seems to me that President Trump is very nervous about multilateral deals. He might think that multilateral deals allow a bunch of pipsqueaks to 'gang up' on the USA. He appeared open to a renewed, renegotiated Canada-US FTA to replace NAFTA because, I suppose, he thinks that American is in the catbird seat in any one-on-one relationship with Canada.

His new target seems to be the WTO, and I expect that the rest of the legacy of Breton Woods will not be far behind if he ever figures out what they are for.

President Trump seems to believe ~ I suspect that the right word ~ that America does, indeed, have a 'special providence' and that the rules that govern everyone else cannot, must not apply to America.

History suggest, to me anyway, that special providence is a myth; the Babylonians didn't have one; nor the Greeks; the Roman Empire faded away as did the Mogul and Spanish empires; even the mighty, mercantilist British Empire died ... why does anyone think that America is different?

I tearing down institutions that were designed to actually make America more secure, Donald J Trump is just acting as an agent for Putin and Xi Jinping ... he seems to be serving the best interest of America's enemies.  :dunno:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Journeyman on July 01, 2018, 10:22:46
President Trump seems to believe ~ I suspect that the right word ~ that America does, indeed, have a 'special providence' and that the rules that govern everyone else cannot, must not apply to America.
If only he was aware of the full expression, generally attributed to Otto von Bismarck -- "God has a special providence for fools, drunks and the United States of America."


From Walter Russell Mead:
Quote
Jacksonianism is less an intellectual or political movement than an expression of the social, cultural and religious values of a large portion of the American public. And it is doubly obscure because it happens to be rooted in one of the portions of the public least represented in the media and the professoriat. Jacksonian America is a folk community with a strong sense of common values and common destiny; though periodically led by intellectually brilliant men—like Andrew Jackson himself—it is neither an ideology nor a self-conscious movement with a clear historical direction or political table of organization. If Jeffersonianism is the book-ideology of the United States, Jacksonian populism is its folk-ideology.
The problem is that Trump isn't remotely "intellectually brilliant," nor does he hold these Jacksonian values in any way, not merely the moderating qualities-- he is simply using them as talking points to appeal to "his base."


[In addition to the article by Mead, The National Interest,  No. 58, Winter 1999/2000, is a special edition on "The Age of Nationalism," which has turned out to be sadly prescient, given that it was published almost 20 years ago]
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Cloud Cover on July 01, 2018, 14:53:51

- Jacksonian America is a folk community with a strong sense of common values and common destiny

Interesting, is this also the silent majority that supposedly propelled Nixon* into power when the Democrats did not have leadership that could attract those same Jacksonian values. I still sometimes think there were far more people interested in getting rid of Hillary than looking to Trump for leadership. Perhaps that may have been their only common value.

* Conrad Black: Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full
"Nixon was the people. He was the representative inhabitant of what Jack Kerouac called 'the great unwashed body of America.' He was laborious but effective, eloquent but not hypnotizing, cynical but compassionate and patriotic. He got where he did by climbing, falling, climbing again, and never ceasing to struggle."  It is my understanding that the description does not fit either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, but people certainly had enough of Clinton.

Now, a lot of people do not like Conrad Black for some strong and probably well justified reasons. But as an author with an interest in American political history, his observations are astute, qualified with the benefit of history and perspective.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Infanteer on July 01, 2018, 21:05:11
I expect that the rest of the legacy of Breton Woods will not be far behind if he ever figures out what they are for.

Let's just hope he continues to think its a nice golf course for the next few years....
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Journeyman on July 03, 2018, 13:40:39
Long read.  Sorry, I didn't have time for a short response, but that's the price for not making 10-12 posts/day in the politics diatribes.


Stealing unabashedly from John Lewis Gaddis’ On Grand Strategy (2018), it should be self-evident that “if you seek ends beyond your means, then sooner or later you’ll have to scale back your ends to fit your means.”  No ****, right?  Many leaders, some otherwise geniuses, may forget it.  From Julius Caesar at the Rubicon, Napoleon and Hitler at Russia’s border, and LBJ in Vietnam, all figured that past tactical success assured future strategic dominance.  How did that play out for them?

Trump’s constantly repeated mantra that he’s some form of business genius and great negotiator1 is based on a skewed sense of ‘tactical success,’ in having his businesses successfully granted Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection SIX times!  With that track record of ‘success,’ having Trump as Commander-in-Chief, would make me very worried if I was in the US military;  fortunately, his depth of military thought is limited to visions of a Space Command and wanting to stand on a YUGE podium during a Bastille Day-type parade.

American pre-eminence came from winning two World Wars (mind you, starting by sitting back and making massive profits selling to ‘allies’), and the Cold War.  Contrast this with the subsequent neglect of grand strategic thinking, which led to postwar quagmires and misadventures with either impossible or irrelevant aims.  Show me the strategic thought in kowtowing to dictators, but more importantly, launching a global trade war against everyone else.

Now, I cannot believe that Trump has ANY strategic vision; “Make America Great Again” is a campaign slogan, not a plan.2  Anyone who believes that his thinking is more than 140-charracters deep is denying the evidence – changing policy and contradicting his own staff and personal pronouncements; most massive staff turnover of any US President (even dwarfing Bill Clinton’s presidency); tantrum-like focus on the completely inconsequential; the compulsive, obvious lies usually resulting from whatever random thought passed through his mind at the time….

BOTOM LINE: Trump is in the process of breaking America, simply because he hasn’t a clue about the effects of his actions.  His legacy will long outlive him.  America is decreasingly trusted as either a dependable business, military, or diplomatic partner.  The knock-on effect of his constant undermining the media harms democracy globally.  He is single-handedly going to be responsible for a recession, if not depression, and he doesn’t care – he’ll just claim bankruptcy protection again. 

Someone should tell him that the Chinese may not grant it.



1. Yes, I’ve read Art of the Deal  too.   :boring:
The "co-author," Tony Schwartz expressed regrets about having written the book, and both he and the book's publisher have said that Trump had played no role in the book's actual writing, while Trump has given conflicting accounts on the question of authorship.  Pesky facts.  Fortunately, facts have proven irrelevant for Trump and his supporters.

2.  With this presidency's track record, “Make America Great Again” may have simply been a typo for “Make America Grate  Again” and someone just said "to hell with it, we've already ordered the t-shirts -- it's our policy now."
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on July 03, 2018, 20:49:02
. . .

BOTOM LINE: Trump is in the process of breaking America, simply because he hasn’t a clue about the effects of his actions.  His legacy will long outlive him.  America is decreasingly trusted as either a dependable business, military, or diplomatic partner.  The knock-on effect of his constant undermining the media harms democracy globally.  He is single-handedly going to be responsible for a recession, if not depression, and he doesn’t care – he’ll just claim bankruptcy protection again. 

. . .

Agree with you 100% with one little addendum. America was already broken when he was elected. As proof all I can offer is that 63 million Americans voted for this man.

The logical conclusion to that is that even if Trump crashes and burns (which I expect he will in time) there will still be tens of millions of Americans who aren't ready to go back to the status quo ante.

 :pop:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 03, 2018, 21:50:15
Given some of the policy proposals being floated by Democrats, I predict that Trump will be re-elected if:
1) He does nothing significantly worse than anything he has already done; and
2) He sticks to his list of potential USSC nominees.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Colin P on July 03, 2018, 21:56:11
I agree with Brad, it's unlikely Trump will be defeated in the next election, considering the DNC is still whining about the last one and Hillary's death grip is still on it's throat. Trump is a flawed solution to the broken political situation in the US. Personally I don't think the 2 main parties can appeal to enough voters in the future to hold onto their power, both are facing growing factions that feel unrepresented. I also seeing more potentiel non main party Presidential candidates in the future, which may be a good thing. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on July 03, 2018, 22:53:29
I'm not sure where third party individuals would go these days. You might remember the 1992 election when Ross Perot was on the ballot. At some points he polled 39% of the vote but through poor management of his campaign ended up getting 15% of the popular vote (nearly 20 million votes) but zero Electoral College votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_presidential_campaign,_1992#Results (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_presidential_campaign,_1992#Results)

Just spitballing here but I think any third party candidate won't be a winner but could become a real spoiler for one or the other of the mainstream parties.

Before we rule out the Dems, why don't we wait and see what the mid terms look like? I have a feeling that there's going to be some GOP ship-jumping going on.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Cloud Cover on July 03, 2018, 23:31:44
Speaking of third party candidates, I wonder how Ralp Nader feels now about suggesting and then endorsing Trump to run as a third party candidate ( which he essentially is, even with the GOP ticket).  :facepalm:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on July 03, 2018, 23:49:38
Speaking of third party candidates, I wonder how Ralp Nader feels now about suggesting and then endorsing Trump to run as a third party candidate ( which he essentially is, even with the GOP ticket).  :facepalm:

This is the most recent I found. Not sure if the April 5, 2018 date is of the actual interview or just the post. In short he doesn't like Trump.  ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh6gRenh7pg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh6gRenh7pg)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 04, 2018, 11:02:20
If Trump wants a second term he will get it.The Democrats are increasingly tilting Left and the US is not a left leaning country.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 04, 2018, 11:28:53
If Trump wants a second term he will get it.The Democrats are increasingly tilting Left and the US is not a left leaning country.
I find it hard to believe that a president with a 40 percent approval rating is a lock to win another term.

As long as the democrats don't pick a moron to lead them, I think they have a chance.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 04, 2018, 11:44:20
Actually its closer to 45% but 87% among Republicans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-lefts-contempt-is-going-to-reelect-trump/2018/07/03/8e91b240-7ede-11e8-b0ef-fffcabeff946_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.419dcf13ffcd

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/07/results-matter-president-trump-tops-obama-in-approval-numbers-at-same-point-in-his-presidency/
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on July 04, 2018, 12:14:06
There is a third party already: the socialist left wing of the Democrat Party. One ran for POTUS last election. One just became a Congresswoman elect.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 04, 2018, 12:18:25
Actually its closer to 45% but 87% among Republicans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-lefts-contempt-is-going-to-reelect-trump/2018/07/03/8e91b240-7ede-11e8-b0ef-fffcabeff946_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.419dcf13ffcd

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/07/results-matter-president-trump-tops-obama-in-approval-numbers-at-same-point-in-his-presidency/
From the first article you yourself posted

Quote
It slipped slightly to 41 percent last week
And while it is high among republicans,  that is to be expected.

Democracy is a team sport in america,  and those who decide the elections are the swing/independent voters,  although,  I admit,  with the highly polarizing political atmosphere that has been in place,  those voters probably are not as prominent or influencial.

That said,  I wouldn't be looking further than the midterms. That is going to be the setup for 2020, and how much of the presidents agenda is going to be effected by that.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 04, 2018, 13:02:36
There is a third party already: the socialist left wing of the Democrat Party. One ran for POTUS last election. One just became a Congresswoman elect.
That's the problem. With two party systems that use the big tent theory.

You have to let a bunch of crazies under the tent.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 04, 2018, 22:29:53
There are too many moving parts to do more than make barely educated guesses.  Might someone mount a primary challenge if Trump runs for a second term?  Will the Democratic candidate come from the establishment sub-faction, or the Bernie Sanders sub-faction?  About the only thing I'm sure of is that the USSC composition will be a greater factor than it already is.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on July 05, 2018, 10:23:23
I find it hard to believe that a president with a 40 percent approval rating is a lock to win another term.

As long as the democrats don't pick a moron to lead them, I think they have a chance.

And as long as the faux outrage machine continues unabated, they stand a good chance of losing....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-lefts-contempt-is-going-to-reelect-trump/2018/07/03/8e91b240-7ede-11e8-b0ef-fffcabeff946_story.html?utm_term=.51a5b4daa4d8 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-lefts-contempt-is-going-to-reelect-trump/2018/07/03/8e91b240-7ede-11e8-b0ef-fffcabeff946_story.html?utm_term=.51a5b4daa4d8)

Quote
The left’s contempt is going to reelect Trump
 
by Marc A. Thiessen  July 4 at 7:01 AM 

Democrats have a new theory for how they can win back Congress and the White House. Just like “soccer moms” helped put Bill Clinton in the Oval Office in 1996, and “NASCAR dads” helped George W. Bush win in 2004, Donald Trump, the theory goes, was elected because of “#NeverHillary” voters who didn’t particularly like him but despised her. Axios reports that Democrats are targeting the “20% of Trump’s voters [who] told exit pollsters they didn’t like him,” hoping these reluctant Trump voters will help power a “blue wave” in the 2018 midterms and defeat President Trump in 2020.

One problem with that theory: The left’s nonstop, over-the-top attacks on President Trump are not peeling those voters away from him; they are pushing them further into the president’s camp.

In recent weeks, Trump derangement syndrome on the left has reached critical mass. First, there was Robert De Niro’s “F--- Trump” tirade at the Tony awards, followed by Samantha Bee’s calling Ivanka Trump a “feckless c---” on her TV show. Then the owners of the Red Hen restaurant threw out White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders because she works for the president, while chanting protesters heckled Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen at a Mexican restaurant. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) added fuel to the fire by openly calling on mobs of left-wing activists to “absolutely harass” Trump officials. Then there were the countless Trump opponents in the media, Congress and on Twitter who compared family separations at the southern border to Nazi Germany, and the Time magazine cover depicting Trump staring down heartlessly at a crying migrant girl and implying she was separated from her mother (until it emerged that she had not in fact been separated from her mother). And now come the threats to block Trump’s Supreme Court nominee before he has even nominated one.

How do liberals think that 20 percent of reluctant Trump voters respond to these displays of unbridled contempt? They are outraged not at Trump but at his critics. The unhinged hatred for the president makes these voters almost reflexively defend him.

Don’t take my word for it. The New York Times recently interviewed dozens of tepid Trump voters who explained how the incessant attacks are causing them to rally around the president. “Gina Anders knows the feeling well by now,” the Times reports. “President Trump says or does something that triggers a spasm of outrage. She doesn’t necessarily agree with how he handled the situation. She gets why people are upset.” But Anders, who the Times says has “not a stitch of ‘Make America Great Again’ gear in her wardrobe, is moved to defend him anyway.” When she hears the “overblown” attacks on Trump, she says, “it makes me angry at them, which causes me to want to defend him to them more.” Another reluctant Trump voter, Tony Schrantz, agrees. “He’s not a perfect guy; he does some stupid stuff,” he tells the Times. “But when they’re hounding him all the time it just gets old.”

These are exactly the voters Democrats are hoping to win back. Instead, they are doing the opposite. Polls bear this out. Two weeks ago, Trump’s Gallup approval rating hit 45 percent — the highest it has been since his inauguration. (It slipped slightly to 41 percent last week). Trump’s approval among Republicans is at a near-record 87 percent, comparable to the levels of support for George W. Bush in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Think about that: The left’s attacks on Trump have had the same rallying effect for GOP voters as the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

So, if appeals to civility, decency and conscience won’t work, then perhaps an appeal to base political pragmatism will. Democrats are deluding themselves if they think they lost because of #NeverHillary voters who will come home when she is not on the ballot. They lost because they have become a party of coastal liberal elites who have lost touch with millions of ordinary citizens in Middle America — working-class voters who are struggling with factories closing, jobs leaving and an opioid epidemic that is destroying their families. These voters concluded in 2016 that Democrats no longer care about their problems and that Trump does.

Spasms of anti-Trump outrage are not going to win them back. If anything, they are confirming these voters’ conclusions that Democrats still don’t get it — and don’t get them. The left’s miasma of contempt may feel cathartic, but it is the best thing that ever happened to Trump. Indeed, it may very well get him reelected.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 05, 2018, 10:35:06
Quote
In recent weeks, Trump derangement syndrome on the left has reached critical mass. First, there was Robert De Niro’s “F--- Trump” tirade at the Tony awards, followed by Samantha Bee’s calling Ivanka Trump a “feckless c---” on her TV show. Then the owners of the Red Hen restaurant threw out White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders because she works for the president, while chanting protesters heckled Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen at a Mexican restaurant. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) added fuel to the fire by openly calling on mobs of left-wing activists to “absolutely harass” Trump officials. Then there were the countless Trump opponents in the media, Congress and on Twitter who compared family separations at the southern border to Nazi Germany, and the Time magazine cover depicting Trump staring down heartlessly at a crying migrant girl and implying she was separated from her mother (until it emerged that she had not in fact been separated from her mother). And now come the threats to block Trump’s Supreme Court nominee before he has even nominated one.

These people are becoming more unhinged and psychotic and continue to make Trump look like a better choice than whomever they will rally around.

Easy to see how they're pushing even more people into Trump's camp.

Every week it's a new old issue to be outraged about.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 05, 2018, 10:55:06
And as long as the faux outrage machine continues unabated, they stand a good chance of losing....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-lefts-contempt-is-going-to-reelect-trump/2018/07/03/8e91b240-7ede-11e8-b0ef-fffcabeff946_story.html?utm_term=.51a5b4daa4d8 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-lefts-contempt-is-going-to-reelect-trump/2018/07/03/8e91b240-7ede-11e8-b0ef-fffcabeff946_story.html?utm_term=.51a5b4daa4d8)
It's ironic, because what was the right but a faux outrage machine during the Obama years?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/5128171/Barack-Obama-criticised-for-bowing-to-King-Abdullah-of-Saudi-Arabia.html
Quote
The Washington Times called [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/07/barack-takes-a-bow/] the alleged bow a "shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate", which ran contrary to American tradition of not deferring to royalty.

"By bending over to show greater respect to Islam, the US president belittled the power and independence of the United States," the paper said in an editorial. "Such an act is a traditional obeisance befitting a king's subjects, not his peer."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-05-11/news/0905100191_1_dijon-mustard-horeb-mustard-museum-barry-levenson
Quote
Right-wing talk show host Laura Ingraham weighed in: "What kind of man orders a cheeseburger without ketchup but Dijon mustard?" Sean Hannity of Fox News invoked the Grey Poupon commercial. "I hope you enjoyed that fancy burger, Mr. President," Hannity said.

https://www.mediaite.com/online/obama-put-his-feet-on-oval-office-desk-and-people-are-outraged/

Quote
President Obama put his foot on his desk in a White House photo, and although it admittedly does look a little cheesy, people are outraged over the leader of the free world placing his foot atop the Resolute Desk because it’s undignified and beneath the office of the president… although technically it’s in the office of the… the point is, people are not happy.

https://nypost.com/2011/09/13/o-gives-jobs-clip-service/

Quote
WASHINGTON — President Obama’s plan to reverse the nation’s staggering jobless rate is held together with a paper clip!

“Here it is,” Obama said, waving a copy of his jobs plan during a ceremony in the White House Rose Garden yesterday, an enormous paper clip binding the pages together.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/president-obama-peter-king-tan-suit-rant

Quote
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) went on an extended rant about President Barack Obama’s decision to wear a tan suit during a statement about the terrorist group ISIS he delivered on Thursday at the White House.


“There’s no way any of us can excuse what the president did yesterday,” King said on NewsMaxTV on Friday. The interview was flagged by Buzzfeed. “When you have the world watching … a week, two weeks of anticipation of what the United States is gonna do. For him to walk out —I’m not trying to be trivial here— in a light suit, light tan suit, saying that first he wants to talk about what most Americans care about the revision of second quarter numbers on the economy. This is a week after Jim Foley was beheaded and he’s trying to act like real Americans care about the economy, not about ISIS and not about terrorism. And then he goes on to say he has no strategy.”

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/26/obamas-fancy-new-mansion-is-located-1000-feet-from-the-islamic-center-of-washington-dc/

Quote
The mammoth, multi-million-dollar mansion where President Barack Obama and his family will reportedly live after the first family exits the White House is located 1,096 feet from the Islamic Center of Washington — one of the largest mosques in the Western Hemisphere.

https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article1972955.html

Quote
Former Vice President Dick Cheney, writing in the Wall Street Journal with his daughter Liz, complained: “Terrorists take control of more territory and resources than ever before in history, and he goes golfing.” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers gave a TV interview asking Obama to “please come back from the golf course” and find an Iraq solution.

Yet republicans won all three levels of government, interesting.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Cloud Cover on July 05, 2018, 11:04:46
There is a third party already: the socialist left wing of the Democrat Party. One ran for POTUS last election. One just became a Congresswoman elect.

 a friend of mine who works on K Street posted the attached image yesterday. The 3 bullet points at the bottom are interesting.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 05, 2018, 11:07:48
a friend of mine who works on K Street posted the attached image yesterday. The 3 bullet points at the bottom are interesting.
really?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/democrats-supreme-court-influenced-constitution/
Quote
The satirical Babylon Bee web site published an article, intended to be humorous, that posited a number of leading Democrats in the U.S. Senate calling for Supreme Court nominees to end their attachment to the U.S. Constitution. The article, bearing the headline “Senate Democrats Demand Supreme Court Nominee Not Be Unduly Influenced by U.S. Constitution,” began as follows:
Quote
Of course, Senators Schumer, Warren, and Booker did not make the statements attributed to them in the article, which was satirical in nature. Nonetheless, after the Babylon Bee article was published, someone worked its headline and the three (fake) quotations from Democratic Senators into meme form, along with additional critical commentary:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 05, 2018, 11:12:07
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Winston Churchill

Edit: Jonathan Swift wrote in The Examiner, Nov. 9, 1710: “Falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it.” Not actually Churchill.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Cloud Cover on July 05, 2018, 11:12:58
Awesome, thank you. He is a Dem so why he posted that is my next mission.
I will attempt to modify and delete the image-fake news on Facebook. Who would have thought?

Edit: and done!!
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 05, 2018, 15:15:04
There are too many moving parts to do more than make barely educated guesses.  Might someone mount a primary challenge if Trump runs for a second term?  Will the Democratic candidate come from the establishment sub-faction, or the Bernie Sanders sub-faction?  About the only thing I'm sure of is that the USSC composition will be a greater factor than it already is.
Trump isn't winning a second term imho. His approval is as high as it is almost solely because he's sitting on top of (and blatantly taking credit for) a strong economy that he inherited. His tax cuts are quickly losing popularity and those who care about the angst of the liberals only makes about 30% of the country. The rest look around and see that things are good economically, so shrug their shoulders and assume that he must be doing a good job.

The economy is a slow moving beast and trends can change, but the trends are absolutely moving in the wrong direction

Exhibit A: The yield spread between 10 & 2 yr government bonds.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10Y2Y

The yield spread does a pretty tremendous job of predicting US recessions. Basically when there is no difference between the bond yield of a 10 yr and 2 yr bond, the US economy slows down (sometimes in spectacular fashion). That seriously appears to be coming.

Exhibit B: Tightening of the money supply (rising interest rates)

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-.../interest-rate

The financial crisis in 08 put the weight of the world on Obama and the US Fed and both did a pretty decent job of playing their part to more or less rescue the economy. Obama had TARP, but the larger part of why the US turned around relatively quickly (and there wasn't a 30's style decade of economic depression) is that the Fed basically made borrowing money free. The US economy went through rounds of Quantitative Easing (aka, pouring buckets of money down the economy's throat) at ridiculously low interest rates. Well, QE stopped a couple of years ago, but the interest rates remained at a pretty historic low until recently when the fed has started to ratchet the rate back up into the 2% range (which is still historically low). This tightening of the money supply will lead to slightly slower growth but more importantly, it removes the biggest tool in the Fed's bag to combat a bad economy should a Trump recession be a harsh one. In normal circumstances, the Fed can make a pretty significant impact by cutting the interest rate, but they wont make a dent here.

Exhibit C: Trade Wars

This just really exacerbates everything else. One of the key reasons for these long term trade deals like Nafta is that it creates a relatively fair, but almost entirely stable long term set of rules that allows companies to invest money in future production with the confidence that they will see the fruits of their investment in the future. That spending of profits on expansion is the mortar of any economy. It generates short term, usually high paying construction jobs and then longer term employment, often in areas that need it (look at the expansion of automotive production in the US south for a good example of this). Fewer new jobs means less consumer spending, which means the service/retail sectors starts to suffer almost immediately. To make matters even worse, the prices of just about everything goes up because of tariffs and large chunks of their economy are basically landlocked so the already relatively small domestic consumer base they have the ability to sell to, is getting smaller and poorer by the day.

Exhibit D: Stock Market

The stock market is not the economy. Something in the range of 15% of all Americans even own a publicly traded equity, so it really and truly is only a measure of the wealth for the wealthy. It is however a pretty decent barometer for the sentiment of big/smart money within the economy. It is prone to over reacting in both directions to current economic sentiment but again, it does a good job of letting us know what big/smart money thinks is going to happen in the future. Well, the DOW is down 2000 points since January.


So yeah, unless if all of this nonsense turns around, Trump isn't winning anything. He's almost historically unpopular at this point in his presidency with an economy that is slowly turning against him. think people over estimating the support that got him into the white house. It took a historically unpopular democrat with ~30 yrs of public baggage and a poorly run campaign for Trump to sneak into office by about 85,000 votes almost perfectly placed. He's done nothing to endear himself to the masses since and his numbers show it. Disapproval is up 10% since he barely took office and approval is down 5%. That all occurred while he was riding a booming economy and taking credit for it at every turn.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 05, 2018, 15:35:42
Obama's economy was crap.Plenty of work to be had since Trump took office.Tariffs with China may slow things down unless he reverses himself.
As for 2020,the only thing stopping Trump is Trump.The dem's may run Berni the socialist millionaire.I don't see a Republican that could run against Trump.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 05, 2018, 15:48:15
Obama's economy was crap.Plenty of work to be had since Trump took office.Tariffs with China may slow things down unless he reverses himself.
As for 2020,the only thing stopping Trump is Trump.The dem's may run Berni the socialist millionaire.I don't see a Republican that could run against Trump.
https://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/trumps-economy-looks-just-like-obamas-except-for-one-important-thing/

Quote
So with the first anniversary of Trump’s inauguration nearly here, it’s a good time to examine whether America really is experiencing the greatest economic revival in its history?


The answer, in a word, is no.

That’s because there was nothing to recover from. Jobs, stocks and GDP are rising under Trump, just as they did under Obama. In fact, by almost every measure, the performance of the economy under Trump is indistinguishable from Obama’s second term—save for one important metric that was disappointingly weak under Obama: business investment.


Uh huh.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on July 05, 2018, 15:52:13
To figure out President Trump's chances of winning the 2020 election you would have to consider his opponent. Right now there isn't one so predictions of a loss are just wishful thinking.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 05, 2018, 15:53:48
To figure out President Trump's chances of winning the 2020 election you would have to consider his opponent. Right now there isn't one so predictions of a loss are just wishful thinking.
Very true.

However, if the economy turns on him, and it's beginning to look like it might, he's going to have a mighty hard time winning, regardless of opponent.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 05, 2018, 20:35:25
>It's ironic, because what was the right but a faux outrage machine during the Obama years?

All of the examples you linked are of faux outrage directed at Obama.  I'll stipulate in advance that faux outrage was directed at Harry Reid, at Nancy Pelosi, at various White House staff, etc.  But my recollection of who were the targets of outrage and the intensity of that outrage during those 8 years does not equate to the fanatical level of ill feeling and calls for action and harassment being directed at many public figures - and some not particularly public figures - showing a measure of Trump rah-rah.

Politics is cyclical.  The Democratic party is having its own Tea Party moment.  It won't be as orderly and generally productive as the Republicans' was (at least in its initial months).  They might shift the mix of sub-factions within the House, and might do so without significantly altering the party balance (ie. moderate Democrats replaced by less moderate Democrats in districts that never had a prayer of going Republican); I doubt they'll have much effect on the Democratic mix in the Senate.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Journeyman on July 05, 2018, 22:52:31
The Democratic party is having its own Tea Party moment.  It won't be as orderly and generally productive as the Republicans....
Agree, whole-heartedly.  It's all part of the 'catering to the extremes' polarizing politics. 

And it's not remotely an exclusively American event.   :not-again:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Infanteer on July 06, 2018, 07:10:39
Obama's economy was crap.Plenty of work to be had since Trump took office.Tariffs with China may slow things down unless he reverses himself.

This is an argument that I hear a lot, but I haven't figured out why this has been stated.  I tried doing a bit of research into this myself last year, and I collected some raw data on three key economic indices (no fake news numbers here - this is World Bank data).  I found historic data for total US market capitalization, for Dow Jones Industrial Average, and S&P 500 average.  I updated my work, which took numbers starting from just before Obama's Jan 2009 inauguration, the first of each year, the 2016 election day, and today's data.  I attached the excel doc I used to collate the numbers.

Key findings for me are:

1.  The "Trump Bump" was real.  All US markets made significant, real absolute gain from election day 2016 and beyond - undoubtedly enthusiasm for a perceived business/investor-friendly administration.  However, since the beginning of 2018, there has been no additional growth.

2.  Under the Obama Administration, US markets grew steadily each year except 2015.  In fact, total U.S. market capitalization grew greatest in both absolute terms ($5.37 Trillion) and as a percentage (29-30%) in 2014, with 2009 being very close.  Although the DJI and S&P had greater absolute growth in 2017, growth as a percentage for these key markets was just as great (DJI) or greater (S&P) in 2014.

3.  When viewed as a whole, the data shows that U.S. markets have made steady (save 2015) and consistent growth since coming out of the Recession of 2008.  Market growth saw bumper growth in both the Obama (2009, 2014) and Trump (2017) administrations.

This tells me that markets prospered under the Obama administration, that optimism was even higher with the election of the Trump administration, but that the last 6 months have seen a leveling off with all three indices that I tracked.   

So, can someone explain to my first-year macro-econ trained brain how "Obama's economy was crap?"
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Infanteer on July 06, 2018, 07:20:28
So yeah, unless if all of this nonsense turns around, Trump isn't winning anything. He's almost historically unpopular at this point in his presidency with an economy that is slowly turning against him. think people over estimating the support that got him into the white house. It took a historically unpopular democrat with ~30 yrs of public baggage and a poorly run campaign for Trump to sneak into office by about 85,000 votes almost perfectly placed. He's done nothing to endear himself to the masses since and his numbers show it. Disapproval is up 10% since he barely took office and approval is down 5%. That all occurred while he was riding a booming economy and taking credit for it at every turn.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/the-democratic-party-hits-a-fork-in-the-road/564464/

An interesting look at the decision the Democrats need to make after November.  Do they go with a "re-assurer" to try and bring Obama's coalition back and get some disaffected folks who voted Trump in 2016, or do they go with a "mobilizer" to try and bring all the less-consistent millennial groups out there?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on July 06, 2018, 08:03:10
Obama's economy was crap.Plenty of work to be had since Trump took office.

Lots of work - but stagnant wages and no job security, as suggested by this analysis of a recent OECD report....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/07/04/is-it-great-to-be-a-worker-in-the-u-s-not-compared-to-the-rest-of-the-developed-world/?utm_term=.e16fec56d32b (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/07/04/is-it-great-to-be-a-worker-in-the-u-s-not-compared-to-the-rest-of-the-developed-world/?utm_term=.e16fec56d32b)

Quote
Is it great to be a worker in the U.S.? Not compared with the rest of the developed world.
By Andrew Van Dam
July 4

The U.S. labor market is hot. Unemployment is at 3.8 percent, a level it’s hit only once since the 1960s, and many industries report deep labor shortages. Old theories of what’s wrong with the labor market — such as a lack of people with necessary skills — are dying fast. Earnings are beginning to pick up, and the Federal Reserve envisions a steady regimen of rate hikes.

So why does a large subset of workers continue to feel left behind? We can find some clues in a new 296-page report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a club of advanced and advancing nations that has long been a top source for international economic data and research. Most of the figures are from 2016 or before, but they reflect underlying features of the economies analyzed that continue today.

In particular, the report shows the United States’s unemployed and at-risk workers are getting very little support from the government, and their employed peers are set back by a particularly weak collective-bargaining system.

Those factors have contributed to the United States having a higher level of income inequality and a larger share of low-income residents than almost any other advanced nation. Only Spain and Greece, whose economies have been ravaged by the euro-zone crisis, have more households earning less than half the nation’s median income — an indicator that unusually large numbers of people either are poor or close to being poor.

 
Joblessness may be low in the United States and employers may be hungry for new hires, but it’s also strikingly easy to lose a job here. An average of 1 in 5 employees lose or leave their jobs each year, and 23.3 percent of workers ages 15 to 64 had been in their job for a year or less in 2016 — higher than all but a handful of countries in the study.

If people are moving to better jobs, labor-market churn can be a healthy sign. But decade-old OECD research found an unusually large amount of job turnover in the United States is due to firing and layoffs, and Labor Department figures show the rate of layoffs and firings hasn’t changed significantly since the research was conducted.

The United States and Mexico are the only countries in the entire study that don't require any advance notice for individual firings. The U.S. ranks at the bottom for employee protection even when mass layoffs are taken into consideration as well, despite the 1988 Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act's requirement that employers give notice 60 days before major plant closings or layoffs.

 
When you lose your job in the United States, it’s harder to find another. Fewer than half of displaced workers find a job within a year, the researchers found. That puts the United States near the bottom of the five countries for which the researchers provided recent data. Japan’s rate was similar to the U.S., but Finland, Australia and Denmark were well ahead. Furthermore, the report’s authors find that “two in three families with a displaced worker fall into poverty for some time.”

Even when Americans do find another job, their earnings don’t recover. After four years, displaced workers are still about 6 percent behind their peers in terms of annual earnings. In countries such as Finland and Denmark, workers more or less recover completely over that time period.

These gaps at the lower end of the labor market can be traced back to weak government programs and hamstrung union bargaining, the report says. The United States spends less of its economic wealth on active efforts to help people who either don’t have a job or who are at risk of becoming unemployed than almost any other country in the study.

The unemployed, in particular, receive relatively little assistance. U.S. unemployment benefits provide less support in the first year of unemployment than those in any other country in the study, and the maximum length of benefits in a typical U.S. state, 26 weeks, is shorter than in all but a handful of countries. In some states, the maximum benefit length is less than half of that.

 
Only 12 percent of U.S. workers were covered by collective bargaining in 2016 — among all the nations the OECD tracks, only Turkey, Lithuania and South Korea have been lower at any point this millennium. Based on an OECD review of almost four decades of data, countries that have decentralized collective-bargaining systems, like the United States, tend to have slower job growth and, in most cases, higher unemployment than other advanced nations.

These collective bargaining and government support systems might have something to do with another report finding as well: Workers’ share of national income dropped about eight percentage points between 1995 and 2013, faster than anywhere but Poland and South Korea over that time.

The report itself is avaailable here:

http://www.oecd.org/employment/oecd-employment-outlook-19991266.htm (http://www.oecd.org/employment/oecd-employment-outlook-19991266.htm)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 06, 2018, 15:36:03
>This tells me that markets prospered under the Obama administration, that optimism was even higher with the election of the Trump administration, but that the last 6 months have seen a leveling off with all three indices that I tracked.   

>So, can someone explain to my first-year macro-econ trained brain how "Obama's economy was crap?"

Historically the US economy has recovered after every recession and established new high watermarks for those kinds of measurements (indices, equity, capital, GDP, etc).  During the Obama administration, supporters were fond of pointing out how much improvement occurred - as measured from the depth of the recessionary trough, which was extraordinarily deep.  They also relentlessly focused on the U-3 unemployment number (what most people think of as the customary measure of unemployment) without taking into consideration people no longer actively looking (eg. U-4).  (A rule of thumb I picked up from reading what economists had to say: in any recession longer than 6 months, you need to start paying attention to the U-4 and not just the U-3 because people out of work longer than 6 months have more trouble getting re-hired if they do start looking.)  I was never impressed by Obama's cheerleaders claims, because I was always comparing measurements to where things were immediately pre-recession and taking into account that if you start from a very low point, any improvement looks good.  For example, the last 3 US federal deficit numbers prior to the recession ('05, '06, '07) were (nominal dollars) $318B, $248B, $161B.  How does the recovery and post-recovery fiscal picture look when that is part of the context?

Useful questions to ask are: has recovery reached the pre-recession numbers; how long did it take (at what rate did numbers improve); have the pre-recession trends (rates of change) re-established, or are the rates faster or slower?  Also, you could look at labour force participation numbers, federal government's fiscal picture including revenues, expenses, and the "trust fund" solvencies.

In my experience the "Obama economy was crap" criticism was most often founded on the unusually slow pace of recovery.  Labour force participation and federal government fiscal health were also often mentioned.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 07, 2018, 23:20:00
Don't panic yet, it is still early.


How about now?

Looks like Trump got played.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/07/what-now-pompeo-exits-north-korea-emptyhanded-leaving-us-with-three-options-all-them-bad.html

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 08, 2018, 00:39:28
Every President that dealt with the North got played.As for Trump he never gave in on sanctions and the recent tariffs on China I think are to force them to lean on North Korea. Pressure is the only thing the North understands.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 08, 2018, 00:54:36
Every President that dealt with the North got played.As for Trump he never gave in on sanctions and the recent tariffs on China I think are to force them to lean on North Korea. Pressure is the only thing the North understands.


Except this one actually agreed to meet with him.  No other president gave NK that legitimacy they wanted. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on July 08, 2018, 01:53:02

Except this one actually agreed to meet with him.  No other president gave NK that legitimacy they wanted.
Not meeting with NK wasn't working. The Democrats demanded diplomacy when Trump used some pretty harsh rhetoric and threats, but now diplomacy wasn't the right way?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 08, 2018, 09:35:10
Not meeting with NK wasn't working. The Democrats demanded diplomacy when Trump used some pretty harsh rhetoric and threats, but now diplomacy wasn't the right way?

I think they wanted actual diplomacy.  Not a photo op that legitimises the NK leader.  Kim obviously read the art of the deal and knew that flattery would work. 

Hard to do I guess when the President gutted his state department and still doesn’t have an ambassador to South Korea.

Democrats and republicans alike were warning this was going to happen.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 08, 2018, 10:57:04


Except this one actually agreed to meet with him.  No other president gave NK that legitimacy they wanted.

Honest question how is meeting with Trump giving him legitimacy?  Was he not considered the president before because no one wanted to meet with him?

Does it make him more powerful to his own people? It seems like he has an iron grip on them already.


Diplomacy doesn't work so take out their ability to make WMDs.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on July 08, 2018, 13:41:29
Just a thought from the world of cartoons

(https://assets.amuniversal.com/c28ecb90468f0136375b005056a9545d)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 08, 2018, 13:49:05
Honest question how is meeting with Trump giving him legitimacy?  Was he not considered the president before because no one wanted to meet with him?

Does it make him more powerful to his own people? It seems like he has an iron grip on them already.


Diplomacy doesn't work so take out their ability to make WMDs.

This article from CNN explains it quite well.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/asia/kim-family-trump-summit-intl/index.html


Basically he wants to solidify his regime, buy time and show world that his regime is legitimate.

Trump fell for it. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 08, 2018, 14:45:08
This article from CNN explains it quite well.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/asia/kim-family-trump-summit-intl/index.html


Basically he wants to solidify his regime, buy time and show world that his regime is legitimate.

Trump fell for it.

But his regime is legitimate, in the sense that he has a solid grip on power in North Korea.

He may be an odious, tryannical  beast of a human being, but I don't think too many people question who is in charge up there.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 08, 2018, 15:14:36
But his regime is legitimate, in the sense that he has a solid grip on power in North Korea.

He may be an odious, tryannical  beast of a human being, but I don't think too many people question who is in charge up there.

Being in charge does not equate to legitimacy.  On the international stage NK is isolated with limited trade and diplomatic relations. 

Meeting with the Trump gave them a perception of more legitimacy. It's what they wanted and what they got.  He got the US to stop their exercise, got them to pull more troops from Seoul and a beautiful photo op and Trump saying wonderful things about Kim and bought more time.  The US got nothing in return. 

What was touted as one of his signature accomplishments will likely go down as a blunder. 

Remember that the DKPR thinks it is the legitimate government of all of the Koreas.

Sorry guys, you can't sugar coat this or brush it off as nothing. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on July 08, 2018, 15:15:36
But his regime is legitimate, in the sense that he has a solid grip on power in North Korea.

He may be an odious, tryannical  beast of a human being, but I don't think too many people question who is in charge up there.

The same was true of the Taliban.....and ISIS in its caliphate
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 08, 2018, 15:17:43
The same was true of the Taliban.....and ISIS in its caliphate

Or Castro, or Mugabe etc etc
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 08, 2018, 16:27:50
Being in charge does not equate to legitimacy.  On the international stage NK is isolated with limited trade and diplomatic relations. 

Meeting with the Trump gave them a perception of more legitimacy. It's what they wanted and what they got.  He got the US to stop their exercise, got them to pull more troops from Seoul and a beautiful photo op and Trump saying wonderful things about Kim and bought more time.  The US got nothing in return. 

What was touted as one of his signature accomplishments will likely go down as a blunder. 

Remember that the DKPR thinks it is the legitimate government of all of the Koreas.

Sorry guys, you can't sugar coat this or brush it off as nothing.

Who said I was sugar coating anything? Re-read what I wrote.

If one intends on negotiating with North Korea, I am simply positing that one has no choice but to negotiate with Kim.

I make no comment on how effective this round on negotiations has been.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on July 08, 2018, 20:52:19
According to rumours President Trump is not a legitimate president in the view of much of the world. Then how can he giving legitimacy to a regime if he is not legitimate himself?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 08, 2018, 20:59:54
Quote from: Remius

This article from CNN explains it quite well.



I read the article, thanks for taking the time to find and post it.

I'm still left with the question of "so what?".

While I don't think the meeting actually afforded him any legitimacy let's say it does. So what?  Nothing changed in his regime. He's still a tyrant that revels in bs stories like him flying planes and all the other propaganda.
Does it change his prestige on the world stage? Not at all. If anything he looks like even more of a dick.

US presidents have been kicking the North Korea can down the road for how many years? 65 years?
Sanction after sanction and they're only getting more dangerous.
Trump gets elected and has some harsh talk for Korea and what are people's response? Panic. They accuse him of starting ww3.
Trump changes tact, meets with him, officers some crap up and how do people react? Trump's weak and a horrible negotiator.
North Korea **ucks off their end of the deal and how to people react? Criticism and ridicule for Trump.

Personally I think the US is in a better position now than they have ever been. They made concessions and NK blew smoke in their face. US is in a stronger position to roll in and use force.

If you ask me about crap that shouldn't have been offered to the North Koreans its letting them attend the Olympics.  31 years ago an agent from NK put a bomb on a plane murdering 115 passengers in a bid to stop the Olympics.  Crazy.






According to rumours President Trump is not a legitimate president in the view of much of the world. Then how can he giving legitimacy to a regime if he is not legitimate himself?

 :rofl:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 08, 2018, 21:56:41

The problem is that NK wants to also be treated as a legitimate nuclear power.  Buying time and and having Trump play up to this helped their cause.

It could be that now the only option is one of force.  And that will be a bloody mess.

Oh and good luck getting any support given the way he’s dropping allies. 

Trump said he would know in the first five minutes how to read Kim. How did that work out?

Kim is in a much stronger position now and the US has egg on its face. 

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 09, 2018, 01:04:02

Sorry guys, you can't sugar coat this or brush it off as nothing.

Nor can you just pull out a magic eight ball and make definitive statements without being involved or know what the future will bring. Speculation doesn't  mean right, it's simply your individual thoughts

I'm just spitballin' here, but I don't think Trump's team puts much credence in your points.

People just can't stand the fact that he might be doing something right. You are entitled to your thoughts, but I think I'll wait for the results before trying to decide whether his initiative was worth it or not. Or who did what. On the diplomatic front, you can't make a judgement from one meeting of the leaders. Sometimes these things take years.

At least he's trying to move things forward as opposed to the likes of Obama paying blackmail money to Kim and doing nothing.


Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 09, 2018, 09:18:58
I'm just spitballin' here, but I don't think Trump's team puts much credence in your points.

People just can't stand the fact that he might be doing something right. You are entitled to your thoughts, but I think I'll wait for the results before trying to decide whether his initiative was worth it or not. Or who did what. On the diplomatic front, you can't make a judgement from one meeting of the leaders. Sometimes these things take years.

At least he's trying to move things forward as opposed to the likes of Obama paying blackmail money to Kim and doing nothing.

You mean Trump doesn't come here and read my opinions or thoughts?  Wow, I'm hurt.  ::)

Blackmail money?  I'm curious what that would be.  No argument here that previous guys have not really done much.  I just think that Trump has accelerated things in the wrong direction.

Actually I was a supporter of his get tougher approach to NK.  I'm even in favour of him taking a diplomatic approach.  But this was Diplomacy by Trump.  Personality driven with little to show for.  Photo ops and propaganda for Kim.

There is a reason Presidents don't start negotiations themselves.  But now for better or for ill he is the face of this.

And yes it can take years.  Kim is banking on that...
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on July 09, 2018, 10:49:46
People just can't stand the fact that he might be doing something right. You are entitled to your thoughts, but I think I'll wait for the results before trying to decide whether his initiative was worth it or not. Or who did what. On the diplomatic front, you can't make a judgement from one meeting of the leaders. Sometimes these things take years.

That sounds entirely reasonable.

How about we apply this new approach to discussions in threads about Canadian politics....
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 09, 2018, 12:28:23
That sounds entirely reasonable.

How about we apply this new approach to discussions in threads about Canadian politics....
:rofl:

Wouldn't that be something.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 09, 2018, 18:42:26
That sounds entirely reasonable.

How about we apply this new approach to discussions in threads about Canadian politics....

Sure, no problem. Still, I doubt it'll give you the clarity you wish. People being people, I doubt it's possible.

Besides, sometimes a trainwreck, especially with our PM, tends to happen quickly and is often over quickly. No long term observation required. Same thing stateside

I can't seem to equate Trudeau's groping and lying to international peace talks though.

That, and if we want to have a contest on which leader is the biggest clown, one only need look to Trump in Singapore and Trudeau in India for comparison.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 09, 2018, 19:40:17
The DPRK has all the legitimacy it needs, courtesy of its membership in the UN - at least to everyone who believes the UN is a primary font of legitimacy for all things international.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Thucydides on July 12, 2018, 17:59:19
President Trump continues to effect change in the domestic front, in this case he is working to reform the US Bureaucracy:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/under-new-management-trumps-fresh-eyes-sparks-massive-federal-reform

Quote
Under New Management: Trump's ‘fresh eyes’ sparks massive federal reform
by Paul Bedard
July 09, 2018 09:09 AM

President Trump is taking charge of his administration’s effort to reform the federal government and workforce, the biggest demonstration yet that Washington is under new management.

Aides describe the president as personally invested in the 32-point plan to shake the bureaucracy out of a 1950s model based on secretarial pools.

“So much of the ability to drive change requires a fresh perspective,” said Margaret Weichert, an author of the recently announced reform blueprint and deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget.

“It’s frequently why I, as a management consultant, was brought into an organization to consult on issues like this because fresh eyes and people who don’t have a stake in the status quo very often can see things differently than the people who are of that organization or institution. And that was a major theme in the last election, that people were effectively hiring a businessman to try to change business as usual in Washington,” she said in an interview.

Trimming and reeducating the workforce, combining federal agencies and eliminating overlapping services won’t be easy and Trump’s team are bracing for a bruising fight with bureaucrats, federal employee unions and lawmakers.

But it is one that Trump is approaching like he did many of his business challenges, setting the overall goals and then promoting them.

“He gets involved in the high level conceptual framing of it and then when we pull together the proposals,” said Weichert.

[snip]

“We are serious about top down change. It cannot all happen at once, it can’t certainly happen by fiat, but when you look at where we are at in 2018 two decades into the 21st century and you pair that with a bureaucratic infrastructure that was very well aligned to the needs of the post-World War II era, it’s so clear there’s a mismatch,” said Weichert, adding, “If now isn’t the time to get traction on this, I don’t know when is. We have to get serious about making change happen.”

Legislation has already been introduced to begin making Trump’s reforms, headlined by a plan to revamp the federal workforce, reform IT and add automation, and combine the Education and Labor departments so that schools can focus more on filling the nation’s skills gap like some European school systems do.

Changing the bureaucracy is likely the biggest challenge any Administration will ever face, so it will be interesting to see the process and the results.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 12, 2018, 19:49:11
Trump in the UK.I guess he meets the Queen tomorrow.The Sun has a nice photo spread

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6760773/donald-trump-slams-theresa-mays-chequers-plan-for-brexit-saying-i-dont-know-if-thats-what-they-voted-for/
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Blackadder1916 on July 12, 2018, 21:55:31

He only got there today?  I'm sure that I saw photos of him in London days ago . . . . .



(https://secretldn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Trump-baby-2-1024x1024.jpg)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Colin P on July 13, 2018, 14:00:33
Nice stunt for a media masturbation fest. I chuckle at the idea Trump has made the NK situation worse, the experts allowed NK nuke program to proceed mostly unhindered, did little when the NK sunk a SK patrol vessel, shelling inhabited islands, along with decades of other misadventures. Kim's antics at the border were between the SK leader and Kim, that was SK doing what SK thought best. If NK fails to follow through with the agreement, I suspect your going to see a major squeeze on NK and possible some peripheral military action (taking out a sub, remote outposts, etc) if required.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 13, 2018, 16:46:26
He only got there today?  I'm sure that I saw photos of him in London days ago . . . . .



(https://secretldn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Trump-baby-2-1024x1024.jpg)

$30'000 to fly that bad boy 20 feet off the ground for 2 hours lol
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: beirnini on July 17, 2018, 08:16:45
Let's see if we can avoid criticizing the messenger and address the message (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/maddow-time-for-americans-to-face-worst-case-scenario-on-trump-1278891587866?v=b), shall we?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Good2Golf on July 17, 2018, 08:53:06
Because this doesn’t fit into the “US Presidency 2018” thread? ???
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 17, 2018, 09:43:05
Rachael Maddow AND Maxine Waters?

Why would anyone criticize those messengers lol
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: RomeoJuliet on July 17, 2018, 10:08:20
Curious to know what professed Trump supporters have to say about his (some say treasonous) comments yesterday about Russia and his own intelligence agencies.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 10:20:16
Curious to know what professed Trump supporters have to say about his (some say treasonous) comments yesterday about Russia and his own intelligence agencies.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I just know what they would have said had Obama said the exact same thing. He would be selling out America, weak, a coward and a traitor.

Somehow the current President is a hero.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 17, 2018, 10:38:26
I just know what they would have said had Obama said the exact same thing. He would be selling out America, weak, a coward and a traitor.

Somehow the current President is a hero.

"Wait and see" seems to be the current thing. 

Putin got exactly what he wanted.  A President not willing to call him on anything.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 17, 2018, 10:58:52
Traitor for trying to make the US safer ?Reprehensible comments.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on July 17, 2018, 11:10:12
"Wait and see" seems to be the current thing. 

Putin got exactly what he wanted.  A President not willing to call him on anything.
Putin got called out for years by the international community, hasn't changed a thing he does. I somehow think Putin will do what he wants whether the US President is on board or not.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: RomeoJuliet on July 17, 2018, 11:10:40
Traitor for trying to make the US safer ?Reprehensible comments.
‘Former US intelligence chiefs expressed astonishment and condemnation Monday in response to President Donald Trump's comments at Monday's news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, with former CIA Director John Brennan calling the US President's performance "nothing short of treasonous."

‘’John McCain, the ailing Arizona senator and one of the party’s leading voices on national security, delivered perhaps the harshest rebuke, calling the press conference “one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory”.


trea·son
ˈtrēzən
noun
the crime of betraying one's country



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 17, 2018, 11:11:51
Putin got called out for years by the international community, hasn't changed a thing he does. I somehow think Putin will do what he wants whether the US President is on board or not.

Sure, except now he has an ally in Trump.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on July 17, 2018, 11:20:31
‘Former US intelligence chiefs expressed astonishment and condemnation Monday in response to President Donald Trump's comments at Monday's news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, with former CIA Director John Brennan calling the US President's performance "nothing short of treasonous."

‘’John McCain, the ailing Arizona senator and one of the party’s leading voices on national security, delivered perhaps the harshest rebuke, calling the press conference “one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory”.


trea·son
ˈtrēzən
noun
the crime of betraying one's country



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your dictionary definition of treason just doesn't cut it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/07/17/treason-in-helsinki-it-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.f9bfe5ef39a4 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/07/17/treason-in-helsinki-it-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.f9bfe5ef39a4)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 17, 2018, 11:24:03
Your dictionary definition of treason just doesn't cut it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/07/17/treason-in-helsinki-it-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.f9bfe5ef39a4 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/07/17/treason-in-helsinki-it-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.f9bfe5ef39a4)

Very true.  I'll stick to what they also said in the Washington Post article you just linked.

"Groveling in front of a foreign leader, putting the interests of a foreign country ahead of the United States, displaying horrific judgment in foreign policy — none of those things are treason"  not treason no.  But still very very wrong.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: RomeoJuliet on July 17, 2018, 11:25:56
Your dictionary definition of treason just doesn't cut it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/07/17/treason-in-helsinki-it-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.f9bfe5ef39a4 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/07/17/treason-in-helsinki-it-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.f9bfe5ef39a4)
Why thank you for another dictionary definition link.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on July 17, 2018, 11:28:11
Why thank you for another dictionary definition link.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's US law, not a dictionary definition, 18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: RomeoJuliet on July 17, 2018, 11:29:04
It's US law, not a dictionary definition, 18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason.
Thanks again for the knowledge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 17, 2018, 11:46:12
‘Former US intelligence chiefs expressed astonishment and condemnation Monday in response to President Donald Trump's comments at Monday's news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, with former CIA Director John Brennan calling the US President's performance "nothing short of treasonous."

‘’John McCain, the ailing Arizona senator and one of the party’s leading voices on national security, delivered perhaps the harshest rebuke, calling the press conference “one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory”.

McCain forgot the US President that gave easrern Europe to the Russians,wasnt that FDR ?




Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 11:50:02
Traitor for trying to make the US safer ?Reprehensible comments.
What would you have said if Obama sided with a foreign leader over US intelligence agencies?

I don't think you would have been so praiseworthy.

Now while this isn't you per se, Obama was raked over the coals for bowing to a foreign leader as a way of greeting.

Obama was accused of having a apology tour

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124044156269345357

Quote
There is something ungracious in Mr. Obama criticizing his predecessors, including most recently John F. Kennedy. ("I'm grateful that President [Daniel] Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old," Mr. Obama said after the Nicaraguan delivered a 52-minute anti-American tirade that touched on the Bay of Pigs.) Mr. Obama acts as if no past president -- except maybe Abraham Lincoln -- possesses his wisdom.

Mr. Obama was asked in Europe if he believes in American exceptionalism. He said he did -- in the same way that "the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks in Greek exceptionalism." That's another way of saying, "No."

Mr. Obama makes it seem as though there is moral equivalence between America and its adversaries and assumes that if he confesses America's sins, other nations will confess theirs and change. But he won no confessions (let alone change) from the leaders of Venezuela, Nicaragua or Russia. He apologized for America and our adversaries rejoiced. Fidel Castro isn't easing up on Cuban repression, but he is preparing to take advantage of Mr. Obama's policy shifts.

Yet here is the President of the united states siding with the same russian dictator who meddled in US elections, over his own security agencies and his political party that all concluded that Russia tried to meddle in the US election

Make no mistake, Obama would have been destroyed for doing what the current president just did, and I have no doubts that words like traitor and being weak on russia would have been among the kinder things Obama haters would have been saying.

Yet the current president is a hero.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 17, 2018, 12:02:04
Obama was a Russian loving lefty so the media left him alone.Senator Ted Kennedy sent a letter to Yuri Andropov which probably treasonous but he too was a leftist.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 12:06:08
Obama was a Russian loving lefty so the media left him alone.Senator Ted Kennedy sent a letter to Yuri Andropov which probably treasonous but he too was a leftist.
Obama was supposedly a Russian loving lefty, yet here the current president decides to love Putin more than his own intelligence agencies and political party, yet, to his supporters, he's a hero.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Good2Golf on July 17, 2018, 12:28:28
Obama was a Russian loving lefty so the media left him alone...

Honest educational question here, what acts, or lack thereof, represent Obama's 'love for' or 'weakness against' Russia?  He signed the Magnitsky Act into law, for example, which put in place measures to formally sanction Russian officials complicit in the death of Russian whistleblower accountant Sergei Magnitsky and other corruptive activities globally.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 12:33:41
REPORTER, AP: President Trump, you first. Just now, President Putin denied having anything to do with the election interference in 2016. Every U.S. intelligence agency has concluded that Russia did. My first question for you sir is, who do you believe? My second question is would you now, with the whole world watching, tell President Putin, would you denounce what happened in 2016 and would you want him to never do it again?

TRUMP: So let me just say that we have two thoughts. You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server. Why haven't they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee?

I've been wondering that. I've been asking that for months and months and I've been tweeting it out and calling it out on social media. Where is the server? I want to know where is the server and what is the server saying?

With that being said, all I can do is ask the question.

My people came to me, Dan Coates, came to me and some others they said they think it's Russia. I have President Putin. He just said it's not Russia.

I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be. But I really do want to see the server but I have, I have confidence in both parties.

I really believe that this will probably go on for a while but I don't think it can go on without finding out what happened to the server. What happened to the servers of the Pakistani gentleman that worked on the DNC?

Where are those servers? They're missing. Where are they? What happened to Hillary Clinton's emails? 33,000 emails gone, just gone. I think in Russia they wouldn't be gone so easily.

I think it's a disgrace that we can't get Hillary Clinton's thirty three thousand e-mails.

I have great confidence in my intelligence people but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today and what he did is an incredible offer.

He offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators, with respect to the 12 people. I think that's an incredible offer. Ok? Thank you.







Everywhere the current President decided to side with Putin and Russia, over America...in just over minute of a 40 minute press conference.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 17, 2018, 12:38:06
Probably just like Canada the media carries the torch of the Democrat Party.They spout their agenda and are 24/7 against Trump Obama never got this type of scrutiny if he had he wouldn't have been elected.But with the hysteria by the Republican #neverTrumpers and democrats will play into Trumps hands for his re-election.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 17, 2018, 12:39:50
Here is an opinion piece  from a Russian journalist posted in the NY Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/opinion/putin-trump-meeting-helsinki.html

Basically it posits this as a big win for Putin who made it seem like he was running things.  I'm pretty sure he was.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 17, 2018, 12:40:56
Probably just like Canada the media carries the torch of the Democrat Party.They spout their agenda and are 24/7 against Trump Obama never got this type of scrutiny if he had he wouldn't have been elected.But with the hysteria by the Republican #neverTrumpers and democrats will play into Trumps hands for his re-election.

I didn't think that Newt Gingrich was in any of those camps...
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 13:02:06
Probably just like Canada the media carries the torch of the Democrat Party.They spout their agenda and are 24/7 against Trump Obama never got this type of scrutiny if he had he wouldn't have been elected.But with the hysteria by the Republican #neverTrumpers and democrats will play into Trumps hands for his re-election.
Yes, throwing American institutions under the bus and siding with Russia will play well for his reelection.

How it serves America in the least is another question...
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 17, 2018, 13:04:13
Trump in the UK.I guess he meets the Queen tomorrow.The Sun has a nice photo spread

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6760773/donald-trump-slams-theresa-mays-chequers-plan-for-brexit-saying-i-dont-know-if-thats-what-they-voted-for/

My God. I thought unbiased reporting by the MSM was dead. Finally, an article that presents what exactly is happening, without opinion, leaving the reader to decide. I hope this is a turning point. No vitriol, jingoism, lies or bullshit.

Man, that was a refreshing article.

Thanks for posting it Tomahawk.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 13:09:30
I didn't think that Newt Gingrich was in any of those camps...
Newt Gingrich is part of the deep state and leftist media opposed to this president.

Please keep up.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Good2Golf on July 17, 2018, 13:30:08
Honest educational question here, what acts, or lack thereof, represent Obama's 'love for' or 'weakness against' Russia?  He signed the Magnitsky Act into law, for example, which put in place measures to formally sanction Russian officials complicit in the death of Russian whistleblower accountant Sergei Magnitsky and other corruptive activities globally.

Regards
G2G

Not sure if the following was a response to my earlier question.  If yes, I guess I'll stop asking to be educated/informed by those in-country. 

Probably just like Canada the media carries the torch of the Democrat Party.They spout their agenda and are 24/7 against Trump Obama never got this type of scrutiny if he had he wouldn't have been elected.But with the hysteria by the Republican #neverTrumpers and democrats will play into Trumps hands for his re-election.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on July 17, 2018, 13:31:52
It's not so much the fact that the current president is not competent in representing his whole country's interests, much less be the senior statesman of the western democracies, but that there are so many lemmings who happily continue to follow him off the cliff.

It's quite sad to watch, actually. When he's finally gone, the divisions within the country will nonetheless continue to grow and fester. It's a bit like being there watching the beginning of the decline of the Roman empire.

 :'(
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 17, 2018, 14:04:52
What you don't get is that the divide is conservative vs liberal look at a map.The Midwest is conservative and both costs are liberal.The major cities are blue. They are hurting for money but they want to give each citizen $500 a month.Where will that money come from ?Without over taxing people it isn't sustainable then people will move.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 14:11:03
What you don't get is that the divide is conservative vs liberal look at a map.The Midwest is conservative and both costs are liberal.The major cities are blue. They are hurting for money but they want to give each citizen $500 a month.Where will that money come from ?Without over taxing people it isn't sustainable then people will move.
what does that have to do with the president deciding to side with Russia over his fellow Americans, his intelligence agencies and his own political party?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Infanteer on July 17, 2018, 14:21:47
My God. I thought unbiased reporting by the MSM was dead. Finally, an article that presents what exactly is happening, without opinion, leaving the reader to decide. I hope this is a turning point. No vitriol, jingoism, lies or bullshit.

Its not really hard to find, just read the stuff in the centre of the green square. (http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/)

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 17, 2018, 14:22:50
The ones trashing Trump ARE leftists. Here chew on this.


https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/02/rosenstein-on-russian-indictment-no-american-was-knowing-participant-no-allegation-altered-the-outcome-of-the-2016-election/
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 17, 2018, 14:38:43
The ones trashing Trump ARE leftists. Here chew on this.


https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/02/rosenstein-on-russian-indictment-no-american-was-knowing-participant-no-allegation-altered-the-outcome-of-the-2016-election/

So what about the ones criticising him from the right?  Leftists as well?  Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnel etc etc?

Rand Paul seems to be the only one supporting him.  Unless I'm missing anyone.   
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 17, 2018, 14:46:05
Or how about this panel from Fox news...

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/07/17/president-trump-vladimir-putin-summit-outnumbered-agrees-trump-was-not-tough-enough

Leftists for criticising Trump?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 17, 2018, 14:49:28
Ever hear of #nevertrumpers ?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 14:52:11
Ever hear of #nevertrumpers ?
Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnel, Newt Gingrich are never Trumpers?

Are you serious Tomahawk6?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 17, 2018, 15:02:16
Ever hear of #nevertrumpers ?

Yes.  Just not in the same sentence as all those names I posted.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 17, 2018, 15:06:45
Here is a list of the ten most prominent ones.

https://unherd.com/briefings/remember-never-never-never-trump-movement-whos-still/

None of which I named.

But I guess they make the list now.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 15:12:45
Just to recap the past few months.

The President of the United States, supposed leader of the free world, has personally attacked Justin Trudeau, Elizabeth May, Angela Merkel, the G7, NATO, China, Mexico, the WTO, and when he does so, he's a tough guy, laying down the law.

When confronted with Putin, and strong evidence of Russians attempting to meddle in the US election, and asked point blank about it, and cowers like a scolded puppy.

And him and Kim are friends, don't forget. This is America right now. Frankly, unbelievable. And it's not going to get any better.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 15:18:38
Here is a list of the ten most prominent ones.

https://unherd.com/briefings/remember-never-never-never-trump-movement-whos-still/

None of which I named.

But I guess they make the list now.
The narrative Tomahawk6 is trying to push now, along with the constant misdirection, is that there is no rational opposition to the President.

Everyone who is speaking out against him are either leftists who are biased against every action he takes, or Republican establishment types who have always been biased against him.

There is no room for those with legitimate grievances or those who support him but believe he's made a mistake.

Disagree with the President, and they are a #nevertrumper.

This is a dangerous line of thought IMHO, and Tomahawk6 sadly isn't alone in thinking like this.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 17, 2018, 15:24:02
Quote from: Altair

This is a dangerous line of thought IMHO, and Tomahawk6 sadly isn't alone in thinking like this.

Not as dangerous as wearing a MAGA hat though  :tsktsk:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 15:31:13
Not as dangerous as wearing a MAGA hat though  :tsktsk:
Misdirection or do you have a point?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 17, 2018, 15:37:16


Please keep up.

Tone please.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 17, 2018, 15:37:46
This, reproduced under the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Financial Times (https://www.ft.com/content/75fa3936-89ac-11e8-b18d-0181731a0340), which is one of the world's most influential newspapers, bears reading:

Opinion The FT View
Trump, Putin and the betrayal of America
The US president put in a shameful performance in Helsinki


Donald Trump’s press conference with Vladimir Putin this week is likely to go down as one of the signature moments of his presidency. In an appalling display, the US president refused to endorse the verdict of his own intelligence agencies that Russia had deliberately intervened in the 2016 US presidential election. Instead, he gave equal credit to the “extremely strong and powerful” denial of such interference issued by President Putin. Mr Trump followed this up with a baffling and self-serving rant against his domestic critics — name-checking all his usual foes from Hillary Clinton to the FBI.

This kind of display from Mr Trump is an embarrassment when it happens at home. Coming at a summit meeting with the Russian president, on foreign soil, it ranks as a betrayal of the American national interest.

Mr Trump has undermined his country and his office in a series of important ways. His performance in Helsinki made it absolutely clear that the US president places his own political survival and personal vanity above any belief in the rule-of-law. Just a few days earlier, Rod Rosenstein, America’s deputy attorney-general, had indicted 12 Russian agents accused of interfering in the 2016 election and had correctly pointed out that the indictments should not be a partisan issue. But this crucial point is lost on Mr Trump. Everything — including truth, the rule-of-law and the dignity of the US — is subordinated to his own partisan interests.

The president’s rambling and self-centred remarks also underlined the questions about his intellectual fitness for office. The contrast with the controlled, polished (and deeply cynical) performance of Mr Putin was painful to behold.

The Trump-Putin summit also raised troubling questions about the future of US foreign policy. Mr Trump arrived in Helsinki after combative and gaffe-strewn meetings with Nato allies and the British government. During his trip to Europe, he had described the EU as a “foe” on trade. But Mr Trump did not extend the same description to Russia, describing Mr Putin approvingly as a “good competitor”.

What Mr Trump did not say on stage was almost as troubling as his actual pronouncements. At no point did the president raise the question of Russia’s armed intervention in Ukraine; nor did he mention the novichok poisoning case in the UK; nor did he mention the fourth anniversary of the shooting down of flight MH17 by a Russian missile, resulting in the loss of 298 lives.

It is true that Mr Trump did not accept explicitly Russia’s annexation of Crimea — as some feared he might. But the two presidents also had an extended private meeting. Details of what was said there have yet to emerge.

The Trump administration generates controversy and outrage as a matter of course. So there can be no certainty that the justified shock about President Trump’s behaviour in Helsinki will last — or whether it will fade away, like just another episode in a reality television show.

But there are small encouraging signs that this time might be different. Even some of Mr Trump’s habitual defenders and enablers — such as Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives — have condemned the president’s behaviour.

Senior Republicans need now to step out of the shadow of Mr Trump — and remember their party’s honourable role in crafting the bipartisan foreign policy that saw the US through the cold war. The party of Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan should recoil at President Trump’s behaviour in Helsinki. It needs to rediscover its soul, before it is too late.

- 30 -

Now I know thatPresident Donald Trump has some supporters here on Army.ca and I'm not trying to pick a fight ... but I agree 100% with what the FT says and, I'll bet, so do many of the most politically and economically influential people in the West.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 15:38:50
Tone please.
Said in jest.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 17, 2018, 15:42:54
Said in jest.

That's how I took it.  It was more sarcasm I think. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 15:50:31
This, reproduced under the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Financial Times (https://www.ft.com/content/75fa3936-89ac-11e8-b18d-0181731a0340), which is one of the world's most influential newspapers, bears reading:

Opinion The FT View
Trump, Putin and the betrayal of America
The US president put in a shameful performance in Helsinki


Donald Trump’s press conference with Vladimir Putin this week is likely to go down as one of the signature moments of his presidency. In an appalling display, the US president refused to endorse the verdict of his own intelligence agencies that Russia had deliberately intervened in the 2016 US presidential election. Instead, he gave equal credit to the “extremely strong and powerful” denial of such interference issued by President Putin. Mr Trump followed this up with a baffling and self-serving rant against his domestic critics — name-checking all his usual foes from Hillary Clinton to the FBI.

This kind of display from Mr Trump is an embarrassment when it happens at home. Coming at a summit meeting with the Russian president, on foreign soil, it ranks as a betrayal of the American national interest.

Mr Trump has undermined his country and his office in a series of important ways. His performance in Helsinki made it absolutely clear that the US president places his own political survival and personal vanity above any belief in the rule-of-law. Just a few days earlier, Rod Rosenstein, America’s deputy attorney-general, had indicted 12 Russian agents accused of interfering in the 2016 election and had correctly pointed out that the indictments should not be a partisan issue. But this crucial point is lost on Mr Trump. Everything — including truth, the rule-of-law and the dignity of the US — is subordinated to his own partisan interests.

The president’s rambling and self-centred remarks also underlined the questions about his intellectual fitness for office. The contrast with the controlled, polished (and deeply cynical) performance of Mr Putin was painful to behold.

The Trump-Putin summit also raised troubling questions about the future of US foreign policy. Mr Trump arrived in Helsinki after combative and gaffe-strewn meetings with Nato allies and the British government. During his trip to Europe, he had described the EU as a “foe” on trade. But Mr Trump did not extend the same description to Russia, describing Mr Putin approvingly as a “good competitor”.

What Mr Trump did not say on stage was almost as troubling as his actual pronouncements. At no point did the president raise the question of Russia’s armed intervention in Ukraine; nor did he mention the novichok poisoning case in the UK; nor did he mention the fourth anniversary of the shooting down of flight MH17 by a Russian missile, resulting in the loss of 298 lives.

It is true that Mr Trump did not accept explicitly Russia’s annexation of Crimea — as some feared he might. But the two presidents also had an extended private meeting. Details of what was said there have yet to emerge.

The Trump administration generates controversy and outrage as a matter of course. So there can be no certainty that the justified shock about President Trump’s behaviour in Helsinki will last — or whether it will fade away, like just another episode in a reality television show.

But there are small encouraging signs that this time might be different. Even some of Mr Trump’s habitual defenders and enablers — such as Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives — have condemned the president’s behaviour.

Senior Republicans need now to step out of the shadow of Mr Trump — and remember their party’s honourable role in crafting the bipartisan foreign policy that saw the US through the cold war. The party of Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan should recoil at President Trump’s behaviour in Helsinki. It needs to rediscover its soul, before it is too late.

- 30 -

Now I know thatPresident Donald Trump has some supporters here on Army.ca and I'm not trying to pick a fight ... but I agree 100% with what the FT says and, I'll bet, so do many of the most politically and economically influential people in the West.
Sadly, and I'm not trying to be glib, but I think those politically and economically influential people in the west are going to lump into the #nevertrumper bin and dismissed.

I do agree with that article, and in fairness, the GOP is trying to distance itself from the President.

CNN Politics @CNNPolitics
3m
"I would say to our friends in Europe: We understand the Russian threat. And I think that is the widespread view here in the United States Senate among members of both parties," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says snappytv.com/tc/8499308


CBS News @CBSNews
1m
"I want [our allies] to understand that in this country, there are a lot of people in both parties who believe that these alliances painstakingly built in the wake of WWII are important and we want to maintain them," Senate Maj. Leader Mitch McConnell says


Sahil Kapur @sahilkapur
1m
McCONNELL won’t commit to Senate action on Russia post-Helsinki but says “there’s the possibility that we may well take up legislation related to this,” mentioning the Rubio-Van Hollen sanctions bill as an option.


MSNBC @MSNBC
now
"The Russians need to know that there are a lot of us who fully understand what happened in 2016, and it really better not happen again in 2018."

– Mitch McConnell


Elana Schor @eschor
4m
McConnell tells reporters that the prospect of a House impeachment of Rosenstein is too “farfetched” to address

McConnell is starting to break from the President and state official party line, and trying to reassure Americas allies. I do not know if it's going to be enough. Damage control needs to be implemented here, and I don't believe the President even knows that there is a problem
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 16:01:31
I stand corrected, The president is currently holding a presser saying that he misspoke.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on July 17, 2018, 16:02:25
Sadly, and I'm not trying to be glib, but I think those politically and economically influential people in the west are going to lump into the #nevertrumper bin and dismissed.

I do agree with that article, and in fairness, the GOP is trying to distance itself from the President.

. . .

A major exception is VP Pence who:

Quote
. . . reacted to all of this today by saluting Trump for his “deeply productive” dialogue and his use of “diplomacy and engagement”

“Disagreements between our countries were discussed at length,” Pence said, “but what the world saw, what the American people saw, is that Pres. Donald Trump will always put the prosperity and security of America first.”

https://www.mediaite.com/online/vp-mike-pence-on-putin-summit-trumps-putting-prosperity-and-security-of-america-first/ (https://www.mediaite.com/online/vp-mike-pence-on-putin-summit-trumps-putting-prosperity-and-security-of-america-first/)

I guess the smartest move Trump ever made was selecting Pence as his running mate. Replacing Trump leaves Congress between a rock and a hard place.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: RomeoJuliet on July 17, 2018, 16:06:16
I stand corrected, The president is currently holding a presser saying that he misspoke.


'President Donald Trump said Tuesday he accepts the conclusion by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the U.S. presidential election, marking a rare reversal from comments just a day earlier.'

One
Can't
Make
This
Stuff
Up.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 17, 2018, 16:08:34
Misdirection or do you have a point?

I made my point.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: RomeoJuliet on July 17, 2018, 16:11:27
I made my point.
;)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Blackadder1916 on July 17, 2018, 16:15:02
I made my point.

You may think so . . . but, not really.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on July 17, 2018, 16:17:38
Quote
Trump says he misspoke during press conference: "I said the word would instead of wouldn’t"
From CNN's Kevin Liptak

President Trump said he returned from Helsinki on Monday and "realized there is some need for clarification" about his remarks on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

"In a key sentence in my remarks I said the word would instead of wouldn’t," Trump said. He explained he reviewed a transcript and video of his remarks.

"The sentence should have been: 'I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia,'" he said. "Sort of a double negative."

"I think that probably clarifies things pretty good on itself," Trump said.

On Monday, Trump said during his press conference "I don't see any reason why it would be" Russia who interfered in the election.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-putin-helsinki/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-putin-helsinki/index.html)

So Trump's ". . . but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today," really meant nothing?

 :brickwall:

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 16:17:54

'President Donald Trump said Tuesday he accepts the conclusion by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the U.S. presidential election, marking a rare reversal from comments just a day earlier.'

One
Can't
Make
This
Stuff
Up.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-17/trump-says-he-accepts-u-s-finding-russia-meddled-in-election

Quote
Trump: "I accept our intelligence community's conclusion that Russia's meddling in the 2016 election took place. Could be other people also. A lot of people out there."

He just can't help himself...dear god.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: RomeoJuliet on July 17, 2018, 16:19:09

'President Donald Trump said Tuesday he accepts the conclusion by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the U.S. presidential election, marking a rare reversal from comments just a day earlier.'

One
Can't
Make
This
Stuff
Up.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Oops. Missed the source. Thanks Altair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 17, 2018, 16:19:46
You may think so . . . but, not really.

You don't think there's something wrong with Americans assaulting other Americans for the high crime of wearing a hat they don't like? Or by extention targeting people for harassment or denial of service due to their political affiliations?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 16:28:15
REPORTER, AP: President Trump, you first. Just now, President Putin denied having anything to do with the election interference in 2016. Every U.S. intelligence agency has concluded that Russia did. My first question for you sir is, who do you believe? My second question is would you now, with the whole world watching, tell President Putin, would you denounce what happened in 2016 and would you want him to never do it again?

TRUMP: So let me just say that we have two thoughts. You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server. Why haven't they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee?

I've been wondering that. I've been asking that for months and months and I've been tweeting it out and calling it out on social media. Where is the server? I want to know where is the server and what is the server saying?

With that being said, all I can do is ask the question.

My people came to me, Dan Coates, came to me and some others they said they think it's Russia. I have President Putin. He just said it's not Russia.

I will say this: I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be. But I really do want to see the server but I have, I have confidence in both parties.

I really believe that this will probably go on for a while but I don't think it can go on without finding out what happened to the server. What happened to the servers of the Pakistani gentleman that worked on the DNC?

Where are those servers? They're missing. Where are they? What happened to Hillary Clinton's emails? 33,000 emails gone, just gone. I think in Russia they wouldn't be gone so easily.

I think it's a disgrace that we can't get Hillary Clinton's thirty three thousand e-mails.

I have great confidence in my intelligence people but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today and what he did is an incredible offer.

He offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators, with respect to the 12 people. I think that's an incredible offer. Ok? Thank you.







Everywhere the current President decided to side with Putin and Russia, over America...in just over minute of a 40 minute press conference.
Turns out adding a n't to it while still saying it could be other people is a really, extraordinarily poor way of doing damage control.

Almost a Sorry, not Sorry.

Also, likely, a blatant lie to go along with his other blatant lies.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 17, 2018, 17:14:14
You don't think there's something wrong with Americans assaulting other Americans for the high crime of wearing a hat they don't like? Or by extention targeting people for harassment or denial of service due to their political affiliations?

Ah.  So misdirection then. 

For the record yes. Not sure what it has to do with the current discussion.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 17:19:54
Ah.  So misdirection then. 

For the record yes. Not sure what it has to do with the current discussion.
misdirection and nevertrumpers is all I've heard from Trump supporters since the summit.

Which is fair,  the presidents performance at the summit is pretty hard to defend,  so attack the credibility of his critics and if that fails, change the topic.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 17, 2018, 17:51:52
I apologize I didn't realize  misdirection is the new key phrase of the week.

Anything that takes the conversation away from the Trump is horrible mantra is misdirection. Got it now thanks.


Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 17:56:30
I apologize I didn't realize  misdirection is the new key phrase of the week.

Anything that takes the conversation away from the Trump is horrible mantra is misdirection. Got it now thanks.
When talking about a subject,  in this case,  the Helsinki summit,  and someone quotes that with something completely unrelated, that is misdirection.

If you want to talk about those things, by all means,  go ahead. Just know,  quoting people talking about what the president said in Finland,  and talking about MAGA hats is going to be seen as misdirection
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 17, 2018, 18:01:19
Ah.  So misdirection then. 

For the record yes. Not sure what it has to do with the current discussion.

Wait, what? Are you saying physical violence against someone for a hat is ok? If I misread, sorry. If not, well........
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 17, 2018, 18:03:37
Nope. Just me deciding to talk about what I feel like talking about. I don't think I could misdirect you guys away from your omg Trump posts if I had Russian tank pulling in the other direction lol
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 18:05:34
Wait, what? Are you saying physical violence against someone for a hat is ok? If I misread, sorry. If not, well........
I think you misread.

Jarnhamar asked if he thought there was anything wrong with physical violence againsg someone wearing a trump hat,  remius said yes.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 18:07:15
Nope. Just me deciding to talk about what I feel like talking about. I don't think I could misdirect you guys away from your omg Trump posts if I had Russian tank pulling in the other direction lol
again,  talk about whatever you wish. There can be multiple conversations going on in the same thread. But why quote people talking about the Helsinki summit if its not to draw that person into another topic,  aka,  misdirection?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on July 17, 2018, 18:11:00
Said in jest.

We're trying to raise the level of adult discussion here, not lower it with sarcasm.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 17, 2018, 18:11:22
Maybe I wanted to start a new subject assuming you could handle multiple conversations and directions. More of a multi direction that misdirection perhaps.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 18:14:10
Maybe I wanted to start a new subject assuming you could handle multiple conversations and directions. More of a multi direction that misdirection perhaps.
I don't think it works that way. If you made a comment about how people were being attacked for being trump supporters and I quoted you and linked something about the Helsinki summit,  you would correct in asking me what in the world that had to do with what you wrote. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 17, 2018, 18:26:51
I changed it and that's how it works now. You're welcome  ;)

Also if you quoted me and linked something about the Helsinki summit I think it would be totally obvious so I wouldn't need to ask.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 18:33:15
I changed it and that's how it works now. You're welcome  ;)

Also if you quoted me and linked something about the Helsinki summit I think it would be totally obvious so I wouldn't need to ask.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1K72FL

Quote
Although he faced pressure from critics, allied countries and even his own staff to take a tough line, Trump said not a single disparaging word in public about Moscow on any of the issues that have brought relations between the two nuclear powers to the lowest ebb since the Cold War.

Republicans and Democrats accused him of siding with an adversary rather than his own country.

Mainly reading from a prepared statement, Trump said on Tuesday he had complete faith in U.S. intelligence agencies and accepted their conclusions.

But he appeared to veer from his script to also hedge on who was responsible for the election interference.



Reads from a prepared script, blames russia. Goes off script,  says it may not be russia.

The man just needs to never go off script.

Damage limitation.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 17, 2018, 18:51:43
Wait, what? Are you saying physical violence against someone for a hat is ok? If I misread, sorry. If not, well........

No.  For the record I think it’s wrong.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 17, 2018, 18:58:41
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1K72FL
 

Reads from a prepared script, blames russia. Goes off script,  says it may not be russia.

The man just needs to never go off script.

Damage limitation.

Ronald Reagan once said: “if you are explaining, you are losing.”
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 19:27:36
Ronald Reagan once said: “if you are explaining, you are losing.”
how the GOP went from the party of Reagan and tear down this wall to this president and he said he didn't do it,  is beyond me.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on July 17, 2018, 19:46:06
how the GOP went from the party of Reagan and tear down this wall to this president and he said he didn't do it,  is beyond me.

How Democrats went from JFK and "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" to 1% socialists and social justice warriors is beyond me.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 17, 2018, 19:54:22
To follow Jar's lead, I'm really getting tired of 'The World Ends Tomorrow because of Trump'.

Can't we just have a discussion without all the woe is me and conflated future actions?

Why does it always have to be nuclear winter that's the result.

Know what? Things have ways of sorting themselves without the predictions of apocolypse. Kenedy brought us way closer to obliteration than Trump ever could so how bout we just knock it off.

The world is not going to blow up, so please ratchet back to reality and try discuss things without all the far fetched stuff that's supposed to happen in some people's minds.

The Soviets are not going to invade us. Petroleum will flow to whoever, even if someone turns off their taps. The ME is just plain ****ed and we have no business even being there, let alone help them. They need to slaughter each other without us.

Dialogue is always preferable to force. Even if you just sit with the enemy and ask what's what. It's how things get resolved.

I don't mind predictions but let's keep them real eh?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 17, 2018, 20:09:31
I don’t think anyone is saying the world will end.  But the US standing in the free world is taking a beating. 

You can have dialogue with your foes (remember everyone’s reaction to Jack Layton wanting to talk to the Taliban?) but you also don’t have to put up with their BS.

Kennedy was still talking to the Russians despite the show of force.  Reagan was talking to Gorbachev but had no issues telling him to tear down the wall and open the gate.

There is no reason why Trump couldn’t have said that he wants to normalise relations but that attacks on his country ‘s democratic systems will not nor ever be tolerated.

Instead he opted for self preservation.  He can’t differentiate a cyber attack on his own country from a separate investigation into collusion and has to mix it up for whatever reason.

Now the back tracking is making things worse.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Navy_Pete on July 17, 2018, 20:42:45
I think it's ironic that this is positioning Angela Merkel as the leader of the free world.  Ze Germans are doing much better by being a voice of reason, prudence and common sense then they ever did in both world wars.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: RomeoJuliet on July 17, 2018, 21:09:28
To follow Jar's lead, I'm really getting tired of 'The World Ends Tomorrow because of Trump'.

Can't we just have a discussion without all the woe is me and conflated future actions?

Why does it always have to be nuclear winter that's the result.

Know what? Things have ways of sorting themselves without the predictions of apocolypse. Kenedy brought us way closer to obliteration than Trump ever could so how bout we just knock it off.

The world is not going to blow up, so please ratchet back to reality and try discuss things without all the far fetched stuff that's supposed to happen in some people's minds.

The Soviets are not going to invade us. Petroleum will flow to whoever, even if someone turns off their taps. The ME is just plain ****ed and we have no business even being there, let alone help them. They need to slaughter each other without us.

Dialogue is always preferable to force. Even if you just sit with the enemy and ask what's what. It's how things get resolved.

I don't mind predictions but let's keep them real eh?
RecceGuy: question: What do you think a leader of a country should say or do about Russia? Dialogue or condemn? Just curious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: suffolkowner on July 17, 2018, 21:45:42
Trump has so far exceeded my expectations on the entertainment value of his Presidency. The excitement he generates among Canadians is slightly bemusing to me. We live in the shadow of the elephant so everything down south has import up here but still...The man is not to be taken to seriously, he is what he is, too expect him to have changed because he is President was and is unrealistic. In my opinion he is and will be known as a poor President, but at most he will serve 8 yrs. I expect NATO and Canada's relationship with the US to survive much better than many are letting on. From afar, it looks to me like we could do a much better job of managing this relationship than we have been doing. To me that is another black mark on the leadership of our own government, something I am much more concerned about, naturally. There is a lot of smoke with regards to the Trump campaign and Russian interference and I am inclined to think probably a little fire but I doubt it will reach Trump himself as I just can't see anyone bringing him into that circle. It will be interesting to see how the intelligence community, the rest of the executive, and the Senate/House behave going forward. I can see them all working their own agendas separate from not only each other but the President to an unprecedented degree at least compared to the recent past.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 17, 2018, 21:49:24
RecceGuy: question: What do you think a leader of a country should say or do about Russia? Dialogue or condemn? Just curious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Condemnation simply perpetuates stalemate.

I see nothing wrong with talking. It may lead nowhere or maybe make matters worse. But there is nothing wrong with talking and casting about for mutually beneficial common ground. When talk is over, there's only one alternative.

I dont care much for the Soviets, having spent my whole life learning to kill them, if they were to trip the wire. However, I would like to think we'd exhaust all other possibilities before they did.

If you've never done the UGLI ORANGE dialogue exercise, have a look. https://www.coursehero.com/file/11371085/ugliorangesactivity/

It is one my favourite conflict resolution exercises.

Given how Trump was pillored for attempting to end the conflict on the Korean Peninsula, I expect his detractors will pillor him for talking to the Queen. I really dont care. He gets good press elsewhere. Might even get nominated for a Nobel as some Europeans want to put him up for. Not my circus and my monkeys fly. Talk is better than war. Even if it's against your enemy.

His recent gaffe is not part of the  conversation for me. My concern is how people would rather retain the status quo with no chance of peace rather than explore the possibility. It would almost appear that people like McCain would rather be bombed with their own uranium than concede Trump is trying to make some peace.

Perhaps some are worried Putin might give something to Trump to hurt them politically or financially. It would really suck, for some, if Putin gave the Russia side of the uranium buy and players, set up by Clunton.

Just me, but I think history is going to be much kinder to Trump than his detractors today are.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 17, 2018, 21:56:40
Trump has so far exceeded my expectations on the entertainment value of his Presidency. The excitement he generates among Canadians is slightly bemusing to me. We live in the shadow of the elephant so everything down south has import up here but still...The man is not to be taken to seriously, he is what he is, too expect him to have changed because he is President was and is unrealistic. In my opinion he is and will be known as a poor President, but at most he will serve 8 yrs. I expect NATO and Canada's relationship with the US to survive much better than many are letting on. From afar, it looks to me like we could do a much better job of managing this relationship than we have been doing. To me that is another black mark on the leadership of our own government, something I am much more concerned about, naturally. There is a lot of smoke with regards to the Trump campaign and Russian interference and I am inclined to think probably a little fire but I doubt it will reach Trump himself as I just can't see anyone bringing him into that circle. It will be interesting to see how the intelligence community, the rest of the executive, and the Senate/House behave going forward. I can see them all working their own agendas separate from not only each other but the President to an unprecedented degree at least compared to the recent past.

I agree with much that you say. Not all. I can see them finally saying enough is enough and Mueller is going to be told to crap or get off the pot. This masquerade has gone on long enough.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Colin P on July 17, 2018, 22:01:01
One day this will all be a yet another boring chapter in the history books that some bored student is going to be forced to read grudgingly because it's "ancient history" and is not relevant to them. History is much more interesting when you live it. We fail to realize those words in the history books had far more meaning to the people that lived in that time, than to the majority of us.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 17, 2018, 22:35:36
One day this will all be a yet another boring chapter in the history books that some bored student is going to be forced to read grudgingly because it's "ancient history" and is not relevant to them. History is much more interesting when you live it. We fail to realize those words in the history books had far more meaning to the people that lived in that time, than to the majority of us.

It will likely be the first chapter of how US dominance began to decline. Similar to history texts on the British or Roman Empires.  Or maybe it will be a 4 or 8 year blip.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 17, 2018, 22:48:10
I don't buy the "would -> wouldn't" excuse.  It sounds like something cooked up by a brainstorming session among the public affairs kids.

I'm curious to see which way everything lands.  Only two things stand out as consistent in whatever could be called Trump's "foreign policy": all the players accustomed to assuming the US will do something (various contributions) or not do something (eg. tolerate rampant IP theft), a list of which is mostly allies, will have to confront the possibility/reality of accepting more responsibility/cost; and the US is likely to be less interventionist (mostly of interest to those on the list of unfriendlies).

It will be ironic if Trump is more successful than Obama at letting regional powers flex more power in their regions, and reducing foreign entanglements.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 23:38:08
It will likely be the first chapter of how US dominance began to decline. Similar to history texts on the British or Roman Empires.  Or maybe it will be a 4 or 8 year blip.
it really began under Obama with his pivot to Asia.

It is accelerating under the current president
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 17, 2018, 23:46:46
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/17/politics/trump-interpreter-testify-congress/index.html

Quote
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat from New Hampshire, is calling on President Donald Trump's interpreter from his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin to testify before Congress.


If republicans are actually as outraged about the presidents comments as they say they are,  they should back any request for that interpreter to testify.

I for one would be interested about what was said behind closed doors,  considering the presser he gave in public.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 18, 2018, 00:06:17
This is really going beyond the point of ridiculous. It simply cements my opinion of politicians as a bunch of spiteful, spoiled children.

That is the reason Trump got elected in the first place. People are tired of these arseholes and their games. Games that accomplish nothing, cost millions and stall government action.

And it's not country specific.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 18, 2018, 00:17:21
This is really going beyond the point of ridiculous. It simply cements my opinion of politicians as a bunch of spiteful, spoiled children.

That is the reason Trump got elected in the first place. People are tired of these arseholes and their games. Games that accomplish nothing, cost millions and stall government action.

And it's not country specific.
Shame he needs the two other branches of the executive branch to be able to govern.

Branches that, if you follow the money, might be turning blue.

https://www.nbcnews.com/card/democrats-outraise-republicans-top-house-contests-n892001

Quote
Democrats outraised Republicans in all but FOUR of 40 of some of the most competitive House general election races in the second quarter of 2018.

NBC News reviewed FEC reports for a list of 40 races which are ranked as “Lean” or “Toss Up” by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report and which have their nominees set after March-June primary contests.

Some of the widest gaps in Democrats’ favor include fundraising hauls for New Jersey’s Mikie Sherill (who outraised Republican newcomer Jay Webber $1.4 million to $172,000), California’s Harley Rouda (who outraised incumbent Dana Rohrabacher by $994,000 to $192,000) and California’s Katie Hill (who outraised incumbent Steve Knight by about $1 million to $319,000).

Seven Democrats out of the 40 competitive races reported raising more than $1 million during the quarter, while no Republican campaign boasted a seven-figure haul in the same amount of time.

While the majority of Republicans in these races – most of them incumbents – have a cash-on-hand advantage over their Democratic rivals, Democrats in 16 of the 40 races are also besting their GOP counterparts when it comes to money in the bank as well.

If they do turn blue come November, and put a stop to the presidents agenda, I hope that come 2020, the damage to the USA isn't too bad to fix over the next 10 years or so. Assuming that the president doesn't get re-elected.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Infanteer on July 18, 2018, 00:54:32
I agree with much that you say. Not all. I can see them finally saying enough is enough and Mueller is going to be told to crap or get off the pot. This masquerade has gone on long enough.

Not sure if "crap or get off the pot" and "masquerade" are completely accurate.  Some media organizations like to portray the Mueller investigation as some sort of overdrawn affair, but the numbers don't support this assertion.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mueller-investigation-keeps-growing-fast/

If you look at the chart in the attached article, since the Nixon administration Mueller's investigation has been the shortest to date and has produced the most indictments.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on July 18, 2018, 01:10:53
This is really going beyond the point of ridiculous. It simply cements my opinion of politicians as a bunch of spiteful, spoiled children.

That is the reason Trump got elected in the first place. People are tired of these arseholes and their games. Games that accomplish nothing, cost millions and stall government action.

And it's not country specific.

I don't know if over 200 charges laid against 35 people, five already resulting in guilty please can be called 'nothing', nor 'ridiculous'. And Mueller is now seeking immunity for five previously unnamed witnesses in the Manafort trial- five more individuals who would not testify for fear of self incrimination. As major investigations go, this one is very, very productive- Infanteer nicely showed how this is the case.

Frankly I think it's more a matter of you really don't like what is happening because of your own very heavily hard right bias that we have all become accustomed to over the years here.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 18, 2018, 02:46:12
Regarding charges against people who will actually have to answer (Americans):

Manafort and Gates - fraud/money crimes.
Flynn, Van der Zwaan, Papadopoulos - false statements.
Pinedo - fraud.

Not much bang for the effort.  The rest (the Russians) should properly have been left with low-key CI.

Every government and its hangers-on has many skeletons to be found, if only someone is given a mandate to root around for them.  There will be more investigations in future with authority to pursue "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation".  There will be more people who make false statements, some about matters that are embarrassing but are not crimes, and more people who plead guilty to a lesser crime when threatened with the unpredictable risk of defending against a laundry list (commonplace in the US, and alarming to many civil libertarians).

If the increased productiveness of the investigation represents a trend, is it favourable?

As has been pointed out by several people over the past couple of days, other countries can apply the same rules to Americans.

Andrew McCarthy's view (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/muellers-latest-indictments-russians-politicized-pointless/).  (Read and consider the final paragraph if nothing else.)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on July 18, 2018, 07:38:00
The latest on the indictments of the Russians announced Friday. Seems according to Bloomberg President Trump said it benefit him in the talks Monday if it was released before it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-17/trump-said-to-decide-russia-indictments-should-come-pre-summit (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-17/trump-said-to-decide-russia-indictments-should-come-pre-summit)

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/russia-indictment-timing-trump-approved-not-mueller-attack.html (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/russia-indictment-timing-trump-approved-not-mueller-attack.html)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 18, 2018, 08:16:50
it really began under Obama with his pivot to Asia.

It is accelerating under the current president


I would argue that US power reached its zenith in the 1950s ... just as British power peaked in about 1835+/- and Roman power reached maximum circa 100AD, when Trajan was emperor. The Roman and British empires endured for decades and centuries after they 'peaked' but the conditions for (relative) decline were already there: the growing intellectual and commercial power of e.g. America and Germany in the 1830s (Yale University awarded the first ever doctorate in America in 1861, Bayer and BASF were founded in Germany in the 1860s but the intellectual movement that created modern America and Germany began in the 18th century and came to full 'flower' in about the 1830s.

America will remain a mighty creative, commercial and military power for another couple of generations, at least, but its relative power began to decline in, say, the mid to late 1950s. First Russia, then Japan and Western Europe (the EEC) and now China and soon India have all moved into 9and in Russia's case out of) the top tier of economic and/or military powers which was, for a while, the sole domain of the USA.

America isn't finished but it has passed it's 'best before' date ... see e.g. Paul Kennedy (Rise and Fall of the Great Powers) and extrapolate back 2,500 years before 1500.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 18, 2018, 08:27:37

I would argue that US power reached its zenith in the 1950s ... just as British power peaked in about 1835+/- and Roman power reached maximum circa 100AD, when Trajan was emperor. The Roman and British empires endured for decades and centuries after they 'peaked' but the conditions for (relative) decline were already there: the growing intellectual and commercial power of e.g. America and Germany in the 1830s (Yale University awarded the first ever doctorate in America in 1861, Bayer and BASF were founded in Germany in the 1860s but the intellectual movement that created modern America and Germany began in the 18th century and came to full 'flower' in about the 1830s.

America will remain a mighty creative, commercial and military power for another couple of generations, at least, but its relative power began to decline in, say, the mid to late 1950s. First Russia, then Japan and Western Europe (the EEC) and now China and soon India have all moved into 9and in Russia's case out of) the top tier of economic and/or military powers which was, for a while, the sole domain of the USA.

America isn't finished but it has passed it's 'best before' date ... see e.g. Paul Kennedy (Rise and Fall of the Great Powers) and extrapolate back 2,500 years before 1500.

It is debatable but I would argue that a megalomaniac leader can accelerate or guarantee that fall.  One only has to look at Commodus (not quite a 100 years after Trajan and no not the movie version).  He inherited an empire from a solid line of rulers and left it a mess because of his cult of personality.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 18, 2018, 13:14:48
Quote from: recceguy

That is the reason Trump got elected in the first place. People are tired of these arseholes and their games. Games that accomplish nothing, cost millions and stall government action.


Came across this post on Facebook so there's a small possibility it may not all be accurate  ;D
Some of it sounds accurate IIRC, I thought you might appreciate the read.

Quote
1.The DNC rigs the Democratic Primary Election election against Bernie Sanders so Hillary Clinton can win the nomination.
2.Obama administration starts to request surveillance on Trump, his family, his transition team and anyone else associated with him.
3.Donna Brazil gives Hillary Clinton the questions to a debate.
4. The DNC pays Christopher Steele to come up with a smear dossier about Trump.
5. The mainstream media releases a taped conversation about Trump talking about grabbing a womans crotch.

After all this Trump still wins the election.

6. Obama orders an investigation into Russia meddling with the elections.
7. Obama changes executive order 12333 to allow more agencies to have access to the surveillance data.
8. The Democratic Party comes up with a scandal that Trump colluded with Russia with no evidence or proof.
9.Main stream media run with the claim.
10. Obama hold overs start unmasking Trump's transition team and staff members then releases the classified information TO the mainstream media.

Why? Because the DNC and Obama administration colluded with the intelligence community to thwart Trumps campaign to get elected as president.

All the Russian collusion stuff is an attempt to cover up the fact that the Obama administration, the intelligence community, the DNC and the mainstream media used US surveillance as a political tool to try and get Hillary Clinton elected president.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 18, 2018, 14:03:55
Except for the collusion theory, and some over-bold statements (eg. (2) makes it sound like everyone under the sun in Trump's corner was under surveillance, which is not at all true; (4) overstates the connection from the DNC to Steele - the former provided money, via a law firm, to pay Fusion GPS, which hired Steele), the broad outline is correct.  (Details and objectivity matter if the events are to be discussed productively, and the objective view is damaging enough.)

It doesn't take a theory of collusion - certainly not widespread collusion - to explain "why".  Everything can more simply be attributed to the reactions of unconnected people and groups to a sequence of events throughout and after the 2016 presidential election - basically, a variation of "invisible hand" (spontaneous order).
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 18, 2018, 14:09:34
I don't know if over 200 charges laid against 35 people, five already resulting in guilty please can be called 'nothing', nor 'ridiculous'. And Mueller is now seeking immunity for five previously unnamed witnesses in the Manafort trial- five more individuals who would not testify for fear of self incrimination. As major investigations go, this one is very, very productive- Infanteer nicely showed how this is the case.

Frankly I think it's more a matter of you really don't like what is happening because of your own very heavily hard right bias that we have all become accustomed to over the years here.

And you are just plain wrong, absolutely and 100%. My post was multi party, all politicians. I said nothing about any investigations or specifics. I made a general comment on the state of politics....everywhere. I simply used Trump's election as a poigniant, current and relatable example. But thanks for jumping in to impinge me anyway. I won't consider it a personal attack though, even if that is what it is. That would just get messy.

Beside, you of all people should know charged does not equal quilty. People are charged all the time. Not all are convicted. Oh wait, I see the problem. Like those that illegally broke into homes and closets to confiscate law abiding owners of their property. How's that law suit going? https://globalnews.ca/news/1827143/class-action-lawsuit-launched-against-high-river-rcmp-over-gun-seizures/

Just like you, above. Guilty until..... what? We ruin you? Bankrupt you? Destroy your life? Then we'll cut you loose?

Hell of a way to restart a dialogue Bri.

You've done some great things that I admire you for. This, not so much.

But I do admire your stance that Justice and Government are never wrong, corrupt or decietful.

You shouldv'e stopped at your first para.


modified to reflect the rules - with a tip-o-the hat to JM :whistle:

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Journeyman on July 18, 2018, 15:08:03
You shouldv'e stopped at your first para, especially as a Mod.
Gee, and how many times has it been posted that 'Mods are entitled to their opinions and can post the same as any other site member'?  :pop:

[It's a rhetorical question]




Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 18, 2018, 15:45:54
Good for you JM. Good for you. :rofl:

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on July 19, 2018, 12:59:16
Quote
Mike Pence Looms As Donald Trump’s Ultimate Poison Pill

Richard North Patterson

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-patterson-mike-pence_us_5b4f9f85e4b0fd5c73c1c0c6 (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-patterson-mike-pence_us_5b4f9f85e4b0fd5c73c1c0c6)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 19, 2018, 13:21:46
I'm just going to leave this here.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-more-flexibility-russia/

<snip>As he was leaning toward Medvedev in Seoul, Obama was overheard asking for time — “particularly with missile defense” — until he is in a better position politically to resolve such issues.

“I understand your message about space,” replied Medvedev, who will hand over the presidency to Putin in May.

“This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term.

“I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” said Medvedev, Putin’s protégé and long considered number two in Moscow’s power structure.

The exchange, parts of it inaudible, was monitored by a White House pool of television journalists as well as Russian reporters listening live from their press center.

The audible portions of the conversation were captured on video:</snip>

https://www.facebook.com/actforamerica/videos/10155329096911364/

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 19, 2018, 13:24:40
I'll have to go and find it, saw it last night and didn't save it. Apparently, many of the Russians charged by Mueller, were indicted for stuff in 2014 and before the election. Obama's watch.




spelling
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on July 19, 2018, 14:00:09
President Trump's dream opponent for 2020.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2018/07/19/heres-who-trump-dreams-about-running-against-in-2020-n2501788 (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2018/07/19/heres-who-trump-dreams-about-running-against-in-2020-n2501788)

Quote
“Well, I dream, I dream about Biden. That's a dream. Look, Joe Biden ran three times. He never got more than 1 percent and President Obama took him out of the garbage heap, and everybody was shocked that he did. I'd love to have it be Biden,” he told Glor.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 19, 2018, 14:19:25
That'd be cool. I bet Biden's skeleton closet is a one room walkin.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 19, 2018, 14:48:33
I'll have to go and find it, saw it last night and didn't save it. Apparently, many of the Russians charged by Mueller, were indicted for stuff in 2014 and before the election. Obama's watch.




spelling
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-russia-election-hacking-democrats-hillary-clinton-robert-mueller-emails-2016-a8446286.html%3famp

Quote
A dozen Russian intelligence officials have been charged with allegedly hacking and leaking emails of senior Democrats during the 2016 US presidential campaign, the Department of Justice (DoJ) has announced.

The 11-count indictment includes charges of conspiracy by the Russian intelligence officials against the United States, money laundering and attempts to break into state boards of elections and other government agencies.



If you say so.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 19, 2018, 17:42:08
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2018/07/breaking-trump-invites-vladimir-putin-to-washington-dc/

Quote
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

President Donald Trump has invited Russian President Vladimir Putin to Washington, D.C., this fall.

The White House announced Thursday that Trump asked National Security Advisor John Bolton to invite Putin to Washington, D.C.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Thursday that discussions about the visit are already underway.

Sarah Sanders@PressSec

 In Helsinki, @POTUS agreed to ongoing working level dialogue between the two security council staffs. President Trump asked @Ambjohnbolton to invite President Putin to Washington in the fall and those discussions are already underway.

Trump and Putin met earlier this week for a summit in Helsinki, Finland, where the two had a private meeting that lasted for more than two hours, and then held a bilateral meeting with other officials and a joint press conference.

Both leaders characterized the meeting as successful, and Trump has said that having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing for the United States.

The President earlier Thursday had tweeted about a second summit with Putin.

“The Summit with Russia was a great success, except with the real enemy of the people, the Fake News Media. I look forward to our second meeting so that we can start implementing some of the many things discussed, including stopping terrorism, security for Israel, nuclear … proliferation, cyber attacks, trade, Ukraine, Middle East peace, North Korea and more. There are many answers, some easy and some hard, to these problems… but they can ALL be solved,” Trump tweeted.

Although Trump and Putin met last year at the G20 summit and the APEC summit, the Helsinki summit was the first dedicated to the relationship of the two nuclear powers.

President Trump was satisfied with the outcome of the summit and the chance to remedy the deteriorated relationship with Russia.

He expressed a desire to achieve peace instead of politics, and emphasized the positive impact the relationship would have on the world.

“The meeting between President Putin and myself was a great success, except in the Fake News Media,” Trump had tweeted.

The President’s criticisms of the media come amid backlash for his comments at a joint press conference with Putin in Helsinki following their private meeting and bilateral meeting.

President Trump disagreed with the findings of U.S. intelligence analyses that ultimately led to the indictment of 12 Russian officials for allegedly meddling in the 2016 Presidential election.

Trump also criticized the credibility of U.S. intelligence agencies, leading many to conclude that he publicly sided with Russia over the United States.

Many Democrat and Republican members of Congress spoke out about Trump’s comments. Some criticized him directly for his words, while others criticized Russia.

However, Trump clarified some of his remarks the following day, saying that he misspoke in Helsinki.

“I have full faith and support for America’s intelligence agencies,” he said, adding that he accepted the conclusions by U.S. intelligence agencies.

On Thursday, Trump also posted a video montage in which several 2017 press conference clips feature him admitting that Russia was responsible for election meddling.

The video serves as a counter to continued media reports claiming Trump refuses to denounce Russia.

A recent Axios and SurveyMonkey poll revealed that 79 percent of Republicans were supportive of President Trump’s performance at the summit.

That number increased from 71 percent reported by an earlier Reuters and Ipsos poll. This may indicate increased support for the President after he clarified his position on Russian meddling.

It is unclear whether or not a second meeting between Trump and Putin is in the works.

However, it would be consistent with ongoing discussions with Russia to improve relations, as driven by Trump.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently met with his Russian counterpart, and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis is reportedly open to meeting with his counterpart.

I guess not everyone is concerned as some.

"He expressed a desire to achieve peace instead of politics, and emphasized the positive impact the relationship would have on the world."

That is a worthy, considerate and honourable goal. He should be commended.




Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on July 19, 2018, 17:45:42
I guess this is just McCarthyism Part 2, except its run by the Democrats this time. I'm also super surprised that people aren't talking about how terrible the Russian Intelligence folks are or how dumb the American voting population is. Either they're so stupid they fell for internet memes and trolls and voted for Trump, or that the Russian GRU was so terrible at their jobs they allowed Clinton to win the popular vote.

There wasn't even enough evidence for judicial recounts. 5 states had filings: Florida had no legal basis for recount, Michigan gave Clinton 102 extra votes prior to recounts being stopped as Stein lost her challenge, Nevada had no change (recount requested by third party candidate), Pennsylvania had no legal basis for recount, and Wisconsin's recount showed absolutely 0 evidence of election machine tampering.

I'm still waiting for the smoking gun that links Trump to requesting election tampering. Probably because its not there, and realistically all of this is a show for the aggrieved Democrats who couldn't stand seeing Clinton lose.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 19, 2018, 17:46:27
Quote
Leftist Mob Hurls Feces At Pro-Trump Kosher Coffee Shop

-"An anti-immigrant Trump loving gentryfier"

A pro-Trump coffee shop in L.A.'s Boyle Heights took a barrage of feces being hurled at it by protesters who say the owner's views do not represent the rapidly gentrifying neighborhood.

According to CBS local, the protestors went as far to shut down the grand opening of the Asher Caffe & Lounge over the owner's support of Trump's immigration policies. Though traditionally Jewish, the neighborhood of Boyle Heights has since become predominantly Latino.



https://www.dailywire.com/news/33300/leftist-mob-hurls-feces-pro-trump-kosher-coffee-paul-bois?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro


Wtf is wrong with these people. They need to have some Russian standard vodka and chill out.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on July 19, 2018, 18:35:58
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2018/07/breaking-trump-invites-vladimir-putin-to-washington-dc/

I guess not everyone is concerned as some.

"He expressed a desire to achieve peace instead of politics, and emphasized the positive impact the relationship would have on the world."

That is a worthy, considerate and honourable goal. He should be commended.

So was this guy. For a little while.

(https://abramovici.weebly.com/uploads/3/9/4/1/39419797/6458473.jpg?565)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 19, 2018, 19:23:35
The pursuit of peace through dialogue should be abandoned, simply because Neville Chamberlain was lied to?

I don't agree. You keep trying till one side will no longer co-operate.

It is still an honourable and compassionate pursuit worth trying every time.

He may end up another Chamberlain, but he can't be faulted for trying.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on July 19, 2018, 20:52:58
The pursuit of peace through dialogue should be abandoned, simply because Neville Chamberlain was lied to?

I don't agree. You keep trying till one side will no longer co-operate.

It is still an honourable and compassionate pursuit worth trying every time.

He may end up another Chamberlain, but he can't be faulted for trying.

Let's put it this way. Russia was found trying to destabilize American democracy through their cyber assaults. Those activities continue.

Per DNI Dan Coates:

Quote
Every day, foreign actors — the worst offenders being Russia, China, Iran and North Korea — are penetrating our digital infrastructure and conducting a range of cyber intrusions and attacks against targets in the United States. The targets range from U.S. businesses to the federal government (including our military), to state and local governments, to academic and financial institutions and elements of our critical infrastructure — just to name a few. The attacks come in different forms. Some are tailored to achieve very tactical goals while others are implemented for strategic purpose, including the possibility of a crippling cyberattack against our critical infrastructure.

All of these disparate efforts share a common purpose: to exploit America's openness in order to undermine our long-term competitive advantage.

In regards to the state actions, Russia has been the most aggressive foreign actor — no question. And they continue their efforts to undermine our democracy. In regards to the upcoming midterm elections, I think there may have been some confusion between what we are seeing now compared to what we saw in 2016. As the Department of Homeland Security noted, we are not yet seeing the kind of electoral interference in specific states and voter databases that we experienced in 2016. However, we fully realize that we are just one click of the keyboard away from a similar situation repeating itself. Therefore, and moreover, we are seeing aggressive attempts to manipulate social media and to spread propaganda focused on hot-button issues that are intended to exacerbate socio-political divisions. Despite public statements by the Kremlin to the contrary, we continue to see individuals affiliated with the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency creating new social media accounts, masquerading as Americans, and then using these accounts to draw attention to divisive issues.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/18/630164914/transcript-dan-coats-warns-of-continuing-russian-cyberattacks (https://www.npr.org/2018/07/18/630164914/transcript-dan-coats-warns-of-continuing-russian-cyberattacks)

You do not deal with a situation like that by being a sycophant. You deal with it by drawing a line in the sand and saying we won't treat with you until all these activities come to a full stop.

Trump's overtures, for whatever reason he is making them, are the worst form of appeasement. Not only does it show the Russians that their activities have worked but, in large part, it also shows them that the White House won't take any concrete steps to oppose any future interference. Trump's entire approach to this very serious issue will do nothing less than embolden Putin to continue these activities both in the US and other western democracies.

To use your position: it is clear that the Russians have not been cooperating and are continuing to not cooperate. They are simply denying when they've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

 [cheers]
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Thucydides on July 19, 2018, 21:13:57
Once again there is a multivalent game at play here.

1. President Trump strips the media of credibility yet again.  If you actually look at the events of the NATO conference and the Russia Summit. there is nothing to support the media narrative. Indeed, these is plenty of contravailing evidence for:

2. President Trump is defanging the disloyal elements inside his own government. Perhaps this was missed because it was buried under the fold, so to speak, but Putin did offer to allow the Russians indicted to be interviewed. While not as bold as the earlier event where Russian companies came forward after being indicted to demand trial and an early discovery process, the net result will be the same: exposing the Muller investigation as BS of the highest order and eliminating that as a factor in future political actions.

3. The President has plainly called out the disloyal elements of the US government. The election was won, the People had spoken but evidently elements of the Intelligence community as well as other parts of the government (often referred to as the Deep State) were not willing to accept the results, and have worked non stop to delegitimize the results of the election. Indeed, the record of the CIA, NSA, FBI etc. is pretty lacklustre when confronted with external threats to the United States, perhaps because they are no longer focused on their jobs....

4. The existing post war order set out in 1945 is no longer relevant due to changing economic, demographic and technological changes. Challenging the status quo through trade, diplomacy military actions etc. is what President Trump is attempting to do, and unseating long held positions in order to advance America's long term position is what he was elected to do, and indeed what any American President should be focused on. Simultaneously challenging NATO to rearm while working to reduce tensions with Russia (and possibly wooing Russia away from China) seems to be the long term goal.

While we may not like either the President's goals or the tools he uses to achieve them, his version fo the DIME (Diplomatic, Information, Military, Economic) strategy is certainly one of the boldest attempts to reset America and her position in the world, arguably since the New Deal and possibly since America's emergence as a Great Power after the Spanish American War.

We need to look at this through the lens of America's National Interest and Grand Strategy, as articulated by the President and his Cabinet, not though what we would like to believe or what the people who's self interest lays in preserving the status quo want to tell us. Once we strip away the rhetoric, things look very different.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 19, 2018, 21:31:50
Once again there is a multivalent game at play here.

1. President Trump strips the media of credibility yet again.  If you actually look at the events of the NATO conference and the Russia Summit. there is nothing to support the media narrative. Indeed, these is plenty of contravailing evidence for:

2. President Trump is defanging the disloyal elements inside his own government. Perhaps this was missed because it was buried under the fold, so to speak, but Putin did offer to allow the Russians indicted to be interviewed. While not as bold as the earlier event where Russian companies came forward after being indicted to demand trial and an early discovery process, the net result will be the same: exposing the Muller investigation as BS of the highest order and eliminating that as a factor in future political actions.

3. The President has plainly called out the disloyal elements of the US government. The election was won, the People had spoken but evidently elements of the Intelligence community as well as other parts of the government (often referred to as the Deep State) were not willing to accept the results, and have worked non stop to delegitimize the results of the election. Indeed, the record of the CIA, NSA, FBI etc. is pretty lacklustre when confronted with external threats to the United States, perhaps because they are no longer focused on their jobs....

4. The existing post war order set out in 1945 is no longer relevant due to changing economic, demographic and technological changes. Challenging the status quo through trade, diplomacy military actions etc. is what President Trump is attempting to do, and unseating long held positions in order to advance America's long term position is what he was elected to do, and indeed what any American President should be focused on. Simultaneously challenging NATO to rearm while working to reduce tensions with Russia (and possibly wooing Russia away from China) seems to be the long term goal.

While we may not like either the President's goals or the tools he uses to achieve them, his version fo the DIME (Diplomatic, Information, Military, Economic) strategy is certainly one of the boldest attempts to reset America and her position in the world, arguably since the New Deal and possibly since America's emergence as a Great Power after the Spanish American War.

We need to look at this through the lens of America's National Interest and Grand Strategy, as articulated by the President and his Cabinet, not though what we would like to believe or what the people who's self interest lays in preserving the status quo want to tell us. Once we strip away the rhetoric, things look very different.
Im going to ignore points one two and three as they are simply a matter of opinion,  but four caught my attention.

If america was trying to change the global economic order,  wouldn't having your closest allies on board be beneficial as opposed to having them working actively against them?

If this was framed as positioning the west to be in the best position to combat chinese unfair trade practices for example,  wouldn't canada and the EU been on board?

Instead,  now we have the global economy trying to extract their pound of flesh against the US economy,  and making Americas former allies work closer with its foes(or foes working together if we count the EU as a foe)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on July 19, 2018, 21:37:52
Once again there is a multivalent game at play here.

1. President Trump strips the media of credibility yet again.  If you actually look at the events of the NATO conference and the Russia Summit. there is nothing to support the media narrative. Indeed, these is plenty of contravailing evidence for:

2. President Trump is defanging the disloyal elements inside his own government. Perhaps this was missed because it was buried under the fold, so to speak, but Putin did offer to allow the Russians indicted to be interviewed. While not as bold as the earlier event where Russian companies came forward after being indicted to demand trial and an early discovery process, the net result will be the same: exposing the Muller investigation as BS of the highest order and eliminating that as a factor in future political actions.

3. The President has plainly called out the disloyal elements of the US government. The election was won, the People had spoken but evidently elements of the Intelligence community as well as other parts of the government (often referred to as the Deep State) were not willing to accept the results, and have worked non stop to delegitimize the results of the election. Indeed, the record of the CIA, NSA, FBI etc. is pretty lacklustre when confronted with external threats to the United States, perhaps because they are no longer focused on their jobs....

4. The existing post war order set out in 1945 is no longer relevant due to changing economic, demographic and technological changes. Challenging the status quo through trade, diplomacy military actions etc. is what President Trump is attempting to do, and unseating long held positions in order to advance America's long term position is what he was elected to do, and indeed what any American President should be focused on. Simultaneously challenging NATO to rearm while working to reduce tensions with Russia (and possibly wooing Russia away from China) seems to be the long term goal.

While we may not like either the President's goals or the tools he uses to achieve them, his version fo the DIME (Diplomatic, Information, Military, Economic) strategy is certainly one of the boldest attempts to reset America and her position in the world, arguably since the New Deal and possibly since America's emergence as a Great Power after the Spanish American War.

We need to look at this through the lens of America's National Interest and Grand Strategy, as articulated by the President and his Cabinet, not though what we would like to believe or what the people who's self interest lays in preserving the status quo want to tell us. Once we strip away the rhetoric, things look very different.

Whether or not this is an attempt or not, I'm convinced that Trump will certainly "reset America and her position in the world." Unfortunately I also believe that it will definitely not be for the better.

We, and many others much more knowledgeable than we here, have looked at what the president has and is articulating and found his rhetoric simplistic, antagonistic and detrimental to the US interest. Looking at it through his eyes and agreeing with what we see are two vastly different things. Luckily many of his supporters are starting to see through his rhetoric.

Quote
Kevin Brady, an 11-term Congressman for suburban-rural Texas, wears a big hat in the House of Representatives as chairman of the ways and means committee. He was proudly at President Donald Trump’s side as Republicans rushed through a massive tax-cuts package last year. But he’s not letting any red “MAGA” hats near his bald pate this week, after the Trump administration slapped steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada, Mexico and the European Union.

“This action puts American workers and families at risk, whose jobs depend on fairly traded products from these important trading partners,” Brady said in a statement Thursday after the tariffs were announced. “And it hurts our efforts to create good-paying U.S. jobs by selling more ‘Made in America’ products to customers in these countries.”

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/the-united-states-of-americans-opposed-to-trumps-tariffs-on-canada/ (https://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/the-united-states-of-americans-opposed-to-trumps-tariffs-on-canada/)

Quote
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is launching a campaign to oppose President Donald Trump's trade tariffs, arguing that he's risking a global trade war that could hurt U.S. consumers, Reuters reports.

The business lobbying group, which has three million members, mostly large corporations, used a state-by-state analysis to show how U.S. consumers could be negatively affected by the trade tariffs. For example, Texas could see $3.9 billion in exports targeted by retaliatory tariffs, while South Carolina could see $3 billion and Tennessee could see $1.4 billion, according to Reuters

https://www.inc.com/emily-canal/trump-tariffs-trade-war-chamber-of-commerce.html (https://www.inc.com/emily-canal/trump-tariffs-trade-war-chamber-of-commerce.html)

 [cheers]
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 19, 2018, 21:42:40
Whether or not this is an attempt or not, I'm convinced that Trump will certainly "reset America and her position in the world." Unfortunately I also believe that it will definitely not be for the better.

We, and many others much more knowledgeable than we here, have looked at what the president has and is articulating and found his rhetoric simplistic, antagonistic and detrimental to the US interest. Looking at it through his eyes and agreeing with what we see are two vastly different things. Luckily many of his supporters are starting to see through his rhetoric.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/the-united-states-of-americans-opposed-to-trumps-tariffs-on-canada/ (https://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/the-united-states-of-americans-opposed-to-trumps-tariffs-on-canada/)

https://www.inc.com/emily-canal/trump-tariffs-trade-war-chamber-of-commerce.html (https://www.inc.com/emily-canal/trump-tariffs-trade-war-chamber-of-commerce.html)

 [cheers]
In these cases I'm happy America has the 3 branches of government that it has.

Because while the President might be above the whims of the average american who gets the stinky end of the stick here, the other two are acutely sensitive to the whims of the voting public. Eventually, those two will step in to oppose the President, if only for their own self preservation.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Thucydides on July 19, 2018, 21:45:28
Once again, you need to look at history. President Trump has been on record since at least 1989 as saying American is being ripped off in trade deals and allies are "living like kings" because they put the cost of defending themselves on America. In his view, these are not the actions of friends and reliable allies, and it is his goal to change them.

The main way he seems set to do this is to make current positions untenable (this also explains his pulling the rug out from under Prime Minister May's attempts to do a "soft Brexit") and draw back American resources to supporting American interests. While it may have been in America's interest to support NATO and take on huge trade deficits in the period between 1945 and the end of the Cold War, it is clearly no longer tenable now, and indeed you would be hard pressed to make a clear case for doing so today. American institutions built during the Cold War have been largely driven by inertia rather than any declaration of intent, and the decay of American power since the 1990's is a pretty clear indication of this. Wars with no clear goals or declaration of how they support the National Interest or Grand Strategy, culminating in the disgraceful "Red Line" in Syria have shown the world that the United States is neither capable or willing to engage. The lack of attention while China expanded into the South China Sea and the hollow "pivot" is yet another example of the lack of American power and will.

President Trump evidently has no desire for America to remain the global police force, and is willing to shake up things so she no longer has to be (but can still remain secure in her borders). Look at things through these lenses and you will see a different story emerge.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 19, 2018, 21:51:10
Once again, you need to look at history. President Trump has been on record since at least 1989 as saying American is being ripped off in trade deals and allies are "living like kings" because they put the cost of defending themselves on America. In his view, these are not the actions of friends and reliable allies, and it is his goal to change them.

The main way he seems set to do this is to make current positions untenable (this also explains his pulling the rug out from under Prime Minister May's attempts to do a "soft Brexit") and draw back American resources to supporting American interests. While it may have been in America's interest to support NATO and take on huge trade deficits in the period between 1945 and the end of the Cold War, it is clearly no longer tenable now, and indeed you would be hard pressed to make a clear case for doing so today. American institutions built during the Cold War have been largely driven by inertia rather than any declaration of intent, and the decay of American power since the 1990's is a pretty clear indication of this. Wars with no clear goals or declaration of how they support the National Interest or Grand Strategy, culminating in the disgraceful "Red Line" in Syria have shown the world that the United States is neither capable or willing to engage. The lack of attention while China expanded into the South China Sea and the hollow "pivot" is yet another example of the lack of American power and will.

President Trump evidently has no desire for America to remain the global police force, and is willing to shake up things so she no longer has to be (but can still remain secure in her borders). Look at things through these lenses and you will see a different story emerge.
On, NATO, sure.

But to engage in a trade war with Europe, Canada and Mexico at the same time as engaging in one against China is asking to fail. And it's a lost opportunity. Instead of Europe, Canada, Mexico putting pressure in a united front against China, now it's the opposite. China has tariffs on US goods. Canada, same, Mexico,same, the EU, same, India, same, Turkey, same, just off the top of my head.

Now instead of seeing if China buckles under the combined economic strength of the world to change their trade practices, the opposite is true. How long before America buckles under the weight of global trade tariffs?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 19, 2018, 21:55:57
Let's put it this way. Russia was found trying to destabilize American democracy through their cyber assaults. Those activities continue.

Per DNI Dan Coates:

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/18/630164914/transcript-dan-coats-warns-of-continuing-russian-cyberattacks (https://www.npr.org/2018/07/18/630164914/transcript-dan-coats-warns-of-continuing-russian-cyberattacks)

You do not deal with a situation like that by being a sycophant. You deal with it by drawing a line in the sand and saying we won't treat with you until all these activities come to a full stop.

Trump's overtures, for whatever reason he is making them, are the worst form of appeasement. Not only does it show the Russians that their activities have worked but, in large part, it also shows them that the White House won't take any concrete steps to oppose any future interference. Trump's entire approach to this very serious issue will do nothing less than embolden Putin to continue these activities both in the US and other western democracies.

To use your position: it is clear that the Russians have not been cooperating and are continuing to not cooperate. They are simply denying when they've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

 [cheers]

I have to wonder how many countries elections have been hacked and manipulated by the US. How many foreign policies have been trashed from interference by the US. The ME, under Bush, Clinton and Obama is a current example. Arab Spring was not a local initiative in those countries. How many regimes have been decapitated, not for the citizens, but for US interests. We all know they do it, but in the interest of impeaching Trump, all of that is conveniently forgotten. Kinda hypocritical, if you ask me. You can deny it happens, but history is replete with US interference with sovereign nations.

I don't like polls, but another post I made today had a 76% approval rate for Trump's actions. Regardless of what the MSM, Democrats and phony Republicans like McCain say.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 19, 2018, 22:00:52
I have to wonder how many countries elections have been hacked and manipulated by the US. How many foreign policies have been trashed from interference by the US. The ME, under Bush, Clinton and Obama is a current example. Arab Spring was not a local initiative in those countries. How many regimes have been decapitated, not for the citizens, but for US interests. We all know they do it, but in the interest of impeaching Trump, all of that is conveniently forgotten. Kinda hypocritical, if you ask me. You can deny it happens, but history is replete with US interference with sovereign nations.

I don't like polls, but another post I made today had a 76% approval rate for Trump's actions. Regardless of what the MSM, Democrats and phony Republicans like McCain say.
To continue on this line of thought, America has attacked and invaded other countries as well, but I don't think the correct response if America is attacked and invaded is to shrug and say it's hypocritical to get upset about it.

And make no mistake, a cyber attack on american democracy is an attack. just because bullets aren't flying and people aren't dying doesn't diminish it's seriousness. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on July 19, 2018, 22:08:30
And make no mistake, a cyber attack on american democracy is an attack. just because bullets aren't flying and people aren't dying doesn't diminish it's seriousness.

If that were the case, the US would have declared war on China 15 years ago. Its not a coincidence that the J-20 looks exactly like the F22/F35. They've been ravaging US corporate and government networks for years.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 19, 2018, 22:14:51
If that were the case, the US would have declared war on China 15 years ago. Its not a coincidence that the J-20 looks exactly like the F22/F35. They've been ravaging US corporate and government networks for years.
You're not wrong.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on July 19, 2018, 22:34:35
Once again, you need to look at history. President Trump has been on record since at least 1989 as saying American is being ripped off in trade deals and allies are "living like kings" because they put the cost of defending themselves on America. In his view, these are not the actions of friends and reliable allies, and it is his goal to change them.

The main way he seems set to do this is to make current positions untenable (this also explains his pulling the rug out from under Prime Minister May's attempts to do a "soft Brexit") and draw back American resources to supporting American interests. While it may have been in America's interest to support NATO and take on huge trade deficits in the period between 1945 and the end of the Cold War, it is clearly no longer tenable now, and indeed you would be hard pressed to make a clear case for doing so today. American institutions built during the Cold War have been largely driven by inertia rather than any declaration of intent, and the decay of American power since the 1990's is a pretty clear indication of this. Wars with no clear goals or declaration of how they support the National Interest or Grand Strategy, culminating in the disgraceful "Red Line" in Syria have shown the world that the United States is neither capable or willing to engage. The lack of attention while China expanded into the South China Sea and the hollow "pivot" is yet another example of the lack of American power and will.

President Trump evidently has no desire for America to remain the global police force, and is willing to shake up things so she no longer has to be (but can still remain secure in her borders). Look at things through these lenses and you will see a different story emerge.

1. Trump's incoherent ramblings are not history; even if they go back to 1989. Here's a quick summary of his flip flops over the years.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/08/sunday-review/a-trump-sampler-his-changing-views.html (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/08/sunday-review/a-trump-sampler-his-changing-views.html)

2. American institutions during the Cold War years were not driven by stagnation but by innovation and change. The US's real GDP has grown from $2 Trillion in 1946 to $17 Trillion in 2017.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543 (https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543)

There was growth of several percent for most years.

Yes there have been changes: the primary method of commercial transport is no longer coal fired trains and while manufacturing has definitely changed to cheaper labor methods (whether to off shore plants or to robotics) it has also created a tremendous boost in the affordability to American consumers. Change will continue, whether it is the elimination of the print industry to electronics; the trucking industry to robotic trucks; money handlers (such as bank clerks, check out clerks, etc) to automated terminals and smart phone apps.

Trump and his advisors are living in the dark ages and trying to figure out how to bring rust-belt jobs back on-shore. Thomas Wolfe was right: You Can't Go Home Again. Some things are just gone and, as far as the consumer is concerned, it's for the better. What they should be doing is seeing how to meet the future head. But that's the problem when you're an anarchist; all that you can do is complain that everyone has done things wrong and then tear down what they have built up over the generations without offering concrete plans for a better society.

3. If Trump is getting out of the business of being the world's policeman, why has he increased the defence budget by USD80 Billion to USD691 Billion? When you've broken down international trade agreements what need is there to police international trade routes? What need is there to retain forces in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South or Central Asia? Practically speaking an isolationist US can get by with it's missile defence and a greatly reduced coastal navy.

Sorry. The man's policies are incoherent and, because he has little experience in anything but questionable real estate, it is based on a close group of extremist advisors who have constantly been criticised by the experts in the field (both before and after they started working for Trump). I know. To you those critics are the status quo or the deep state or other pejorative terms. Like you I believe that government can do much better but this isn't the way.

 [cheers]
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on July 19, 2018, 22:38:36
I have to wonder how many countries elections have been hacked and manipulated by the US. How many foreign policies have been trashed from interference by the US. The ME, under Bush, Clinton and Obama is a current example. Arab Spring was not a local initiative in those countries. How many regimes have been decapitated, not for the citizens, but for US interests. We all know they do it, but in the interest of impeaching Trump, all of that is conveniently forgotten. Kinda hypocritical, if you ask me. You can deny it happens, but history is replete with US interference with sovereign nations.

I don't like polls, but another post I made today had a 76% approval rate for Trump's actions. Regardless of what the MSM, Democrats and phony Republicans like McCain say.

I don't disagree with you that the US in the past, and even now, has interfered mightily in the internal affairs of foreign countries.

IMHO this is no reason to applaud Trump for rolling over onto his back and letting Putin scratch his belly.

 [cheers]
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 19, 2018, 22:57:02
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-summit-poll/index.html

Quote
A majority of Americans disapprove of the way President Donald Trump handled the summit in Helsinki with Russian President Vladimir Putin, a new CBS News poll finds.

Fifty-five percent of respondents said they disapproved of Trump's handling of the summit, including 83% of Democrats and 53% of independents.
Just 21% of Republicans disapprove -- with 68% of Republicans saying the approve of how Trump dealt with the meeting.

Overall, 32% approve of the President's handling of the summit -- with 8% of Democrats and 29% of independents saying so.

Seven in 10 Americans believe findings by US intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, though a larger share of Democrats do (89%) than independents (67%) or Republicans (51%). More than four-in-10 Republicans (42%) say they do not believe the intelligence assessments.

Forty-six percent of Americans say the President's approach to Russia is too friendly, up from 35% in April 2017.

Looking ahead to 2018, 61% of Americans say they are very or somewhat concerned about Russian interference in the midterm elections, including 87% of Democrats, but just 38% of Republicans.

More than six-in-10 Republicans (61%) say they are not very or not at all concerned about possible interference.

Looking beyond the polarization of the US electorate, most people do not approve of how that summit went down.

And looking beyond that, I think a very important point has yet to be made. If the general public saw the US president as weak compared to the Russian president, what do people around the world think? This is the 3rd US President in a row Putin has outmaneuvered and outsmarted. For countries stuck in the middle between these two "powers" one has to start to think that siding with Russia and Putin is a safer bet in the long run.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on July 19, 2018, 23:14:20
As a slight aside, the degree of polarization between conservative Americans and liberal ones has been ongoing for some time.

I recently came across the art work of Jon McNaughton (who incidentally I think is a very fine artist) and whose themes over the years very much reflect the times and these differences.

http://jonmcnaughton.com/ (http://jonmcnaughton.com/)

[cheers]
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on July 19, 2018, 23:16:19
You left out one thing:

Quote
The CBS News poll was conducted by telephone July 17-18, 2018 among a random sample of 1,007 adults nationwide. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The "majority" is within the margin of error. CBS News has been terribly wrong before: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-state-of-the-race-the-day-before-election-day/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-state-of-the-race-the-day-before-election-day/)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 19, 2018, 23:19:23
As a slight aside, the degree of polarization between conservative Americans and liberal ones has been ongoing for some time.

I recently came across the art work of Jon McNaughton (who incidentally I think is a very fine artist) and whose themes over the years very much reflect the times and these differences.

http://jonmcnaughton.com/ (http://jonmcnaughton.com/)

[cheers]
I've always believed that one of the greatest mistakes in American history was destroying the CSA.

Union should have gone down, freed the slave, and left. The two sides of America have been moving in different directions for some time, with only external pressures keeping them together, from the world wars, and the treat of communism.

Once the wall fell, and there was no external enemy to rally against, Americans, naturally, have turned on each other.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 19, 2018, 23:21:11
You left out one thing:

The "majority" is within the margin of error. CBS News has been terribly wrong before: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-state-of-the-race-the-day-before-election-day/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-state-of-the-race-the-day-before-election-day/)
Quick question.

How was this wrong?

Quote
With just one day left in the 2016 presidential race, Hillary Clinton holds a four-point lead over Donald Trump nationally, 45 percent to 41 percent -- similar to last week. Few voters say their minds could change.

Final election results.

Donald Trump 62,984,828   

Hillary Clinton 65,853,514

It ended with a 2 point advantage for Clinton, well within the CBS poll margin of error.
Quote
The margin of error for the sample of likely voters is plus or minus three points
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on July 19, 2018, 23:41:58
How was this wrong?

Its not wrong. But you used the CBS News poll to show us how bad Trump did in Helsinki. Using that logic, a majority of Americans believed Trump did a good job in Helsinki and its a non-issue.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 19, 2018, 23:46:53
Its not wrong. But you used the CBS News poll to show us how bad Trump did in Helsinki. Using that logic, a majority of Americans believed Trump did a good job in Helsinki and its a non-issue.
No, the +/- of that poll was 4 points.

55% of americans disapprove of the Presidents handling of the Helsinki summit. Using the 4 point plus minus, at worst, 51 percent of Americans disapprove of the presidents handling of the Helsinki summit. 32 Percent approved of it. using the 4 point plus minus, at most, 36 percent of americans approved of it.

So no matter how you spin it, the majority of Americans disapproved of how the President handled the Helsinki summit.

Also, because politics is a team sport, the only place where this matters is the independents, since they are really the only ones moving their votes.

53 percent disapprove.

29 percent approve.

That's where this hurts the President.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 19, 2018, 23:54:43
Merged with above.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on July 20, 2018, 00:05:11
A 51, 52 or 53% margin of error is pretty weak. Trump won the Presidency with 46% of the popular vote and people are up in arms, but 55% with a 4% margin of error should be enough to condemn him for his conduct in Helsinki??
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 20, 2018, 00:14:31
A 51, 52 or 53% margin of error is pretty weak. Trump won the Presidency with 46% of the popular vote and people are up in arms, but 55% with a 4% margin of error should be enough to condemn him for his conduct in Helsinki??
51- percent disapprove, at best, in a vacuum, isn't too bad. 49 might agree with him then, right? 2 point difference, no big deal?

Except we know the approval rating for the summit. it's in the same poll.

32 percent. which +4, to be generous, is 36 percent.

So best case scenario for the President is 51 percent think he did a bad job, 36 percent think he did a good job. Those are horrible numbers, for his best case scenario. Worst case scenario and we are looking at 59 percent think he did a bad job, 28 percent think he did a good job. That's abysmal.

Sourcing your poll that you said was wrong(which we both agree it wasn't) CBS had Clinton with a 4 point lead over The republican candidate, it ended with a 2 point lead. The margin of error was 4 percent. So to dismiss the CBC poll as I believe you are trying to do doesn't quite make sense to me, even using the margin of error to make it seem the most favorable for the president, most people think he did a bad job.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 20, 2018, 00:27:52
>Let's put it this way. Russia was found trying to destabilize American democracy through their cyber assaults. Those activities continue.

At what point since 1945 - perhaps since a time earlier - has Russia not being trying to destabilize American (and other) democracy (by various means)?  At what point was the US not trying to do the same thing, only aimed the other way?

I understand people being excited about Trump's lackwit response to all this (interference, etc).  What I don't get is the level of outrage and excitement about the fact that it (interference, etc) happened.  Did a large fraction of the western world get brainwiped?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Blackadder1916 on July 20, 2018, 02:30:27
. . .
I understand people being excited about Trump's lackwit response to all this (interference, etc).  What I don't get is the level of outrage and excitement about the fact that it (interference, etc) happened.  Did a large fraction of the western world get brainwiped?

The brainwipe probably occurred soon after they "tore down that wall".  It was easy to identify who and what we opposed when we (the uniformed we, at least) focused our attention on the North German Plain, or Fulda Gap, or Eastern Bavaria and similarly identified points where we expected to be speed bumps in the opening salvos.  But even then, while much of the public face of the Cold War was armoured vehicles and missiles and miscellaneous hardware of conflict, both sides engaged in extensive influence operations (political warfare) that if compared to the tools available today would be almost kindergartenish.  I did a quick scour though the usual think tank resources for reports about influence operations (found some interesting ones) but this The New Republic piece provides what I feel is a quick and simple explanation.  However, to quote the article - "polarized polity where one party actively encourages its followers to distrust news from non-partisan outlets" - some may dismiss its treatise because of the publication's progressive reputation.

https://newrepublic.com/article/147122/stop-inflating-russia-threat
Quote
Stop Inflating the Russia Threat

The problem is not that American democracy was hacked, but that it is hackable.

By Jeet Heer     February 20, 2018

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of thirteen Russians last week for meddling in the 2016 election has incited hysterical threat inflation among many pundits and foreign policy experts. For Washington Post columnist Max Boot, the unfolding Russiagate story is “the second-worst foreign attack on America in the past two decades,” after 9/11. “The Russian subversion of the 2016 election did not, to be sure, kill nearly 3,000 people. But its longer-term impact may be even more corrosive by undermining faith in our democracy,” he wrote on Sunday. He accused Trump of ignoring the threat, concluding that “we are at war without a commander in chief.”

Peter Baker made a similar argument in the New York Times, claiming the indictment “underscored the broader conclusion by the American government that Russia is engaged in a virtual war against the United States through 21st-century tools of disinformation and propaganda, a conclusion shared by the president’s own senior advisers and intelligence chiefs. But it is a war being fought on the American side without a commander in chief.” Interviewed by Politico, Ash Carter, who served as secretary of defense under President Barack Obama, called for a new “Cold War containment” policy to deal with Russia.

But Russia’s interference in the election, at least what’s known thus far, is hardly enough to justify a global struggle comparable to the Cold War or the war on terror. These earlier conflicts consumed trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives. The details in the Mueller indictment are troubling, but not an existential threat worth losing a single life over. New Yorker reporter Adrien Chen, who has been following Russian troll accounts for years, tweeted that the election interference waged on social-media was “90 people with a shaky grasp of English and a rudimentary understanding of U.S. politics shitposting on Facebook.” He elaborated on MSNBC:

The new Cold Warriors start from the premise that election meddling story should be seen in the framework of foreign policy: The Russian government infringed upon American sovereignty, and Donald Trump didn’t respond with sufficient hawkishness. But Trump, of course, is part of the story himself. To the extent that Russian interference shifted votes, Trump was the beneficiary—and intentionally so, according to Mueller’s indictment. And although collusion hasn’t been proven, there’s strong evidence of shady contacts between high-level Trump campaign officials and Russian political operatives. In other words, this isn’t just a foreign policy story, but also a domestic one.

The problem is not that American democracy was hacked, but that it is hackable—that there was enough fragility in American democracy for a few crude memes to have an outsized influence.

“Russia is not working according to a master plan carefully laid-out laid out by President Vladimir Putin,” Henry Farrell, of George Washington University, argued last month in Foreign Policy. “Instead, a loose collective of Russians, with incredibly meager resources, have been working together in a disorganized way to probe American democracy for weaknesses. Instead of persuading people to vote for Donald Trump, and against Clinton, they have wanted to create chaos and paranoia—and they have succeeded in stirring confusion only because there were so many weaknesses for them to exploit in the first place.” Similar Russian attempts to sway elections in France and Germany were much less successful, Farrell notes, because they don’t suffer from he calls a “basic failure of democratic knowledge” in America.

This crisis, which long predates Russian interference, stems from a polarized polity where one party actively encourages its followers to distrust news from non-partisan outlets. It’s enhanced by low voter turnout, active voter suppression, and an electoral system that is constantly manipulated by gerrymandering. The result is a citizenry that does not agree on basic facts, and many of whom distrust the system.

If democratic fragility is the root problem, launching a new Cold War is not going to solve it. Rather, there has to be an active effort to strengthen potential targets, like voting systems (many of which are old and run on outdated technology that’s vulnerable to hackers). The U.S. also needs a comprehensive civics education initiative, for children and adults alike, to instruct Americans on the U.S. Constitution and teach them how to detect propaganda and discount motivated reasoning.

Framing the election meddling as strictly a matter of outside interference will only encourage the conspiracy-mongering that already makes it hard to form a democratic consensus. “By exaggerating the actual consequences of foreign influence operations, American elites are further undermining the confidence and shared knowledge that American democracy needs to function,” Farrell argued. “They are tacitly encouraging Americans on the liberal left to build their own private universe of facts, in which Russian influence has pervasive political consequences.”

Some Democrats think that launching a new Cold War will solve the problem of polarization by unifying the country against a foreign enemy and isolating Republicans who stand with Trump in appeasing Russia. “The Democrats should and must start using Russia as a way to break through the vicious cycle consuming the parties, Washington, and the whole country,” John Stoehr argued in Washington Monthly in January. “Russia is our enemy. This is a fact. It attacked our presidential election. It continues to attack us in what is emerging as a new Cold cyberwar. In tying the Republicans to an enemy, the Democrats have the potential to break the Republicans.”

The actual history of the Cold War belies this fantasy. While Cold War liberals like President Harry Truman did use anti-communism to promote national unity, this only laid the groundwork for Republican demagogues like Senator Joseph McCarthy. Eventually, in the 1960s, the Democrats were torn apart by internal divisions over the Vietnam War. A foreign enemy is no assurance of unity, and perfectly compatible with more polarization.

Trump is the most divisive American president in at least generation. Reversing the damage he’s done to American democracy, let alone fixing the systemic flaws that predate him, is an arduous task that will require many years of political organization and education. There’s no swift solution to this crisis, and whipping up hysteria about Russia will only make it worse.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: beirnini on July 20, 2018, 03:47:18
2. President Trump is defanging the disloyal elements inside his own government.
Mueller and everyone in each of those agencies all swore their loyalty to the Constitution. In what way are they being disloyal to it?

Also "multivalent game"? For a guy who more than two years ago had never impressed anyone with his intellect and acumen outside of grifting suckers it's puzzling to see so much wide-ranging praise heaped on him. There's a far simpler and better-fitting explanation for his disruptive shtick on the world stage and it has little to nothing to do with any interest in "America's National Interest and Grand Strategy".

With Trump you can take your pick of idioms: tiger and it's stripes; old dog and new tricks; when you hear hooves on the other side of the door think horses, not zebras. If there is anyone who should be counseled on seeing what is there and not what is believed to be there it's not those who found Trump utterly reprehensible more than two years ago and have stayed true since, but rather those who somehow found him reprehensible two years ago (social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and warhawks to name a few) but somehow magically found him to be everything they've ever wanted since.

With so much gold-plated tackiness everywhere in his properties it's been said he's a poor-man's idea of rich guy. I suspect the same dynamic might be true of his supposed intellectual gifts as well.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 20, 2018, 08:51:20
Mueller and everyone in each of those agencies all swore their loyalty to the Constitution. In what way are they being disloyal to it?

Also "multivalent game"? For a guy who more than two years ago had never impressed anyone with his intellect and acumen outside of grifting suckers it's puzzling to see so much wide-ranging praise heaped on him. There's a far simpler and better-fitting explanation for his disruptive shtick on the world stage and it has little to nothing to do with any interest in "America's National Interest and Grand Strategy".

With Trump you can take your pick of idioms: tiger and it's stripes; old dog and new tricks; when you hear hooves on the other side of the door think horses, not zebras. If there is anyone who should be counseled on seeing what is there and not what is believed to be there it's not those who found Trump utterly reprehensible more than two years ago and have stayed true since, but rather those who somehow found him reprehensible two years ago (social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and warhawks to name a few) but somehow magically found him to be everything they've ever wanted since.

With so much gold-plated tackiness everywhere in his properties it's been said he's a poor-man's idea of rich guy. I suspect the same dynamic might be true of his supposed intellectual gifts as well.

One can be loyal to the constitution and still undermine one's leadership.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on July 20, 2018, 09:10:27
>Let's put it this way. Russia was found trying to destabilize American democracy through their cyber assaults. Those activities continue.

At what point since 1945 - perhaps since a time earlier - has Russia not being trying to destabilize American (and other) democracy (by various means)?  At what point was the US not trying to do the same thing, only aimed the other way?

I understand people being excited about Trump's lackwit response to all this (interference, etc).  What I don't get is the level of outrage and excitement about the fact that it (interference, etc) happened.  Did a large fraction of the western world get brainwiped?

Richard Nixon actually did the exact same thing to help secure his Presidency.  He governed on a "Peace in Vietnam" platform and then secretly met with  South Vietnamese officials and convinced them refuse to sit at the peace talks until after the election.  A move that basically amounts to treason.

Richard Nixon actively worked against his country's national interest in order to benefit himself.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/nixon-tried-to-spoil-johnsons-vietnam-peace-talks-in-68-notes-show.amp.html (https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/nixon-tried-to-spoil-johnsons-vietnam-peace-talks-in-68-notes-show.amp.html)

Bottom line, politics is dirty and people will say and do what they need to do to get elected.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on July 20, 2018, 12:18:43
An article analysing the divisions in America.

Quote
There are absolutely two Americas. Sometimes in the same state.
Analysis by Ronald Brownstein, CNN

Updated 10:10 AM ET, Fri July 20, 2018

Click on the video for Ronald Brownstein's full report.

Abingdon, Virginia (CNN)A tale of two Virginia districts explains why the geographic, demographic and cultural chasm between the parties in the House of Representatives is about to grow much wider -- with ominous implications for America's escalating political tensions.

In the affluent, diverse, 10th Congressional District of Virginia in the Washington suburbs, a sharp backlash against President Trump has left Republican Rep. Barbara Comstock as perhaps the nation's most endangered GOP incumbent. Simultaneously, in the preponderantly white, working-class and rural 9th Congressional District of Virginia, which includes this picturesque town in the state's far southwestern corner, Trump's popularity is reinforcing the strength of Republican Rep. Morgan Griffith, who captured the seat from a veteran Democrat during the GOP landslide of 2010.

. . .

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/20/politics/2018-midterms-brownstein-two-americas-in-virginia/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/20/politics/2018-midterms-brownstein-two-americas-in-virginia/index.html)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: beirnini on July 20, 2018, 12:23:36
One can be loyal to the constitution and still undermine one's leadership.
That's not disloyalty, though. Insubordination at most, and if one remains true to their oath - i.e. ignores unconstitutional/illegal orders as one should - then it's not even that.

Did Ken Starr ever have to answer to charges of disloyalty? Pretty sure he did not.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 20, 2018, 12:31:04
That's not disloyalty, though. Insubordination at most, and if one remains true to their oath - i.e. ignores unconstitutional/illegal orders as one should - then it's not even that.

Did Ken Starr ever have to answer to charges of disloyalty? Pretty sure he did not.

Loyalties vary.

One can be loyal/disloyal to a leader, subordinate, country, dog etc etc.  Sometimes you can be loyal to more than one at a time.  Or being loyal to one might mean being disloyal to another.   
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 20, 2018, 12:43:47
I tend to prefer that individuals are more loyal to their country than they are to any given leader.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 20, 2018, 14:02:43
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/07/20/michael-cohen-recorded-trump-talking-about-playboy-model-payoff-report.html

Quote
President Donald Trump was secretly recorded by his then-lawyer Michael Cohen just two months before the 2016 presidential election talking about paying off a Playboy model who claimed to have had an affair with Trump, a new report said Friday.

The New York Times reported that the FBI seized that recording, which related to model Karen McDougal, during a raid on Cohen's office in New York City on April 9.


Small stuff in the grand scheme of things, but I for one,  am very in what else Cohen might have recorded with the president.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 20, 2018, 14:39:41
>those who somehow found him reprehensible two years ago (social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and warhawks to name a few) but somehow magically found him to be everything they've ever wanted since.

It's a mistake to keep assuming that what you see is what there is.

Hypothesis: some of the people who (apparently paradoxically or inexplicably) defend Trump, privately harbour deep frustration and anger at his conduct.  They do it to keep Trump secure in office to achieve paramount political objectives (eg. control of USSC and other federal judiciary nominations).

Prediction: if Trump neglects those objectives (eg. starts nominating justices without regard for the advice he has been following to date), his support will rapidly diminish among people who would ordinarily be expected to find him reprehensible.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on July 20, 2018, 15:20:50
I tend to prefer that individuals are more loyal to their country than they are to any given leader.

I agree and further, the various oaths required to be given in the US (for citizenship, the military etc) all swear allegiance to the Constitution. Nowhere is there any requirement to be "loyal" to any given politician, including the President.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_States) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_States))

This is quite clearly in accordance with the wishes of the founding fathers who were expressly rejecting the concept of loyalty to the King of England and instead putting the in place something bigger than any one man; the principles upon which their nation was founded.

The oath of induction into the military constitutes a promise to uphold and defend the constitution  and includes a phrase "that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces_oath_of_enlistment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces_oath_of_enlistment)

Note that this does not constitute an oath of loyalty merely obedience of lawful orders in accordance with regulations and the UCMJ.

Just as a counterpoint do you think that over the last decade everyone was "loyal" to Obama. Trump's birther spoutings showed quite clearly that he wasn't.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 20, 2018, 23:23:23
Trump wasn't a member of the administration, and I'd be surprised if he had sworn any oath to obey the president.  Surely this parenthesis about the ideal of "loyalty" is only relevant to elected, appointed, and employed members of the government?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: beirnini on July 21, 2018, 01:48:03
Loyalties vary.

One can be loyal/disloyal to a leader, subordinate, country, dog etc etc.  Sometimes you can be loyal to more than one at a time.  Or being loyal to one might mean being disloyal to another.
The quote I responded to presumed some form of loyalty. The only expressed loyalty by all that were referred to in the quote is to the constitution of the United States. Any other loyalty cannot be rightfully assumed, not if the United States of America is still a nation under the rule of law.

But of course we have a president who admitted he would like to give "president for life" a try and was met with a shockingly small amount of controversy over it, so I see can how some might be confused.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: beirnini on July 21, 2018, 04:54:23
>those who somehow found him reprehensible two years ago (social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and warhawks to name a few) but somehow magically found him to be everything they've ever wanted since.

It's a mistake to keep assuming that what you see is what there is.

Hypothesis: some of the people who (apparently paradoxically or inexplicably) defend Trump, privately harbour deep frustration and anger at his conduct.  They do it to keep Trump secure in office to achieve paramount political objectives (eg. control of USSC and other federal judiciary nominations).

Prediction: if Trump neglects those objectives (eg. starts nominating justices without regard for the advice he has been following to date), his support will rapidly diminish among people who would ordinarily be expected to find him reprehensible.
We've already seen the rabid, scorched-earth practices on parliamentary procedure that the GOP under McConnell went to in order to secure a nomination to the USSC. The end result was (along with the preferred justice) a total abdication and possible destruction of any pretense that Congress should be a representative and deliberative body: No more "In God We Trust" or "From Many, One", the new de facto motto of American representative democratic governance is "Winner Takes All".

With the object of another justice (or what have you) the same tolerated degree of rabid scorched-earth by Trump's enablers let loose in the executive branch can only end in a similarly extreme transformation of the presidency. I don't know what a 'winner-takes-all' president ultimately is but Trump's admiration and approval of "President for Life" is likely a good hint. Whatever it is it certainly wouldn't be something that the founders envisioned or would have tolerated.

Edit:
Be that all as it may or may not, my point of intentionally overlooked reprehensibility in Trump is significantly less puzzling than the praise he receives for the quality of his acumen and scope of his capacities that have somehow completely escaped the notice of everyone he's ever encountered previous to two years ago. There's a touch 'Dear Leader' revisionism going on.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 21, 2018, 13:17:21
>We've already seen the rabid, scorched-earth practices on parliamentary procedure that the GOP under McConnell went to in order to secure a nomination to the USSC.

McConnell made incremental adjustments to a 35-year deteriorating trend in which most of the incremental adjustments were made by Democrats.

During the Bork nomination process (1987), Democrats went through the motions of a committee hearing while poisoning the public debate (Ted Kennedy being prominent) and then voted to reject in committee.  McConnell didn't bother with a committee hearing.

In 2013, Harry Reid ended the filibuster for judicial nominations, excepting USSC nominations, and during the 2016 elections commented that he thought Democrats would and should end it for USSC nominations.  McConnell ended it for USSC nominations.

In addition to being angry about the specific issue (the "lost" nomination), Democrats are angry about being pre-empted on the opportunity to end the USSC filibuster.

Articles by Democrats and Democrat supporters are full of praise for simple majoritarian government.  So far, it looks like the opportunity to end the legislative filibuster is set aside for them to do.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Thucydides on July 22, 2018, 14:39:04
Quick question.

How was this wrong?

Final election results.

Donald Trump 62,984,828   

Hillary Clinton 65,853,514

It ended with a 2 point advantage for Clinton, well within the CBS poll margin of error.

This poll accurately measures irrelevant information. Presidential elections are won by Electoral College votes. You might as well ask how many yards the Blue Jays rushed for in their game against the Tigers, or how many icing penalties France accumulated on the way to the World Cup.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 22, 2018, 15:13:52
Clinton didn't even campaign in all states unlike Trump,he outworked her.She seems to be gearing uo for 2020. :o
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: EpicBeardedMan on July 22, 2018, 15:22:19
Clinton didn't even campaign in all states unlike Trump,he outworked her.She seems to be gearing uo for 2020. :o

Do you mean 2024?  :whistle:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Halifax Tar on July 22, 2018, 15:23:52
Quick question.

How was this wrong?

Final election results.

Donald Trump 62,984,828   

Hillary Clinton 65,853,514

It ended with a 2 point advantage for Clinton, well within the CBS poll margin of error.

Popular vote don't mean squat.  Same thing in our system.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 22, 2018, 15:32:33
This poll accurately measures irrelevant information. Presidential elections are won by Electoral College votes. You might as well ask how many yards the Blue Jays rushed for in their game against the Tigers, or how many icing penalties France accumulated on the way to the World Cup.
the winner of the popular vote has won all but 2 elections since 1916, and only 5 people have been voted in as president without winning the popular vote since 1776.

So its a pretty important thing to monitor, even with the occasional blip.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 22, 2018, 15:34:14
Popular vote don't mean squat.  Same thing in our system.
your right,  the electoral college is more important.

But again,  how was the poll wrong?  The poll measures the popular vote,  and it got it within the margin of error.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Halifax Tar on July 22, 2018, 15:46:58
your right,  the electoral college is more important.

But again,  how was the poll wrong?  The poll measures the popular vote,  and it got it within the margin of error.

I am ok with any Canadian's critique of this well used point about popular vote so long as they hold the same level of protest and distaste for it when it has happened and continues to here in our own country.  Or is it more ok when it benefits the party we support ? 

My point being, don't criticize the Yanks for an electoral system that gave Trump a victory unless you criticize our own system with the same energy and interest.  Anything less is just partisan and hypocritical.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 22, 2018, 15:55:58
I am ok with any Canadian's critique of this well used point about popular vote so long as they hold the same level of protest and distaste for it when it has happened and continues to here in our own country.  Or is it more ok when it benefits the party we support ? 

My point being, don't criticize the Yanks for an electoral system that gave Trump a victory unless you criticize our own system with the same energy and interest.  Anything less is just partisan and hypocritical.
when did I do that?

I posted a poll by CBS that showed most Americans didn't appreciate how the president handled the Helsinki summit.

Someone posted how the poll was done by CBS, who somehow got the 2016 election wrong,  so they could have gotten the most recent poll wrong.

I showed that the CBS election poll predicted that Clinton would have won by 4 points of the popular vote,  and she ended up winning the popular vote by 2 points,  with a margin of error of 4 points,  so the poll was accurate.

When did I criticize the electoral college?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Halifax Tar on July 22, 2018, 16:53:46
when did I do that?

I posted a poll by CBS that showed most Americans didn't appreciate how the president handled the Helsinki summit.

Someone posted how the poll was done by CBS, who somehow got the 2016 election wrong,  so they could have gotten the most recent poll wrong.

I showed that the CBS election poll predicted that Clinton would have won by 4 points of the popular vote,  and she ended up winning the popular vote by 2 points,  with a margin of error of 4 points,  so the poll was accurate.

When did I criticize the electoral college?

My apologies.  I must have misunderstood the aim of the discussion.  I stand corrected.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 22, 2018, 17:27:49
My apologies.  I must have misunderstood the aim of the discussion.  I stand corrected.
no worries.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: beirnini on July 24, 2018, 10:34:21
>We've already seen the rabid, scorched-earth practices on parliamentary procedure that the GOP under McConnell went to in order to secure a nomination to the USSC.

McConnell made incremental adjustments to a 35-year deteriorating trend in which most of the incremental adjustments were made by Democrats.
Sorry, but that's just not true. Deteriorating trend to be sure, but to suggest what McConnell did is incremental is like saying pulling a gun and popping a shot off at one's partner is an incremental change in an abusive marriage. It doesn't matter if the shot was lethal, the point is that immediate and irrevocable lethality was introduced and a fundamental assumption about the relationship is forever changed, if not ceased to exist entirely.

Filibustering is internecine conflict, and theoretically defensible if the law or legislative procedure being filibustered is patently unconstitutional/illegal, and the consequences too grave to wait the months or years for a successful Supreme Court challenge. I'm not saying this has typically been (or for that matter ever been) the case, only that it could be the case.

What McConnell did was not internecine but open usurpation upon a constitutionally enumerated power of the executive branch in  the presidency. Whatever the Democrats have wished for or threatened beforehand McConnell actually crossed a definite line. That crossing puts the unquestionable lie to his oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Democrats are not wholly innocent of shirking their responsibility to honour their oaths, but unlike McConnell neither are they definitively and abjectly guilty of breaking their oath altogether either.

Now that breaking one's oath to protect and defend the Constitution is proven not to be a issue in the "conservative" electorate (quotation marks because one has to wonder what one is conserving if it isn't loyalty to the Constitution) for the legislative branch the big question becomes how much tolerance will there be to breaking one's oath in the executive branch.

We've already seen more than enough hints to say the tolerance is exceedingly high for something that does not conform to the Constitution in any meaningful way.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 24, 2018, 11:00:44
You must have forgot about Harry Reid when he was majority leader.His rule change enabled Gorsuch to be confirmed.

//www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/thank-god-for-harry-reid/2017/02/02/b2b58906-e97c-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.9da2867238d5
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 24, 2018, 11:27:13
Guess who is coming to grovel at the White House on Wed. ? Jean Claude Juncker the anti-American head of the EU.  Should be fun.The EU has a 10% tariff vs the US of 2.5%on auto imports.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on July 24, 2018, 11:53:30
Sorry, but that's just not true. Deteriorating trend to be sure, but to suggest what McConnell did is incremental is like saying pulling a gun and popping a shot off at one's partner is an incremental change in an abusive marriage. It doesn't matter if the shot was lethal, the point is that immediate and irrevocable lethality was introduced and a fundamental assumption about the relationship is forever changed, if not ceased to exist entirely.

Filibustering is internecine conflict, and theoretically defensible if the law or legislative procedure being filibustered is patently unconstitutional/illegal, and the consequences too grave to wait the months or years for a successful Supreme Court challenge. I'm not saying this has typically been (or for that matter ever been) the case, only that it could be the case.

What McConnell did was not internecine but open usurpation upon a constitutionally enumerated power of the executive branch in  the presidency. Whatever the Democrats have wished for or threatened beforehand McConnell actually crossed a definite line. That crossing puts the unquestionable lie to his oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Democrats are not wholly innocent of shirking their responsibility to honour their oaths, but unlike McConnell neither are they definitively and abjectly guilty of breaking their oath altogether either.

Now that breaking one's oath to protect and defend the Constitution is proven not to be a issue in the "conservative" electorate (quotation marks because one has to wonder what one is conserving if it isn't loyalty to the Constitution) for the legislative branch the big question becomes how much tolerance will there be to breaking one's oath in the executive branch.

We've already seen more than enough hints to say the tolerance is exceedingly high for something that does not conform to the Constitution in any meaningful way.

Totally agree with this and do wonder about how this tactic impacted the 2016 elections.

While Trump did win the presidency, the Republicans did lose seats in both the House and the Senate. Haven't seen any analysis on this particular issue.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 24, 2018, 12:14:03
More on the Juncker meeting,

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/‘tariffs-are-the-greatest’-trump-tweets-before-juncker-meeting/ar-AAAlo2T?ocid=spartanntp
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: beirnini on July 24, 2018, 12:36:02
You must have forgot about Harry Reid when he was majority leader.His rule change enabled Gorsuch to be confirmed.

//www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/thank-god-for-harry-reid/2017/02/02/b2b58906-e97c-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.9da2867238d5
One does not break one's oath to protect the Constitution just because a rule allows it, one does so because the oath no longer means anything to oneself. If the oath mattered to McConnell the minimum he would've done is simply ignore what it "enabled". If he were serious about his oath he would've revoked the rule as soon as he became Senate majority leader (assuming it is in his power in the same way it was in Reid's). That he did neither says everything we really need to know.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on July 24, 2018, 14:56:57
One does not break one's oath to protect the Constitution just because a rule allows it, one does so because the oath no longer means anything to oneself. If the oath mattered to McConnell the minimum he would've done is simply ignore what it "enabled". If he were serious about his oath he would've revoked the rule as soon as he became Senate majority leader (assuming it is in his power in the same way it was in Reid's). That he did neither says everything we really need to know.

Can you point to a article of the Constitution that specifically covers the rules of the Senate? All I can find is article 1 section 5 clause 2.
Quote
Clause 2: Rules
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: beirnini on July 24, 2018, 21:38:48
Can you point to a article of the Constitution that specifically covers the rules of the Senate? All I can find is article 1 section 5 clause 2.
I doubt my Google-fu is any better. If that's all you can find then that's probably all there is.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on July 24, 2018, 23:05:59
Can you point to a article of the Constitution that specifically covers the rules of the Senate? All I can find is article 1 section 5 clause 2.

The problem with your question is that the phrase "rules of the Senate" which is (no doubt unintentionally) a bit vague.

"Rules" covers a wide swath.

Article I Section 5 Clause 2 - is enabling legislation which authorizes each of the House of Representatives and the Senate to draft and implement their own individual "rules of procedure".

The Senate's  Rules and Procedures can be found here:

https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Rules_and_Procedure_vrd.htm (https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Rules_and_Procedure_vrd.htm)

In addition all of Article I relates to "powers", "provisions", "restrictions" etc that apply to the House of Representatives and the Senate. In a general sense those too are "rules". To get a full understanding of the functioning of the Senate you need to read all of Article I, the "Rules and Procedures" referred to above as well as additional legislation dealing with the Senate's powers.

Maybe you could more precisely define what it is you are looking for.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 24, 2018, 23:42:41
>What McConnell did was not internecine but open usurpation upon a constitutionally enumerated power of the executive branch in  the presidency.

Since the Senate can change its procedural rules with a simple majority vote (which means the filibuster rules were and are always subject to the forbearance of the majority party), I can only assume you refer to what the constitution has to say about USSC nominations.

"...he [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court..."

The President has the power to nominate; the Senate has the power to consent.  It is one of the "checks and balances" features.  The president was not permitted from nominating (Garland).  There is no default if the Senate does nothing - without consent, the nomination dies.  There is no presumption of deference to the president.  There is no requirement for a committee hearing or a vote.  Nothing was usurped.  Nothing unconstitutional was done.  No oaths were violated.  Your high horse is short enough to trip a crocodile.

All Obama had to do was nominate a candidate satisfactory to the Senate majority.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on July 25, 2018, 00:10:27
>What McConnell did was not internecine but open usurpation upon a constitutionally enumerated power of the executive branch in  the presidency.

Since the Senate can change its procedural rules with a simple majority vote (which means the filibuster rules were and are always subject to the forbearance of the majority party), I can only assume you refer to what the constitution has to say about USSC nominations.

"...he [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court..."

The President has the power to nominate; the Senate has the power to consent.  It is one of the "checks and balances" features.  The president was not permitted from nominating (Garland).  There is no default if the Senate does nothing - without consent, the nomination dies.  There is no presumption of deference to the president.  There is no requirement for a committee hearing or a vote.  Nothing was usurped.  Nothing unconstitutional was done.  No oaths were violated.  Your high horse is short enough to trip a crocodile.

All Obama had to do was nominate a candidate satisfactory to the Senate majority.

My problem with what happened with Garland isn't that the Senate did not "consent"; it's that one Senator--McConnell--refused to convene any of the required hearings and votes which would allow the Senate to perform it's proper function to "advise", "consent" or "reject" the nominee. It's not a question of "deference"; it's a question of fulfilling it's own constitutional duties.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: beirnini on July 25, 2018, 04:02:35
My problem with what happened with Garland isn't that the Senate did not "consent"; it's that one Senator--McConnell--refused to convene any of the required hearings and votes which would allow the Senate to perform it's proper function to "advise", "consent" or "reject" the nominee. It's not a question of "deference"; it's a question of fulfilling it's own constitutional duties.

 :cheers:
Well put. The senate has the power to consent, but they also have the responsibility to advise. I heard a similar kind of argument often during the Iraq war, where hawks and partisans would talk up the so-called Unitary Executive (remember that? Funny how blind support for that all but dried up once Obama came around) by quoting constitutional war powers but completely downplayed or disregarded constitutional presidential responsibilities.

As the founders intended there are supposed to be checks and balances between the branches. If one branch only uses their power to check another there is no balance.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 25, 2018, 22:04:45
Senators have the power to remove their leader.  Pretend that's not implied consent to go along with whatever he does, if you choose.  Obviously Republicans are not going to end the use of slimy procedural tricks to achieve their ends.  I doubt the Democrats will unilaterally disarm when they capture the majority.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 26, 2018, 12:54:30
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/trump-reelection-poll-numbers-2018-7

Quote
President Donald Trump's poll numbers are sagging in three key Midwestern states, with only around one-third of voters surveyed saying he deserves to be reelected in 2020, according to new NBC News/Marist polls out Wednesday.

The poll indicated that 28% of registered voters in Michigan, a state Trump flipped in the 2016 presidential election, say he deserves a second term. Some 62% of voters polled believe it's time to replace Trump, the poll found.

In Minnesota, a state Trump lost to Hillary Clinton by fewer than two percentage points in 2016, roughly 30% of voters surveyed say Trump deserves another go-around in the Oval Office, while 60% said he doesn't.

Thirty-one percent of voters in Wisconsin are in favor of a second term for Trump, while 63% say they are not, the NBC/Marist polls show. Trump flipped Wisconsin in 2016 with around 23,000 votes.

And my hope of this being a four year nightmare that will end in 2020 continues to live on.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 26, 2018, 13:04:50
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/07/24/majority-believes-russia-has-dirt-on-trump-poll.html

Quote
It's been a week since President Donald Trump’s widely panned meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and a new poll shows that a majority of Americans believes the Kremlin has compromising information on the American leader.

By a 51-to-35 percent margin, U.S. voters are convinced the Russian government has dirt on Trump, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll.



Quote
The new poll also showed a decline in Americans' approval of Trump's overall job performance. His approval now sits at 38 percent, compared with 58 percent disapproval. His approval rating fell five points from a June 20 Quinnipiac poll that followed the president’s summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.


Its hilarious that Putin tried[largely ineffectively] to get this president elected,  and in some extent,  may end up killing his chances of being reelected.

IMHO,  one cannot try to be a tough guy one second and cozy up to Russia the next.

He has largely been the Teflon president,  but I'm willing to wager this one sticks with him as it strikes at his core brand,  a tough guy who will stand up for America.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Infanteer on July 26, 2018, 16:42:56
And my hope of this being a four year nightmare that will end in 2020 continues to live on.

Of your 1,935 posts, 1,434 are on the politics threads - that's 75%. I bet most of those are on the current U.S. administration.  Why don't you lay off the gas a bit and give everyone else a bit of breathing space to absorb the threads here?

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 26, 2018, 16:47:01
Of your 1,935 posts, 1,434 are on the politics threads - that's 75%. I bet most of those are on the current U.S. administration.  Why don't you lay off the gas a bit and give everyone else a bit of breathing space to absorb the threads here?
Nope.

Most of my posts were in the Canadian politics thread.

Thanks though.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Infanteer on July 26, 2018, 16:54:07
Just throwing it out there.  Some of your stuff is good and is worth reading, but people are apt to take your posts in a better light if you abstain from just throwing up every news article on Trump or Trudeau ever written.  It clogs the forums with static and discourages others from participating.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 26, 2018, 17:09:29
Just throwing it out there.  Some of your stuff is good and is worth reading, but people are apt to take your posts in a better light if you abstain from just throwing up every news article on Trump or Trudeau ever written.  It clogs the forums with static and discourages others from participating.
I haven't posted much in the canadians politics threads for some time now,  mostly because of the large volume of news generating issues popping up south of the border.

Of those,  I only post the more important (to me)  issues. If I were to post about every single controversy that this president is able to come up with I would be exhausted.

In short,  I believe one or two interesting topics or newsworthy issues per thread in a day shouldn't be overwhelming.

Should people have different opinions,  they can feel free to post about it.

The cartoon thread seems to be handling opposing viewpoints with little trouble or controversy
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on July 27, 2018, 11:43:59

Coca Cola is going to increase the price on its products due to the tariffs on aluminum.

 https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/27/news/companies/coca-cola-prices-tariffs/index.html

I'm not sure I see that as a bad thing from a public health perspective...
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 27, 2018, 13:21:24
Coca Cola is going to increase the price on its products due to the tariffs on aluminum.

 https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/27/news/companies/coca-cola-prices-tariffs/index.html

I'm not sure I see that as a bad thing from a public health perspective...

Quote
Feb 2017
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-coca-cola-results-idUSKBN15O1F4
The world’s largest beverage maker’s shares fell 3.1 percent to $40.73 in morning trading on Thursday.

Coca-Cola has been offloading much of its low-margin bottling business to cope with falling demand for carbonated beverages in North America.

It has also been stepping up efforts to reduce sugar in its beverages, amid growing pressure from health experts and governments who have blamed sugary drinks for a rise in obesity.
Quote
However, global volume sales for the company fell 1 percent in the fourth quarter, hurt by high levels of inflation in certain Latin American countries


Coke is still cheaper than water in many places. I agree it's a good thing from a health perspective.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 28, 2018, 14:05:46
>Coca Cola is going to increase the price on its products due to the tariffs on aluminum.

Short your tech stocks.  Coca Cola is the fuel of IT workers.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on July 28, 2018, 14:29:04
Short your tech stocks.  Coca Cola is the fuel of IT workers.

Maybe in the 80s. Its Redbull and Monsters now.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: RomeoJuliet on July 28, 2018, 19:05:40
Maybe in the 80s. Its Redbull and Monsters now.
No kidding. Damn those Monsters. Young troops drink those by the boatload. Almost got me hooked when I was on course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Thucydides on July 29, 2018, 09:46:04
An excerpt from a FT article (behind the paywall) suggests the Chinese have a very, very different understanding of President Donald Trump than the Western media and the political establishment. Once again, we may not like the style, but the substance is going to change or overturn many long held assumptions, organizations and institutions:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/303362/

Quote
Donald Trump is leading a double life. In the west, most foreign policy experts see him as reckless, unpredictable and self-defeating. But though many in Asia dislike him as much as the Europeans do, they see him as a more substantial figure. I have just spent a week in Beijing talking to officials and intellectuals, many of whom are awed by his skill as a strategist and tactician. . . .

Few Chinese think that Mr Trump’s primary concern is to rebalance the bilateral trade deficit. If it were, they say, he would have aligned with the EU, Japan and Canada against China rather than scooping up America’s allies in his tariff dragnet. They think the US president’s goal is nothing less than remaking the global order.

They think Mr Trump feels he is presiding over the relative decline of his great nation. It is not that the current order does not benefit the US. The problem is that it benefits others more in relative terms. To make things worse the US is investing billions of dollars and a fair amount of blood in supporting the very alliances and international institutions that are constraining America and facilitating China’s rise.

In Chinese eyes, Mr Trump’s response is a form of “creative destruction”. He is systematically destroying the existing institutions — from the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement to Nato and the Iran nuclear deal — as a first step towards renegotiating the world order on terms more favourable to Washington.

Once the order is destroyed, the Chinese elite believes, Mr Trump will move to stage two: renegotiating America’s relationship with other powers. Because the US is still the most powerful country in the world, it will be able to negotiate with other countries from a position of strength if it deals with them one at a time rather than through multilateral institutions that empower the weak at the expense of the strong.

My interlocutors say that Mr Trump is the US first president for more than 40 years to bash China on three fronts simultaneously: trade, military and ideology. They describe him as a master tactician, focusing on one issue at a time, and extracting as many concessions as he can. They speak of the skilful way Mr Trump has treated President Xi Jinping. “Look at how he handled North Korea,” one says. “He got Xi Jinping to agree to UN sanctions [half a dozen] times, creating an economic stranglehold on the country. China almost turned North Korea into a sworn enemy of the country.” But they also see him as a strategist, willing to declare a truce in each area when there are no more concessions to be had, and then start again with a new front.

For the Chinese, even Mr Trump’s sycophantic press conference with Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, in Helsinki had a strategic purpose. They see it as Henry Kissinger in reverse. In 1972, the US nudged China off the Soviet axis in order to put pressure on its real rival, the Soviet Union. Today Mr Trump is reaching out to Russia in order to isolate China.

As always, YMMV. But this tracks with the Presidents long term public statements and positions (dating back to 1989 at least) as well as his MO as a real estate developer and businessman, so I believe this does indeed describe the President's vision and actions in a manner which is consistent and has an internal logic. The American political, bureaucratic, corporate and academic establishments may also understand the true nature of the President's goals, and a fundamental reordering of the global order will also unseat many of them from the comfortable positions they have managed to create over the decades, which explains the virulence of the domestic opposition as well.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: beirnini on July 30, 2018, 06:39:45
Quote
They think Mr Trump feels he is presiding over the relative decline of his great nation. It is not that the current order does not benefit the US. The problem is that it benefits others more in relative terms. To make things worse the US is investing billions of dollars and a fair amount of blood in supporting the very alliances and international institutions that are constraining America and facilitating China’s rise.

1. Duh? Did anyone genuinely think being the "Shining City Upon a Hill" (quoting Reagan, people - gag me) was going to be cheap or "relatively" advantageous? Seriously. What is the ideal manifestation of that quote: A casino? Theme Park? Truck stop?

2. Corollary to #1., if you want to champion and evangelize natural, inalienable rights as described in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights be prepared to be a bit of a charity much like your preferred flavour of Jesus-puncher. Nobody in power wants to concede that everybody below them are universally owed some minimum form of respect and consideration. Authoritarian 'rule of man' is the historical default we're allegedly striving to progress and civilize ourselves beyond, assuming the Enlightenment still has any sway anymore.

If constraining China relative to the US is your object I should think living more within one's means vis-a-vis inter-government debt is far more effective than crapping all over the alliances and institutions that have been painstakingly built over the last several decades or so. But what do I know, I'm just some quasi-academic liberal egg-head or some crap worried about my own interests or whatever.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on July 30, 2018, 10:26:26
Quote
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/
Quote
Showing the American Public the Left in their own words

In times past many conservative Americans were rightfully upset that the Republicans would not fight with the same vigor as the Democrats. No longer. Here’s one ad that will be running nationally this Fall:



Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 30, 2018, 10:49:01
An excerpt from a FT article (behind the paywall) suggests the Chinese have a very, very different understanding of President Donald Trump than the Western media and the political establishment. Once again, we may not like the style, but the substance is going to change or overturn many long held assumptions, organizations and institutions:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/303362/

As always, YMMV. But this tracks with the Presidents long term public statements and positions (dating back to 1989 at least) as well as his MO as a real estate developer and businessman, so I believe this does indeed describe the President's vision and actions in a manner which is consistent and has an internal logic. The American political, bureaucratic, corporate and academic establishments may also understand the true nature of the President's goals, and a fundamental reordering of the global order will also unseat many of them from the comfortable positions they have managed to create over the decades, which explains the virulence of the domestic opposition as well.
there is a key line in that article which I think is spot on.

Quote
Once the order is destroyed, the Chinese elite believes, Mr Trump will move to stage two: renegotiating America’s relationship with other powers. Because the US is still the most powerful country in the world, it will be able to negotiate with other countries from a position of strength if it deals with them one at a time rather than through multilateral institutions that empower the weak at the expense of the strong.

Spot on. Which is why global powers should not try to deal with America on a one on one basis, America will win those all day long.

If the international community sticks to its guns and collectively, using multinational organizations, continue to assert pressure on America they will win in the end.

Mexico seems to have gotten the message, thankfully.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mexico-us-canada-bilateral-1.4761820

Quote
Mexican officials went out of their way yesterday to tell their Canadian counterparts not to read anything into the fact that their trade negotiators and the Americans are meeting bilaterally in Washington on Friday — that the new government in Mexico City isn't planning to cut a separate deal with the U.S. outside of NAFTA.

"The fact that this time we're going to Washington for a bilateral is just a sequence of things," said Mexico's Secretary of the Economy Ildefonso Guajardo, who handles the NAFTA file. He added that the Canadian and American negotiating teams also often hold two-way talks, and Friday's bilateral isn't an indication that Canada could be left out in the cold.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Furniture on July 30, 2018, 12:14:02

Spot on. Which is why global powers should not try to deal with America on a one on one basis, America will win those all day long.

If the international community sticks to its guns and collectively, using multinational organizations, continue to assert pressure on America they will win in the end.


The problem is, how long will the individual nations hang on when America comes knocking with a sweetheart deal? Will Mexicans be hapy to see their econmy stall so that Canada gets a better deal too? How long will they wait? Will we decline a better offer from America to ensure Mexico gets their share?

I think in the long run America will break the trade alliances one weak link at a time until they get basically what they want.
 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 30, 2018, 12:38:27
The problem is, how long will the individual nations hang on when America comes knocking with a sweetheart deal? Will Mexicans be hapy to see their econmy stall so that Canada gets a better deal too? How long will they wait? Will we decline a better offer from America to ensure Mexico gets their share?

I think in the long run America will break the trade alliances one weak link at a time until they get basically what they want.
I think Nations will probably look at the long game.

America gives Mexico a sweetheart deal for example, Mexico accepts, America uses that deal to break Canada and get the deal they want with Ottawa.

What is to stop the USA from backing out of that sweetheart deal with Mexico?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Good2Golf on July 30, 2018, 13:02:37
I think Nations will probably look at the long game.

America gives Mexico a sweetheart deal for example, Mexico accepts, America uses that deal to break Canada and get the deal they want with Ottawa.

What is to stop the USA from backing out of that sweetheart deal with Mexico?

Pretty unlikely that the U.S. would back out of an agreed-upon arrangement.

Oh wait...
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 30, 2018, 13:33:05
Pretty unlikely that the U.S. would back out of an agreed-upon arrangement.

Oh wait...
Yes, I wish the nation that decides to take a sweetheart deal with the US good luck, for we have all seen how the USA treats nations who it feels may be taking advantage of the USA with unfair trade deals.

Especially a one on one deal, i can't see that ending well for that nation.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Thucydides on July 30, 2018, 15:09:41
Nations, like people may not look at what we see as "rational" calculations. Short term gain for domestic purposes is a huge driver of political calculations, and of course there will be a domino effect; if one nation goes for a bilateral deal, everyone else will have to rush into deals of their own or risk being cut off.

I would also be rather wary of Canada looking for help from Mexico in the NAFTA deal, there are a multitude fo very different considerations driving Mexico, and we likely are not looking at how Canada and Mexico's interests are aligned (indeed given the sorts of considerations Canada is putting forward for their NAFTA negotiating team, we might not be aligned with Mexico at all.....).

America can use her considerable power to affect deals and negotiations like this, and once again we need to look at this from America's point of view, not some wishful thinking of our own.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 30, 2018, 15:51:45
Nations, like people may not look at what we see as "rational" calculations. Short term gain for domestic purposes is a huge driver of political calculations, and of course there will be a domino effect; if one nation goes for a bilateral deal, everyone else will have to rush into deals of their own or risk being cut off.

I would also be rather wary of Canada looking for help from Mexico in the NAFTA deal, there are a multitude fo very different considerations driving Mexico, and we likely are not looking at how Canada and Mexico's interests are aligned (indeed given the sorts of considerations Canada is putting forward for their NAFTA negotiating team, we might not be aligned with Mexico at all.....).

America can use her considerable power to affect deals and negotiations like this, and once again we need to look at this from America's point of view, not some wishful thinking of our own.
The Mexican President is in the most secure position one can be in during these negotiations. He can only serve one six year term, and just won his election. During his mandate, the US will have gone through the midterms, a presidental election and senate and house races, and approaching another mid terms before his term is up, and Canada will have gone through at least one more election cycle.

He can wait. He's under no pressure to sign a sweetheart deal right now.

The most vulnerable politician is Trudeau, and the more he puts the squeeze on him, the more Trudeau gets to be captain Canada.

But again, I would doubt the longevity of any sweetheart deal signed with America right now. The current administration doesn't inspire confidence in holding up it's end of the bargain when they feel that someone is allegedly taking advantage of America. In Mexico's case, the second that Canada capitulates in a trade war because of a sweetheart deal with Mexico is the second America turns its trades guns back on mexico. In fact, I doubt they are even shameless about it. I can already hear the President saying something along the lines of" Mexico didn't negotiate in good faith. They rushed a deal to take advantage of us having to deal with both them and Canada, and it's a bad deal. I'm going to renegotiate that deal, because it's not fair to America. It's not fair. And now that we have a good deal with Canada, I'm going to deal with Mexico. We aren't going to stand for having  a bad deal with Mexico."
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 30, 2018, 18:27:45
Captain Canada?  ::) Are you a fanboy? 8)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 30, 2018, 18:42:46
Captain Canada?  ::) Are you a fanboy? 8)
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/opinion/article-donald-trump-has-finally-made-us-mad-really-mad/&ved=2ahUKEwjUh-Hm5MfcAhXjQ98KHQIkB7UQFjAXegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw2n-XtkH-usQ4cSBuU7zfPy&ampcf=1

Quote
Mr. Trudeau’s wardrobe misadventure in India may have made him look pathetic and pandering, but today he looks like Captain Canada. The more that Mr. Trump insults him, the more popular he’s bound to get – for now, at least.
just quoting some in the press.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Furniture on July 31, 2018, 05:00:39
The Mexican President is in the most secure position one can be in during these negotiations. He can only serve one six year term, and just won his election. During his mandate, the US will have gone through the midterms, a presidental election and senate and house races, and approaching another mid terms before his term is up, and Canada will have gone through at least one more election cycle.

He can wait. He's under no pressure to sign a sweetheart deal right now.

The most vulnerable politician is Trudeau, and the more he puts the squeeze on him, the more Trudeau gets to be captain Canada.

But again, I would doubt the longevity of any sweetheart deal signed with America right now. The current administration doesn't inspire confidence in holding up it's end of the bargain when they feel that someone is allegedly taking advantage of America. In Mexico's case, the second that Canada capitulates in a trade war because of a sweetheart deal with Mexico is the second America turns its trades guns back on mexico. In fact, I doubt they are even shameless about it. I can already hear the President saying something along the lines of" Mexico didn't negotiate in good faith. They rushed a deal to take advantage of us having to deal with both them and Canada, and it's a bad deal. I'm going to renegotiate that deal, because it's not fair to America. It's not fair. And now that we have a good deal with Canada, I'm going to deal with Mexico. We aren't going to stand for having  a bad deal with Mexico."

Thr problem is, what does Mexico gain in holding out for Canada compared to what they may lose if the Americans decide to walk away from the table and keep the tarriffs in place? You can debate the possibility of America deciding to change any new deal Mexico may sign, but holding out for Canada is no promise that America won't change it's mind anyway.

I want to think Canada is handling things the right way by sticking it to mean old America, but when the EU is already looking to back down maybe we should be coming to the table again too. After all, America is our largest trading partner and closest ally.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Altair on July 31, 2018, 09:25:41
Thr problem is, what does Mexico gain in holding out for Canada compared to what they may lose if the Americans decide to walk away from the table and keep the tarriffs in place? You can debate the possibility of America deciding to change any new deal Mexico may sign, but holding out for Canada is no promise that America won't change it's mind anyway.
Safety in numbers. Mexico would be at the mercy of the USA if they staked their future on any bilateral deal, where as with NAFTA right now, the deal isn't dead because the USA needs to negotiate with both Mexico and Canada. Again, it's not like the USA has inspired any confidence in regards to how they keep their word on any deals.They wouldn't be doing it "for" Canada, they would be doing it because NAFTA> Bilateral deal with the USA.
Quote


I want to think Canada is handling things the right way by sticking it to mean old America, but when the EU is already looking to back down maybe we should be coming to the table again too. After all, America is our largest trading partner and closest ally.
Remember CETA? That long, hard fought, tear inducing, Europe backing down, trade deal Canada signed with Europe?

This wasn't it. Juncker and the president agreed on

1) America no putting more sanctions on Europe

2) Europe buying more LNG and Soybeans.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-25/why-the-eu-was-already-likely-to-import-more-u-s-soybeans

Quote
The European Union will import more U.S. soybeans as part of a new accord to avoid an all-out trade war. Yet the bloc was already likely to take more American shipments.

That’s because the 25 percent tariff China slapped on U.S. soy imports earlier this month promises to reshape the global market for the commodity. The U.S.-China tiff means it’s likely that Brazil, the No. 2 producer, will end up selling more soy to China as a result. That’s something that traders anticipate, based on the higher price Brazilian soy is fetching over U.S. supplies.

Facing a reduced Chinese market, U.S. soybean exporters have few options other than to target the EU. And the fact that Brazilian shippers will be sending more cargoes to China means less competition in Europe. Rabobank International Ltd. predicted in June that the U.S. may overtake Brazil as the biggest soybean importer into the EU.
So the EU was already going to be importing more Soybeans, and as American LNG gets cheaper, they would be importing more of that as well.

But Juncker cannot force individual EU nations to do anything

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-26/how-the-eu-bureaucrat-won-bigger-than-trump

Quote
The EU cannot order member states to buy more from the U.S.: Unlike the market for pipeline gas, where costly fixed infrastructure dictates the sources, an LNG carrier can come to Europe from Peru, Trinidad or the U.S., and it makes little difference to the buyers as long as the price is right. Juncker’s “promise” to Trump means merely that demand for natural gas is growing in Europe and capacity exists to accept more imports if they’re competitive.

So back to CETA. Canada has a long term trade pact with the EU in place, with specific numbers on what markets will be open, what tariffs will be reduced, what industries will benefit.

The USA has a handshake with Juncker to do things the EU was already likely to do, but no way to guarantee it will continue to do so in the future.

Most importantly, the tariffs in place before the president and Juncker meet were still in place after the president and Juncker meet, so I don't see how Europe is backing down on anything.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on July 31, 2018, 20:22:54
Well at least he is a straight shooter...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ap-fact-check-trumps-historic-economic-gains-2016-myths/2018/07/30/205edca8-93b0-11e8-818b-e9b7348cd87d_story.html?utm_term=.4b75b589141a (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ap-fact-check-trumps-historic-economic-gains-2016-myths/2018/07/30/205edca8-93b0-11e8-818b-e9b7348cd87d_story.html?utm_term=.4b75b589141a)

Quote
AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s ‘historic’ economic gains, 2016 myths
 
By Hope Yen, Josh Boak and Christopher Rugaber | AP
July 30
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump exaggerated his role in boosting U.S. economic growth, falsely claiming full credit for positive economic news and inaccurately declaring a “historic” turnaround.

The statements capped a week of mystifying assertion in which Trump also invented history by saying he won the women’s vote in the 2016 election, saw progress with North Korea that isn’t evident to his top diplomat and boasted of “success” and “record business” in U.S. health care programs that have yet to start.

A look at the claims:

2016 ELECTION

TRUMP: “I did win that women’s vote, didn’t I? Remember, they said, ‘Why would women vote for Trump?’ Well, I don’t know, but I got more than she did. That’s pretty good.” — remarks Thursday in Granite City, Ill.

THE FACTS: No, he didn’t. About 54 percent of women nationally voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016, according to exit polls, compared with Trump’s 41 percent.

___

HEALTH CARE

TRUMP, on a health insurance option for small businesses and self-employed people: “I hear it’s like record business that they’re doing. We just opened about two months ago, and I’m hearing that the numbers are incredible. Numbers of people that are getting really, really good health care instead of Obamacare, which is a disaster.” — remarks Thursday in Peosta, Iowa.

THE FACTS: The Trump administration’s new health insurance option isn’t producing “record business,” because a roll-out of the plans doesn’t begin until September.

Even after the plans take effect, their impact is expected to be somewhat limited.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates a modest impact of 4 million people who will be covered by the association plans within five years. That’s compared with nearly 160 million who are covered by job-based insurance, the 12 million eligible for expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare,” and the 10 million in the ACA’s private insurance markets.

TRUMP: “We’re greatly expanding telehealth and walk-in clinics so our veterans can get anywhere, at any time, they can get what they need, they can learn about the problem and they don’t necessarily have to drive long distances and wait. It’s been a very big success.” — remarks Tuesday to Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Kansas City, Missouri.

THE FACTS: A new benefit that would give the nation’s veterans access to commercially run walk-in clinics is not a success at all, because it hasn’t started.

It won’t begin for another year and the care won’t always be freely provided “anywhere, at any time.” Only veterans who have used VA health care services in the previous two years would be able to get care at the private walk-in clinics. After two visits, veterans could be subject to higher co-payments charged by the VA.

TRUMP: “We passed Veterans Choice, the biggest thing ever. ... It has got to be the biggest improvement you can have. So now if you can’t get the treatment you need in a timely manner, people used to wait two weeks, three weeks, eight weeks, they couldn’t get to a doctor. You will have the right to see a private doctor immediately, and we will pay for it.” — remarks Tuesday.

THE FACTS: The care provided under the Choice program is not as immediate as Trump suggests, nor is it likely to be the “biggest thing” ever. Currently only veterans who endure waits of at least 30 days for an appointment at a VA facility are eligible to receive care immediately from private doctors at government expense, a standard that the VA is frequently unable to meet.

Under a newly expanded Choice program that will take at least a year to implement, veterans will still have to meet certain criteria before they can see a private physician.

A recent report by the Government Accountability Office found that despite the Choice program’s guarantee of providing an appointment within 30 days, veterans waited an average of 51 to 64 days.

___

ECONOMY AND TRADE

TRUMP: “We’ve accomplished an economic turnaround of historic proportions.” — remarks Friday on a new economic report.

THE FACTS: That doesn’t square with the record. Trump didn’t inherit a fixer-upper economy.

The U.S. economy just entered its 10th year of growth, a recovery that began under President Barack Obama, who inherited the Great Recession. The data show that the falling unemployment rate and gains in home values reflect the duration of the recovery, rather than any major changes made since 2017 by the Trump administration.

While Trump praised the 4.1 percent annual growth rate in the second quarter, it exceeded that level four times during the Obama presidency. But quarterly figures are volatile and strength in one quarter can be reversed in the next. While Obama never achieved the 3 percent annual growth that Trump hopes to see, he came close. The economy grew 2.9 percent in 2015.

The economy faces two significant structural drags that could keep growth closer to 2 percent than 3 percent: an aging population, which means fewer people are working and more are retired, and weak productivity growth, which means that those who are working aren’t increasing their output as quickly as in the past.

Both of those factors are largely beyond Trump’s control.

TRUMP: “One of the biggest wins in the report, and it is, indeed a big one, is that the trade deficit — very dear to my heart because we’ve been ripped off by the world — has dropped.” — remarks Friday.

THE FACTS: Trump is correct that a lower trade deficit helped growth in the April-June quarter, but it’s not necessarily for a positive reason.

The president has floated plans to impose import taxes on hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign goods, which has led to the risk of retaliatory tariffs by foreign companies on U.S. goods.

This threat of an escalating trade war has led many companies to increase their levels of trade before any tariffs hit, causing the temporary boost in exports being celebrated by Trump.

Richard Moody, chief economist at Regions Financial, said the result is that the gains from trade in the second quarter will not be repeated.

TRUMP: “We’re having the best economy we’ve ever had in the history of our country.” — remarks Thursday in Granite City, Illinois.

THE FACTS: This is not the best the U.S. economy has ever been.

The unemployment rate is near a 40-year low and growth is solid, but by many measures the current economy trails other periods in U.S. history. Average hourly pay, before adjusting for inflation, is rising at about a 2.5 percent annual rate, below the 4 percent level reached in the late 1990s when the unemployment rate was as low as it is now.

Pay was growing even faster in the late 1960s, when the jobless rate remained below 4 percent for nearly four years. And economic growth topped 4 percent for three full years from 1998 through 2000, an annual rate it hasn’t touched since.

TRUMP: “The Canadians, you have a totally closed market ... they have a 375 percent tax on dairy products, other than that it’s wonderful to deal. And we have a very big deficit with Canada, a trade deficit.” — remarks Thursday in Peosta, Iowa.

THE FACTS: No, it’s not closed. Because of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada’s market is almost totally open to the United States. Each country has a few products that are still largely protected, such as dairy in Canada and sugar in the United States.

Trump also repeated his claim that the U.S. has a trade deficit with Canada, but that is true only in goods. When services are included, such as insurance, tourism, and engineering, the U.S. had a $2.8 billion surplus with Canada last year.

TRUMP: “Veterans’ unemployment has fallen to the lowest level in almost 18 years. ... And I’ll guarantee, within a month or two months, that 18 will be even a much higher number.” — remarks Tuesday at VFW convention.

THE FACTS: This boast is based on outdated numbers.

The veterans’ unemployment rate was 3.3 percent in June, a low rate historically, but that is still above the 2.7 percent rate in October, which was the lowest in nearly 17 years.

Veterans’ unemployment has fallen mostly for the same reasons that joblessness has fallen for everyone else: strong hiring and steady economic growth for the past eight years.

The vets’ unemployment rate peaked at 9.9 percent in January 2011, then fell by more than half to 4.5 percent by the time Trump was inaugurated in January 2017. Since then, it has fallen an additional 1.2 percentage points.

Trump won’t be able to get to a higher number than 18 years, as he promises to do, because the data only go back to 2000.

___

NORTH KOREA

TRUMP: “We’re also pursuing the denuclearization of North Korea and a new future of prosperity, security, and peace on the Korean Peninsula and all of Asia. New images, just today, show that North Korea has begun the process of dismantling a key missile site. And we appreciate that. We had a fantastic meeting with Chairman Kim, and it seems to be going very well.” — remarks Tuesday.

THE FACTS: Trump’s assessment that his administration’s plan to dismantle North Korea’s nuclear weapons is “going very well” is not fully shared by his own secretary of state, Mike Pompeo. In fact, Pompeo acknowledged this past week that the North is still producing fissile material for nuclear weapons.

Trump made his remarks after the North Korea-focused 38 North website released recent satellite imagery that seems to show dismantlement underway at Sohae.

But Pompeo sounded a note of caution. He said that while such a step would be in line with the pledges that Kim made to Trump at the June 12 summit in Singapore, it would have to be confirmed by international inspectors.

Analysts say dismantling a few facilities at the site alone won’t realistically reduce North Korea’s military capability or represent a material step toward denuclearization.

Indeed, at a Senate hearing Wednesday, Pompeo acknowledged that North Korea continues to produce fuel for nuclear weapons despite Kim’s pledge to denuclearize. Pompeo said there was “an awful long way to go” before North Korea could no longer be viewed as a nuclear threat.

___

AMAZON AND MANUFACTURING

TRUMP: “The Amazon Washington Post has gone crazy against me ever since they lost the Internet Tax Case in the U.S. Supreme Court two months ago. Next up is the U.S. Post Office which they use, at a fraction of real cost, as their ‘delivery boy’ for a BIG percentage of their packages...” — tweet July 23.

THE FACTS: He’s wrong to suggest that the U.S. Postal Service delivers packages for Amazon below cost. Federal regulators in fact have reviewed the Amazon contract with the Postal Service each year and determined it to be profitable.

Trump is upset with Amazon because its founder, Jeff Bezos, owns The Washington Post, which Trump has labeled “fake news” after the newspaper reported unfavorable developments during his campaign and presidency.

While the Postal Service has lost money for 11 years, package delivery, a bright spot, is not the reason.

Boosted by e-commerce, the Postal Service has enjoyed double-digit increases in revenue from delivering packages, but that hasn’t been enough to offset pension and health care costs as well as declines in first-class letters and marketing mail. Together, letters and marketing mail make up more than two-thirds of postal revenue.

Amazon sends packages via the post office, FedEx, UPS and other services, and has taken steps toward becoming more self-reliant in shipping.

TRUMP: “On the South Lawn, you have the space capsule. And every part is made right here, in America.” — remarks July 23 at Made in America event.

THE FACTS: Trump neglects to mention a key detail: NASA’s Orion crew capsule, one of the star products at the White House event celebrating U.S. manufacturing, will ride through space thanks to Europe.

With its four solar-array wings, the European Service Module supplies propulsion, power and the essentials of life for the capsule’s space travels and marks a departure for NASA.

“For the first time,” the agency says, “NASA will use a European-built system as a critical element to power an American spacecraft.” Airbus, Boeing’s prime competitor in commercial air travel, leads an array of European companies that made the service module.

___

Associated Press writers Cal Woodward, Emily Swanson, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Matthew Lee and Seth Borenstein contributed to this report.

___

Find AP Fact Checks at http://apne.ws/2kbx8bd

Follow @APFactCheck on Twitter: https://twitter.com/APFactCheck
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on July 31, 2018, 21:14:37
Well at least he is a straight shooter...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ap-fact-check-trumps-historic-economic-gains-2016-myths/2018/07/30/205edca8-93b0-11e8-818b-e9b7348cd87d_story.html?utm_term=.4b75b589141a (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ap-fact-check-trumps-historic-economic-gains-2016-myths/2018/07/30/205edca8-93b0-11e8-818b-e9b7348cd87d_story.html?utm_term=.4b75b589141a)

The problem isn't so much that he lies shamelessly; it's that so many people believe him unhesitatingly despite the evidence right in front of them.

 :brickwall:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Dimsum on July 31, 2018, 21:48:06
The problem isn't so much that he lies shamelessly; it's that so many people believe him unhesitatingly despite the evidence right in front of them.

 :brickwall:

Well *obviously* because it's FAKE NEWS made up by the Failing Washington Post.   ::)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Thucydides on July 31, 2018, 22:21:53
Lawrence Solomon outlines the new economic order being crafted in Washington, and no surprise, it does look very much like the vision outlined by other commenters in the articles I have linked upthread (and in other threads). Once again, wishful or magical thinking is simply not going to cut it against the sheer raw interest of nations. It is better to remember the old dictum that "Nations do not have permanent friends or alliances, only permanent interests"

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-trump-just-unveiled-the-new-trade-world-order-canada-not-included

Quote
Lawrence Solomon: Trump just unveiled the new trade world order.
Canada not included
Canada has been relegated to third-wheel status and now depends on Trump’s graces

No country participating in the world’s annual US$2 trillion in trade operates in an unfettered free market. The idea of true free trade has been so alien that when President Donald Trump proposed it at last month’s G7 meeting in Canada, it drew blanks among the other six leaders.

No longer. As of this week, a commitment is in place to begin to deregulate up to half of the world’s trade — the US$1 trillion between the U.S. and the EU — taking it out of the hands of politicians and bureaucrats and leaving it to participants in the free market. But that’s just the half of it. Out are the WTO and the world trading regime as we’ve known it. In is the Trump endgame of “four big zeros” — zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers, zero subsidies and zero barriers to market access.

The commitment, announced Wednesday at the White House jointly by Trump and EU President Jean-Claude Juncker, will start modestly, by first eliminating tariffs and subsidies on all non-auto industrial goods, and opening up the European market to American natural gas and farm goods. The U.S. expects to negotiate away the EU’s farm tariffs, which now average 10 per cent, as well as non-tariff barriers in agriculture (such as “non-science-based standards”). As put by U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, “everything is on the table” in the Trump administration’s grand strategy to revamp the world trade order.

For that reason, the emerging U.S.-EU trade agreement not only aims to reform the U.S.-EU half of the US$2 trillion in world trade, it also constitutes an agreement to reform the other half by creating an alliance against China. “To protect American and European companies better from unfair global trade practices,” the U.S. and EU said in a clear reference to China, “we will therefore work closely together with like-minded partners to reform the WTO and to address unfair trading practices, including intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, industrial subsidies, distortions created by state owned enterprises, and overcapacity.”

China is already reeling from its tariff war with Trump, with its stock market and currency falling and its central bank scrambling. Trump’s EU deal worsens China’s prospects by countering the retaliatory tariffs China has placed on American farmers. Trump needs their votes in the November midterm elections — especially the soybean farmers in the American Midwest, who ordinarily supply China with one-third of its needs. China has slyly loaded up on soybeans early, in advance of America’s fall harvest, to crash soybean prices prior to the midterms. Trump, in the announcement with Juncker, had some unwelcome news for China’s midterm-retaliation strategy: “Soybeans is a big deal. And the European Union is going to start, almost immediately, to buy a lot of soybeans — they’re a tremendous market — buy a lot of soybeans from our farmers in the Midwest, primarily.”

China’s midterm strategy could soon take another hit, too. In the next two months, Trump expects to sign a NAFTA-replacing trade deal with Mexico, a big purchaser of U.S. farm produce, to provide another big who-needs-China carrot for America’s Midwest voters.

The U.S.-EU trade commitment is as much a geopolitical strategy as a trade agreement. If China succeeds in its Made in China 2025 plan, it will control 70 per cent of the world’s “basic core components and important basic materials” in strategic industries, the springboard for its plan to overtake the U.S. as the world’s superpower. Reforming the world trade order, and eliminating the abuses that led to China’s economic rise, will curb China’s ability to supersize its military and bully its neighbours.
   
The EU trade deal accomplishes a second geopolitical goal, too: undercutting Russia’s influence over the EU. At NATO meetings earlier this month, Trump chastised Germany for its decision to increase its reliance on gas from Russia, which already meets two-thirds of German needs, by supporting a second Russia-to-Germany pipeline. This week the EU agreed to shift its energy purchases to U.S. natural gas, undercutting Russian sales while strengthening America’s and the cross-Atlantic alliance.

Trump’s reordering of the globe’s trading regimes will, not coincidentally, harm the economies of America’s foes and benefit those of America’s friends. The sole exception could be Canada, a consequence of the conclusion to the G7 meeting, which saw Prime Minister Justin Trudeau grandstand against Trump to win political points at home. Had Trudeau accepted the offer Trump had then made — by all accounts a generous concession to Canada — tariffs on Canada’s steel and aluminum exports to the U.S. could have been withdrawn and Canada could have concluded a deal that furthered its economy. Instead, the U.S. is focused on concluding a deal with Mexico, whose new president has a good relationship with Trump. Whether or not that deal excludes Canada — a distinct possibility — Canada has been relegated to third-wheel status and now depends on Trump’s graces. Given the offence he took at Trudeau’s grandstanding, Trump may well prefer to wait until the next Canadian election, to offer him the possibility of dealing with a leader more to his liking.

Canada has become the least of Trump’s concerns. He has pocketed a EU deal, he’s close to one with Mexico, and he has the rest of the world to reorder. “This was a very big day for free and fair trade, very big day indeed,” Trump stated in announcing the transformational EU deal Wednesday. Uncharacteristically for Trump, that may be a gross understatement.

• Lawrence Solomon is policy director of Toronto-based Probe International. LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

What makes this worse is the distinct possibility that the Liberals will run against President Trump in 2019 and win (the Conservatives and NDP have already signalled they too wish to run against President Trump, so the space for different policy choices is very limited), while President Trump wins a second term in 2020, making Canada's position increasingly untenable. Even if we accept that President Trump is unique and his successor in 2024 is likely to moderate many of his policies, the ones which promote domestic growth will likely remain, and even if there is a concerted effort to roll them back it may take until the end of that Administrations first term (2028) to see real changes for the Canadian economy.

Maybe we should all start investing in vegetable gardens in our back yards......
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on August 01, 2018, 00:41:06
The problem isn't so much that he lies shamelessly; it's that so many people believe him unhesitatingly despite the evidence right in front of them.

 :brickwall:

Well *obviously* because it's FAKE NEWS made up by the Failing Washington Post.   ::)

CBS released a poll on July 29, 2018.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-backers-stand-by-president-in-face-of-russia-criticism-cbs-poll/

They asked "strong Trump supporters", "Who do you trust for accurate information?"

Trump 91%

Friends and Family 63%

Mainstream Media  11%

MM: that poll result is amongst people who are already "strong Trump supporters", not the rest of the herd.

Edit to, "strong Trump supporters  ".
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Cloud Cover on August 01, 2018, 08:20:52
MM: that poll result is amongst people who are already "strong Trump supporters", not the rest of the herd.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Inky on August 01, 2018, 10:01:33
I haven't posted much in the canadians politics threads for some time now,  mostly because of the large volume of news generating issues popping up south of the border.

Of those,  I only post the more important (to me)  issues. If I were to post about every single controversy that this president is able to come up with I would be exhausted.

In short,  I believe one or two interesting topics or newsworthy issues per thread in a day shouldn't be overwhelming.

Should people have different opinions,  they can feel free to post about it.

The cartoon thread seems to be handling opposing viewpoints with little trouble or controversy

Come on dude. It's impossible to read through major politics thread without seeing a dozen of your contributions in which you essentialy say the same thing  over and over again.

We get it:Trump bad, Trudeau good. Liberals smart, Tories dumb.

Frankly, you're exhausting me and I believe this is likely the same for other forum members.

While you might not be breaking any rules, the almost spam like consistency of your political advocacy and the rigidity of your positionbtonboot is IMO degrading my (and I suspect many of the more silent members') enjoyment of this most venerable forum.

Just, as they say, my 2 cents.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Journeyman on August 01, 2018, 10:06:10
CBS released a poll on July 29, 2018.

The complete poll can be found HERE (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cM-srEJHlrGrR340D2LvGw47NBGRYHb3/view).  Yes, it's 65 pages long; the first 10 pages are the questions (some confusingly written) and responses, the remainder is analysis by claimed party affiliation, colour, religion, age, etc.

Its 2420 respondents self-identify as:

I am a strong Trump supporter, period... 21%
I am a Trump supporter, but to keep my support, he has to deliver what I want... 21%
I am against Trump now, but could reconsider if he did a good job... 16%
I am strongly against Trump, period... 42%

If you read through the overall survey results, it paints a somewhat more balanced view than the CBS reporting.

As just one example:
Quote
11.  Where can you go these days to get information that is accurate, whether or not you agree with their views?

                                                  Accurate                  Inaccurate
Donald Trump                              34%                            66%
Mainstream News Media            42%                            58%
US Government Agencies           39%                            61%
Friends and family                       66%                            53%

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on August 01, 2018, 11:00:28
Thucydides:
Quote
......the distinct possibility that the Liberals will run against President Trump in 2019.....

You can bet your last dollar on that. That's why I use the moniker Captain Canada for Trudeau. Saving Canada from the bully Trump.


To reinforce Thucydides's post, the news:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/31/mexicos-president-elect-deal-to-renegotiate-nafta-could-be-reached-i.html

Mexico's president-elect: Deal to renegotiate NAFTA could be reached in coming days

Mexican presidential winner Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said on Tuesday that he expected there would be an agreement in the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in the coming days.
Mexico and the United States agreed last week to step up talks on revamping NAFTA in hopes of reaching a deal on major issues by August.
On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC that he hoped an agreement on NAFTA was coming "very soon."[/i]
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Good2Golf on August 01, 2018, 11:13:21
Quote
...Out are the WTO and the world trading regime as we’ve known it. In is the Trump endgame of “four big zeros” — zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers, zero subsidies and zero barriers to market access.

Jury will be out for a long time on that one.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Thucydides on August 01, 2018, 13:00:04
Quote
...Out are the WTO and the world trading regime as we’ve known it. In is the Trump endgame of “four big zeros” — zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers, zero subsidies and zero barriers to market access.

Jury will be out for a long time on that one.

Regards
G2G

Indeed. I think these are the aspirational goals, which make good selling points, but much as we may wish for a Tesla or Porsche (aspirational goal) we may settle for a Kia van instead because that's in our budget and meets our needs.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Cloud Cover on August 01, 2018, 16:40:01
The complete poll can be found HERE (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cM-srEJHlrGrR340D2LvGw47NBGRYHb3/view).  Yes, it's 65 pages long; the first 10 pages are the questions (some confusingly written) and responses, the remainder is analysis by claimed party affiliation, colour, religion, ...

Ok, but with question 11 option D, the sum total cannot greater than 100, otherwise it really is a Trump kinda poll :)

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Thucydides on August 07, 2018, 23:46:02
While the President bulldozes his way through old structures, institutions and ideas, Scott Adams has been acting as a careful observer. This is an interesting piece about the so called #walkaway moment, and he outlines how the Progressives actually are making things worse for themselves by their antics.

He asks: "Imagine if the media simply portrayed President Trump as a guy who did stuff...." If that were the case, he would certainly not be causing such a commotion (and based on his behaviour in the decades before he became active in politics, he likely would behave in a very "Presidential"manner-when people cross him the current President Trump suddenly springs forth)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRoj_2fY7sc
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Thucydides on August 13, 2018, 01:39:48
An interesting historical find. Donald Trump had outlined the way he would become President in 2013 (and must have been planning and wargaming long before that).
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Xylric on August 13, 2018, 13:21:47
An opinion I voiced before the election in 2016 was that it seemed to me that Trump had a particular function in American political discourse which is not unlike a course of radiation and chemotherapy in medical treatment. The problem is, what he was in fact trying to treat wasn't cancer.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Thucydides on August 13, 2018, 13:49:09
No, it was far worse.

Please keep in mind, President Trump, Doug Ford, Brexit, Viktor Orban, AfD, Movimento 5 Stelle and even Bernie Sanders are all symptoms, not causes of political dysfunction in the Western world. While it would be nice if Preston Manning like politicians were able to turn the ship of State around, all you need to do is look back at the reaction by the media, academia and the political establishment to the Reform Party and Preston Manning to understand why voters have been forced to move to stronger measures.

If you want a good primer as to where the dysfunction comes from, read "The Revolt of the Elites (https://www.amazon.com/Revolt-Elites-Betrayal-Democracy/dp/0393313719)". I also suggest Francis Fukyama's book "Trust (https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Social-Virtues-Creation-Prosperity/dp/0684825252/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1534178856&sr=1-1&keywords=francis+fukuyama+trust)" to see how high trust society works, and then consider how and why it is unravelling (and why voters might not want that outcome).
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Blackadder1916 on August 13, 2018, 15:00:23
An interesting historical find. . . .

And where did you find it?  No, I'm not being sarcastic, but knowing its provenance and author would help to judge its credibility.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on August 13, 2018, 15:07:57
And where did you find it? 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/how-donald-trump-did-it-213581
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Thucydides on August 13, 2018, 20:48:10
Thank you Mario
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on August 13, 2018, 21:21:03
Thank you Mario

You are welcome. My pleasure, Thucydides.  :)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Thucydides on August 15, 2018, 01:33:52
An interesting opinion piece, which explains far better than most other things I have read about how the President actually goes about negotiating, and why he acts as he does. He has a lifetime of experience in sizing people up and seeing their strengths and weakness, which explains how he can deliver such devastating jabs at opponents ("Low Energy Jeb", "Crooked Hillary", "Rocketman"), and why he is so successful in playing off the various sides against each other (in one thread about the trade wars, several posters opined that the United States could not stand against a united world. It now looks very much like the US will become the hub of a "spoke and wheel" trade system instead, because the President correctly predicted that the interests of the various nations and trade blocks do not overlap.

Read and ponder:

https://spectator.org/everyone-is-smart-except-trump/

Everyone Is Smart Except Trump
That’s why they all are billionaires and all got elected president.

"Lengthy posts and fully quoted articles are posted here. Link to these large posts in the regular boards."
https://milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,128702.0.html

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Baden Guy on August 15, 2018, 14:03:37
Link to article: https://spectator.org/everyone-is-smart-except-trump/
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on August 15, 2018, 14:20:46
Link to article: https://spectator.org/everyone-is-smart-except-trump/

The US Presidency 2018 
Reply #386
https://milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,127915.msg1544759.html#msg1544759
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: CountDC on August 15, 2018, 14:35:10

"So they messed up, and we had to save their butts again. And another 405,399 Americans died for them during World War II. And then we had to rebuild them! And we had to station our boys in Germany and all over their blood-stained continent."

Maybe I have history wrong but everything I have ever read reflects that the states were determined to stay out of WWII until they were hit by Japan.  A fair number of those 400k died for the states against Japan.   I also understood that the station of troops in Germany was their idea. 


Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Dimsum on August 15, 2018, 16:35:18
Maybe I have history wrong but everything I have ever read reflects that the states were determined to stay out of WWII until they were hit by Japan. 

You are correct.  The US was technically neutral minus Lend-Lease, RAF Eagle Sqns and the AVG "Flying Tigers" until Pearl Harbour.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: daftandbarmy on August 15, 2018, 18:45:58
You are correct.  The US was technically neutral minus Lend-Lease, RAF Eagle Sqns and the AVG "Flying Tigers" until Pearl Harbour.

And, tangentially, the story behind how FDR 'tricked' the USA into WW2 is fascinating:

How Franklin Roosevelt Lied America Into War

by William Henry Chamberlin

According to his own official statements, repeated on many occasions, and with special emphasis when the presidential election of 1940 was at stake, Franklin D. Roosevelt's policy after the outbreak of the war in Europe in 1939 was dominated by one overriding thought: how to keep the United States at peace. One of the President's first actions after the beginning of hostilities was to call Congress into special session and ask for the repeal of the embargo on the sales of arms to belligerent powers, which was part of the existing neutrality legislation. He based his appeal on the argument that this move would help to keep the United States at peace. His words on the subject were:


Let no group assume the exclusive label of the "peace bloc." We all belong to it ... I give you my deep and unalterable conviction, based on years of experience as a worker in the field of international peace, that by the repeal of the embargo the United States will more probably remain at peace than if the law remains as it stands today ... Our acts must be guided by one single, hardheaded thought -- keeping America out of the war.

This statement was made after the President had opened up a secret correspondence with Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty and later Prime Minister in the British government. What has been revealed of this correspondence, even in Churchill's own memoirs, inspires considerable doubt as to whether its main purpose was keeping America out of the war.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n6p19_Chamberlin.html
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on August 15, 2018, 21:54:14
"So they messed up, and we had to save their butts again. And another 405,399 Americans died for them during World War II. And then we had to rebuild them! And we had to station our boys in Germany and all over their blood-stained continent."

Maybe I have history wrong but everything I have ever read reflects that the states were determined to stay out of WWII until they were hit by Japan.  A fair number of those 400k died for the states against Japan.   I also understood that the station of troops in Germany was their idea.

Wow.  Just wow.

I thought that Infowars had been deleted from the internet.

What a load of tripe.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 16, 2018, 16:22:48
The "America saved Europe, twice" idea/myth has been around since before I was a kid, and I knew of it as a kid.  Surely it can't be that much of a surprise when it resurfaces.

The historical concensus I understand is that 1) American domestic political sentiment was overwhelmingly isolationist prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and 2) Roosevelt meant to support Britain (and the USSR) against Germany as much as was domestically acceptable (politically), a restraint which disappeared on 07 Dec 1941.  Also, although "Germany first" was the agreed grand strategy, significant players in the US military establishment (eg. Adm Ernest King) thought the war with Japan was equally (or more) important.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on August 16, 2018, 21:07:29
Retired Admiral William McRaven publishes and op ed piece in the Washington Post in support of former CIA Director John Brennan.

Quote
Architect of bin Laden raid issues stunning rebuke of Trump
By Zachary Cohen, CNN

Washington (CNN)Retired Adm. William McRaven, the man who oversaw the 2011 Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden, issued a stunning rebuke of President Donald Trump's decision to revoke the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan on Thursday, defending the former spy chief as "one of the finest public servants I have ever known."

In an op-ed published by the Washington Post, McRaven, a former Navy SEAL who led US Joint Special Operations Command from 2011 to 2014, not only called Brennan "a man of unparalleled integrity," but volunteered to have his own security clearance revoked in an act of solidarity.

"Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John. He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don't know him," McRaven wrote.

"Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency," he added.

His comments come just one day after Trump announced his decision to revoke Brennan's security clearance, marking an unprecedented use of a president's authority over the classification system to strike back at one of his prominent critics.

"This action is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech & punish critics. It should gravely worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out. My principles are worth far more than clearances. I will not relent," Brennan tweeted after the announcement.

McRaven, who resigned as chancellor of the University of Texas in Austin earlier this year, is widely respected among the tens of thousands of active and retired special operators and his message will likely resonate within that community.

"Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation," McRaven said of Trump.

"If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken. The criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be," he added.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/16/politics/mcraven-trump-brennan-security-clearance-revoke/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/16/politics/mcraven-trump-brennan-security-clearance-revoke/index.html)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on August 16, 2018, 21:46:00
Remember that big parade?

https://taskandpurpose.com/trumps-military-parade-postponed/

QUOTE

The Department of Defense and White House have been planning a parade to honor America’s military veterans and commemorate the centennial of World War I,” Pentagon spokesman Col. Rob Manning said in a statement. “We originally targeted November 10, 2018 for this event but have now agreed to explore opportunities in 2019.

END QUOTE
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Good2Golf on August 16, 2018, 23:34:09
Retired Admiral William McRaven publishes and op ed piece in the Washington Post in support of former CIA Director John Brennan.
...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/16/politics/mcraven-trump-brennan-security-clearance-revoke/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/16/politics/mcraven-trump-brennan-security-clearance-revoke/index.html)

 :cheers:

That, folks, is the penultimate mic drop...

Fortunate to have had the opportunity to meet ADM McRaven - the man exudes integrity and honour.  Not even a question in respecting his words.  :salute:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 16, 2018, 23:41:26
If a person has a security clearance for a job, when they leave the job they lose the clearance, right. I've had top secret twice. Lost it both times the task was complete.

Can someone explain why this is so contentious? Sounds like SOP to me.

Unless the upset is because they say Trump did it?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on August 17, 2018, 01:23:20
If a person has a security clearance for a job, when they leave the job they lose the clearance, right. I've had top secret twice. Lost it both times the task was complete.

Can someone explain why this is so contentious? Sounds like SOP to me.

Unless the upset is because they say Trump did it?

When you are at the level that these folks are, it is routine that they keep their security clearances so that the next administration can consult with them on new and ongoing issues. By having current clearances such consultations can happen rapidly without having to go through the vetting process needed to issue or reinstate a clearance. This is especially handy in crisis situations. All in all it's primarily to help the new administration rapidly access corporate memory to assist them in making sound and informed decisions.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on August 17, 2018, 08:08:01
Remember that big parade?

https://taskandpurpose.com/trumps-military-parade-postponed/

QUOTE

The Department of Defense and White House have been planning a parade to honor America’s military veterans and commemorate the centennial of World War I,” Pentagon spokesman Col. Rob Manning said in a statement. “We originally targeted November 10, 2018 for this event but have now agreed to explore opportunities in 2019.

END QUOTE

This from Secretary Mattis.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-military-parade-cancelled-james-mattis-postponed-washington-cost-leaked-a8495561.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-military-parade-cancelled-james-mattis-postponed-washington-cost-leaked-a8495561.html)

Quote
However, defence secretary James Mattis has rubbished the reports, suggesting whoever claimed the parade was set to cost upwards of $90m was “probably smoking something.”

“I'm not dignifying that number with a reply,” the Pentagon chief told reporters while travelling to the Colombian capital Bogota.

“I would discount that, and anybody who said it, I'll almost guarantee you one thing: They probably said, 'I need to stay anonymous.' No kidding, because you look like an idiot.

“And number two, whoever wrote it needs to get better sources. I'll just leave it at that.”
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on August 17, 2018, 08:10:58
When you are at the level that these folks are, it is routine that they keep their security clearances so that the next administration can consult with them on new and ongoing issues. By having current clearances such consultations can happen rapidly without having to go through the vetting process needed to issue or reinstate a clearance. This is especially handy in crisis situations. All in all it's primarily to help the new administration rapidly access corporate memory to assist them in making sound and informed decisions.

 :cheers:

To be honest would you want to bring in this man to consult with him? Seeing all the far out things he has said the past while. He is openly hostile.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on August 17, 2018, 08:19:48
This from Secretary Mattis.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-military-parade-cancelled-james-mattis-postponed-washington-cost-leaked-a8495561.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-military-parade-cancelled-james-mattis-postponed-washington-cost-leaked-a8495561.html)

90 million does not seem that far off the mark once you factor in security related costs.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on August 17, 2018, 09:06:57
Addition to the above post, Secretary Mattis himself on the MSNBC report of a $92M parade cost:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5ISXJPZEQU&rel=0&modestbranding=1&controls=0
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on August 17, 2018, 09:24:28
FJAG:
Quote
When you are at the level that these folks are, it is routine that they keep their security clearances so that the next administration can consult with them on new and ongoing issues. By having current clearances such consultations can happen rapidly without having to go through the vetting process needed to issue or reinstate a clearance. This is especially handy in crisis situations. All in all it's primarily to help the new administration rapidly access corporate memory to assist them in making sound and informed decisions.

 
kkwd:
Quote
To be honest would you want to bring in this man to consult with him? Seeing all the far out things he has said the past while. He is openly hostile.

The Director of the CIA is a non partisan position. As soon as he leaves the position, he starts bashing the new administration and POTUS. He recently said to the TV audience, picked up by other media, that Trump had committed treason (punishable by death), but offered no proof. He said in the last several days that losing his security clearance is a violation of his First Amendment rights. He said that on TV, on Twitter, etc then wrote on op-ed. Seems like he doesn't comprehend what the First Amendment says.

On TV, a host stated, second hand, that without a security clearance, he can't go back to check files for his book. Everyone in Washington writes a book. ;D

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on August 17, 2018, 09:36:38
What's wrong with a parade ? It wont include anything heavy as it might damage the streets.
As to the issue of security clearances you don't own it like a car its on a need to know basis. These former Obama administration types should not rquire one. If they get another top level job in another administration they should be able to pass the background check unless they are advocating the overthrow of the government.

http://www.burnhamgorokhov.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Security-Clearance-Introduction.pdf
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on August 17, 2018, 10:01:48
What's wrong with a parade ? It wont include anything heavy as it might damage the streets.
As to the issue of security clearances you don't own it like a car its on a need to know basis. These former Obama administration types should not rquire one. If they get another top level job in another administration they should be able to pass the background check unless they are advocating the overthrow of the government.

http://www.burnhamgorokhov.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Security-Clearance-Introduction.pdf

To be honest nothing.  I assume that there are already veteran's day parades in the US.  This year does mark the 100th anniversary of the end of the 1st world war as well.

I'm curious how much our own commemoration parades will cost this year.  We'll have a contingent in Belgium and various cities across Canada not to mention this year's remembrance day ceremonies as well as an army contingent at Buckingham palace at that time. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 17, 2018, 11:03:26

As to the issue of security clearances you don't own it like a car its on a need to know basis. These former Obama administration types should not rquire one. If they get another top level job in another administration they should be able to pass the background check unless they are advocating the overthrow of the government.

http://www.burnhamgorokhov.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Security-Clearance-Introduction.pdf

See, now that's what I thought. Given FJAG's reply, I would have to assume that the current administration feels that they would have no need to consult. Therefore, no need for them to retain the clearance.

I've seen people, in the CAF, wear their clearance like some sort of status symbol. Perhaps that's the case here? I don't know. It makes sense though. He won't be able to have lunch with colleagues, if they decide to talk government or agency business. I think the animosity shown by the previous administration warrants a move like this. Who wants to let the fox back into the hen house?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on August 17, 2018, 11:15:05
let's not try and make this about a simple administrative thing.  This is clearly a tit for tat thing with a very specific list of people that the president feels slighted by. 

If it was something as simple as them not feeling they need to consult then a lot more people would be on that list.

All that said though, it is well within his right and purview to do this.  But don't expect people to not be offended by this. 

But if a guy like Admiral McCraven takes issue with this then maybe some people should listen. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on August 17, 2018, 11:22:31
You should read this and compare names the with
Quote
a very specific list of people that the president feels slighted by. 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/strzok-joins-list-of-25-top-fbi-doj-officials-who-have-been-recently-fired-demoted-or-resigned_2624607.html

List of 25 Top FBI, DOJ Officials Who Have Been Recently Fired, Demoted, or Resigned
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Journeyman on August 17, 2018, 11:28:47
These former Obama administration types should not rquire one.
Which ignores former-Reagan and Bushx2 administration types retaining clearances. 


ps - various Canadian government department 'types' (including retired-CAF) have also retained security clearances, by the way.  Not everything is a politicized conspiracy.  :boring:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on August 17, 2018, 11:29:32
You should read this and compare names the with
https://www.theepochtimes.com/strzok-joins-list-of-25-top-fbi-doj-officials-who-have-been-recently-fired-demoted-or-resigned_2624607.html

List of 25 Top FBI, DOJ Officials Who Have Been Recently Fired, Demoted, or Resigned

A few do belong on that list.  But not all.

This is politically motivated. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on August 17, 2018, 11:45:03
Probably to some degree.

This house of cards wrt the investigation is unravelling fast based on the now public emails of the instigators.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on August 17, 2018, 11:49:01
The simple solution going forward is to just revoke all security clearances once a job or position is done. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on August 17, 2018, 12:01:29
Some civilian defense contractors need a security clearance hence the need by industry to hire retired officers.Trump has canceled the parade due to cost but he left the door open for maybe next year.
   

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-cancels-military-parade-blames-dc-officials-for-high-cost/ar-BBM36aO?ocid=spartandhp
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 17, 2018, 13:39:40
Everything McRaven wrote about Brennan can be true, and it can still be true that Brennan deserved to have his clearance revoked.  Whatever his alleged integrity, Brennan was caught in several high-profile lies and obfuscations (regarding: the CIA's illegal access of Senate computers, the CIA's illegal acquisition of other protected communications, the allegation of zero drone strike collateral casualties, denial of knowledge of the Steele dossier).

In the previous administration, Brennan (Dir CIA), Comey (Dir FBI), and Clapper (Dir NI) were significant players in the US defense/security establishment responsible for preventing things like foreign interference with US elections.  It has been established beyond doubt that the Obama administration knew about the (Russian) attempts but did not pursue the matter as aggressively as it might have.  Whether the directors' hands were tied in their respective areas of authority by the administration is almost beside the point; the customary principle is that if you can't get behind a policy, you should resign.  So presumably they "got behind" the policy.  Nevertheless, there was a failure on "their watch".  If they have useful advice to offer, it is the sort of thing done quietly through established channels.  Carping openly serves no agenda but destabilizing the new administration.  If they wish to be critics or to pin blame, they surely have a right to do so - but they do not necessarily deserve special access.

Here is what revoking the clearance really does: prevents anyone from sharing (leaking) classified material with Brennan without risk of committing a felony.  It discourages leakers inside from using Brennan as a delivery conduit.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on August 17, 2018, 14:00:37
Everything McRaven wrote about Brennan can be true, and it can still be true that Brennan deserved to have his clearance revoked.  Whatever his alleged integrity, Brennan was caught in several high-profile lies and obfuscations (regarding: the CIA's illegal access of Senate computers, the CIA's illegal acquisition of other protected communications, the allegation of zero drone strike collateral casualties, denial of knowledge of the Steele dossier).

In the previous administration, Brennan (Dir CIA), Comey (Dir FBI), and Clapper (Dir NI) were significant players in the US defense/security establishment responsible for preventing things like foreign interference with US elections.  It has been established beyond doubt that the Obama administration knew about the (Russian) attempts but did not pursue the matter as aggressively as it might have.  Whether the directors' hands were tied in their respective areas of authority by the administration is almost beside the point; the customary principle is that if you can't get behind a policy, you should resign.  So presumably they "got behind" the policy.  Nevertheless, there was a failure on "their watch".  If they have useful advice to offer, it is the sort of thing done quietly through established channels.  Carping openly serves no agenda but destabilizing the new administration.  If they wish to be critics or to pin blame, they surely have a right to do so - but they do not necessarily deserve special access.

Here is what revoking the clearance really does: prevents anyone from sharing (leaking) classified material with Brennan without risk of committing a felony.  It discourages leakers inside from using Brennan as a delivery conduit.

Care to back up some of your bald-faced allegations with some legitimate sources?

 :waiting:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on August 17, 2018, 14:29:02
Wasn't Brennan responsible for the Ben Gazi coverup ?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on August 17, 2018, 14:37:06
Wasn't Brennan responsible for the Ben Gazi coverup ?

There were 10 investigations including 6 republican led ones.  Which one exactly discovered a cover up?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Blackadder1916 on August 17, 2018, 15:15:52
. . .
Here is what revoking the clearance really does: prevents anyone from sharing (leaking) classified material with Brennan without risk of committing a felony.  It discourages leakers inside from using Brennan as a delivery conduit.

Unless something is vastly different in security procedures between us and the USA, that simple phrase "need to know" covers any such eventuality.  Oh yes, the Yanks use the same thing as in this definition from the primary directive for "Access to Classified Information" (Executive Order 12968)

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ic-legal-reference-book/executive-order-12968
Quote
(h) “Need-to-know” means a determination made by an authorized holder of classified information that a prospective recipient requires access to specific classified information in order to perform or assist in a lawful and authorized governmental function.

. . .

Sec. 1.2. Access to Classified Information.

 (a) No employee shall be granted access to classified information unless that employee has been determined to be eligible in accordance with this order and to possess a need-to-know.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 17, 2018, 16:44:39
>Care to back up some of your bald-faced allegations with some legitimate sources?

FYI, I'm in the habit of confirming details about events I think I remember before I post.

Brennan's integrity:

The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-director-john-brennan-lied-senate).

The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/07/31/obama-should-fire-john-brennan/?utm_term=.868af439649c).

Law and Crime (https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/did-john-brennan-perjure-himself-over-steele-dossier/).

Knowledge of Russian interference, and less than full-court response:

Bloomberg (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-20/obama-criticized-in-senate-for-not-doing-more-on-russia-meddling).

Yahoo! news service (https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-cyber-chief-confirms-stand-order-russian-cyberattacks-summer-2016-204935758.html).
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 17, 2018, 16:45:44
>Unless something is vastly different in security procedures between us and the USA, that simple phrase "need to know" covers any such eventuality.

True; but a revoked clearance is a distinct signal that puts a definitive chill on things.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on August 17, 2018, 17:03:25
90 million does not seem that far off the mark once you factor in security related costs.

While they're thinking about that maybe they should pay up Palm Springs' overtime bill for $5.7 million for Trump's Mar-a-Lago security.

Quote
PALM BEACH —
Palm Beach County taxpayers fronted more than $5.7 million to help protect President Donald Trump during his 10 visits to Mar-a-Lago between November and April, figures provided Thursday show.

The federal government is expected to reimburse local governments for the expenses. A congressional budget agreement signed by Trump in March sets aside $41 million to repay local law enforcement agencies for “extraordinary … personnel costs” to protect the president when he visits his private residences in Palm Beach, New York and New Jersey.

A similar pot of federal money was used in 2017 to reimburse Palm Beach County taxpayers for $3.4 million in security costs incurred during the first three months of Trump’s presidency.

Most of the 2017-2018 law enforcement costs were racked up by the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office, which takes the lead among local agencies in assisting the Secret Service during presidential visits. The agency spent $5.6 million on overtime during Trump’s 2017-18 trips, sheriff’s spokeswoman Teri Barbera said Thursday in response to a query from The Palm Beach Post.

Aside from the sheriff’s costs, the town of Palm Beach said in April that it spent $115,156 on police overtime during Trump’s 2017-18 visits and West Palm Beach said it spent $68,500.

Trump’s 10 trips to Mar-a-Lago covered at least a portion of 47 days and included Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter visits as well as an April summit with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

The sheriff’s presidential details are paid entirely with overtime so that routine law enforcement operations are not compromised, Sheriff Ric Bradshaw has said.

Bradshaw last month told the Palm Beach County School District that the commitment to protect the president is one of several reasons the sheriff’s office “CAN NOT provide a large number of deputies on an overtime basis” to help beef up school security.

Bradshaw also said regional anti-terrorism efforts, staffing large concerts and “numerous extra duty assignments” put a limit on available deputy overtime hours.

Rather than dip into overtime, Bradshaw offered to hire and provide 50 full-time deputies for school patrols for one year, for an estimated $7 million.

Trump personally thanked local law enforcement officers in April at the end of his last Mar-a-Lago visit for the 2017-18 season. The president greeted motorcycle officers and posed for pictures at Palm Beach International Airport before he boarded Air Force One.

“Thank you to the incredible Law Enforcement Officers from the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. They keep us safe and are very cool about it!” Trump later tweeted along with a picture of himself surrounded by local officers.

https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/national-govt--politics/county-seeks-reimbursement-for-trump-mar-lago-security-bill/XTOrIYDQ1vpNFSpa1e13uK/ (https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/national-govt--politics/county-seeks-reimbursement-for-trump-mar-lago-security-bill/XTOrIYDQ1vpNFSpa1e13uK/)

Security for these type of events is usually provided by officers working on overtime as the normal day to day policing functions still have to be performed.

I couldn't find a budget figure but this year's Bastille Day parade used some 17,000 police and emergency forces.

Quote
Bastille Day surrounded by RING OF STEEL: 17,000 police and soldiers patrol Paris parade
BASTILLE DAY parades will be protected by a ring of steel as French authorities impose unprecedented levels of security around Paris fearing the city could be the target of yet another terrorist attack.

By ROMINA MCGUINNESS PUBLISHED: 06:22, Sat, Jul 14, 2018

A total of 12,000 police officers and 3,000 rescue workers have been deployed to the capital’s streets and its suburbs for France’s national day today, which just two years ago brought terror on the streets of Nice when an ISIS jihadi ploughed a truck through crowds killing 86 people.

Another 2,000 counter-terrorism “Sentinelle” soldiers will also be on patrol around the Champs Elysées avenue during a major military parade to celebrate the day, Paris Police Chief Michel Delpuech said.

Some 2,900 police officers will be stationed on the Champs Elysées during the parade, he added.

The extra security comes after French football fans clashed with police in Paris after qualifying for the World Cup final on Tuesday.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/988481/bastille-day-paris-parade-nice-terror-attack-Champs-Elys-es (https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/988481/bastille-day-paris-parade-nice-terror-attack-Champs-Elys-es)

Note that for the World Cup, France deployed 110,000 security personnel.

For Trump's visit to the UK alone, the UK deployed an extra 4,000 officers with a budget of US$15.8 million for what was a fairly low-key, not very public affair.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/uk-spending-millions-on-security-for-trumps-controversial-visit.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/uk-spending-millions-on-security-for-trumps-controversial-visit.html)

 :cheers:

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: beirnini on August 18, 2018, 12:18:37
Quote from: Brad Sallows
It has been established beyond doubt that the Obama administration knew about the (Russian) attempts but did not pursue the matter as aggressively as it might have.  Whether the directors' hands were tied in their respective areas of authority by the administration is almost beside the point; the customary principle is that if you can't get behind a policy, you should resign.  So presumably they "got behind" the policy.  Nevertheless, there was a failure on "their watch".

So now if Brennan is both intimately aware of the severity of the threat that he failed over and  categorically ignored by the present administration what are his options with regards to acting on this threat? Is acting on such a threat to national security truly just "an agenda"? He already acted in the interests of stability ("stood-down" to avoid "tipping the scales") under Obama. How long was he supposed to continue doing so if what he says is true?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 18, 2018, 14:14:10
If Brennan were objectively interested in thwarting Russian interference, his option would be to provide assistance to the current administration.  That is customarily done through established channels quietly, not by waging an information war in the media.

From his actions, I conclude Brennan is working to destabilize and hinder a legitimately elected president, not to buttress the institutions of democracy in the US.

People opposed to Trump pay lip service to the idea that Trump is undermining democratic institutions (almost never, it seems, citing a specific example).  A self-arrogated duty to hinder a presidential candidate or the president on the part of members of government agencies specifically undermines the ideal of the non-partisan public service.  As much as possible, conduits of information to the outside - journalists, political operatives, former government employees - should be severed and chilled.

People who aren't going to productively use a security clearance shouldn't have one.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on August 18, 2018, 18:08:12
There were 10 investigations including 6 republican led ones.  Which one exactly discovered a cover up?
[/]
             
https://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/10/23/gowdy-committee-verifies-timeline-of-hillary-clintons-benghazi-cover-up/
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: RomeoJuliet on August 18, 2018, 20:46:14
I find it incredibly hard to believe that there are members of the CAF as well as Canadian veterans who defend President Trump. His misogynystic, racist and homophobic comments do not reflect values of the CAF.  If our soldiers, sailors and or air men/women stated publicly some of the things he has said they would be under investigation and/or released. That is all.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on August 18, 2018, 23:01:58
There were 10 investigations including 6 republican led ones.  Which one exactly discovered a cover up?
[/]
             
https://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/10/23/gowdy-committee-verifies-timeline-of-hillary-clintons-benghazi-cover-up/

And in the end that committee did not find any evidence of a coverup either.  But some people keep the conspiracy alive...
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: QV on August 19, 2018, 03:30:40
I find it incredibly hard to believe that there are members of the CAF as well as Canadian veterans who defend President Trump. His misogynystic, racist and homophobic comments do not reflect values of the CAF.  If our soldiers, sailors and or air men/women stated publicly some of the things he has said they would be under investigation and/or released. That is all.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

With comments like that, you are simply uninformed. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: beirnini on August 19, 2018, 03:34:27
If Brennan were objectively interested in thwarting Russian interference, his option would be to provide assistance to the current administration.  That is customarily done through established channels quietly, not by waging an information war in the media.
Trump believes Putin with regards Russian interference as per his Helsinki press conference (and if you believe his "walkback" I have a lovely bridge to sell you). As I've already said, he is being categorically ignored. So if hewing to stability only gets him ignored, what options does he have if the threat is as grave as he has every reason to believe it is?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 19, 2018, 11:53:00
I think if there is one thing about Trump that needs to be said, he does not get ignored. Perhaps it's because he's so unpredictable, but everyone pays attention when he says or does something. They may not agree, but they don't ignore.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on August 19, 2018, 12:03:08
I recommend MSNBC if you want all doom and gloom all the time. They never have a story of positive things. You can go to their YouTube channel to get a taste of their merriment.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 19, 2018, 12:27:19
I recommend MSNBC if you want all doom and gloom all the time. They never have a story of positive things. You can go to their YouTube channel to get a taste of their merriment.

I was torn about which alt-left news conglomerate to use, but in these matters, CNN is always a safe bet for outrageous extrapolations and adding to the confusion of some words etymology.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 19, 2018, 13:00:33
>So if hewing to stability only gets him ignored, what options does he have if the threat is as grave as he has every reason to believe it is?

Trump's bombast and rhetoric don't matter; what matters is what the agencies are actually doing.  If I could believe the union of the set of "people in the agencies who know what is being done" and the set of "people in the agencies willing to talk to Brennan" was a null set, I could believe Brennan doesn't know whether or not any action is being taken.  But I don't believe Brennan has no such sources.  I assume he has some idea of what is going on; if he hasn't accused the entire administration top-to-bottom of doing nothing, it means they are doing something.  So his option is still to offer advice through customary channels.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on August 19, 2018, 13:27:04
Usually when a new administration takes over the people from the old one resign to make way for the new people but  the Obama holdovers stayed on and the Senate was slow in approving Trumps appointee's.I don't think he has all of his appointee's in place.Just look at the gong show over Judge Kavenough.The Dem's are trying to slow it down even though they cant stop him even with liberal Republicans help. It will be close.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Good2Golf on August 19, 2018, 14:06:45
Indeed.  Obama was so fortunate to not have the Republicans hold anything up.  So unfair to Trump.


/s
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on August 19, 2018, 15:58:09
I was torn about which alt-left news conglomerate to use, but in these matters, CNN is always a safe bet for outrageous extrapolations and adding to the confusion of some words etymology.

Like covfefe?   :dunno:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Thucydides on August 19, 2018, 17:54:55
The more that comes out about the so called "Collusion", the stranger the story becomes. One thing is abundantly clear, however: the story being uncovered is not the story we are being told by the media:

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/06/25/the_mysterious_seven_preludes_of_the_fbis_trump-russia_probe.html?utm_source=RC+Investigations+Today&utm_campaign=bccb37f8ba-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_11_11_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d042379c8d-bccb37f8ba-85722861

Quote
Seven Mysterious Preludes to the FBI's Trump-Russia Probe
By Lee Smith, RealClearInvestigations
June 26, 2018

The Federal Bureau of Investigation formally opened its Trump investigation after Western intelligence assets and Clinton-affiliated political operatives repeatedly approached the Trump campaign and tried but failed to damage it through associations with Russia, a growing body of evidence suggests.

Before the FBI began investigating the Trump campaign in an operation code-named “Crossfire Hurricane,” there were at least seven different instances when campaign advisers were approached with Russia-related offers. Most of those contacts — including Donald Trump Jr.’s much-publicized meeting with a Russian lawyer and others in June 2016 — offered the prospect of information damaging to Donald Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Two of these approaches were made by one U.S. government informant already publicly identified as such, Stefan Halper. Another was made by a man who swore in court that he had worked as an FBI informant. Two others were made by figures associated with Western intelligence agencies. Another two approaches included political operatives, one foreign, with ties to the Clintons.

President Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has asserted that dispatching Halper to follow the Trump campaign "protected" it from the Russians.

But Mark Wauck, a former FBI agent with experience in such tactics, sees an effort at entrapment. “What appear to have been repeated attempts to implicate the Trump campaign, in some sort of quid pro quo arrangement with Russians who claimed to have ‘dirt’ on Hillary,” Wauck told RealClearInvestigations, “look like efforts to manufacture evidence against members of the Trump campaign or create pretexts to investigate it.”

At the same time, in early spring, the Clinton campaign commissioned, through its law firm, the Washington, D.C.-based communications firm Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Russia. The result was the infamous 35-page dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.

It appears that neither the FBI nor the Clinton campaign’s paid operatives came up with anything of substance. The seven approaches to the Trump campaign, as far as is publicly known, generated no evidence of coordination with the Russians. No evidence has emerged to change former FBI Director James B. Comey’s description of key parts of the Steele dossier as “salacious and unverified.”

Nevertheless, the report of one person who reached out to a Trump adviser, George Papadopoulos, was reportedly used to launch an official Department of Justice and FBI probe into the Trump campaign and the dossier was evidently a key piece of evidence used to secure a FISA surveillance warrant against Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page.

Congressional Republicans are demanding that the DOJ and FBI inform Congress whether the FBI tasked informants to follow the Trump campaign before it officially opened its full investigation of the Trump team’s possible ties to Russia on July 31, 2016.

RealClearInvestigations pieced together the following efforts to connect the Trump campaign to Russia through published reports; court documents, including charges filed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller; interviews with former FBI agents; and congressional investigators. RCI’s investigation raises questions about events routinely described as evidence of a Trump conspiracy to collude with Russia. As former agent Wauck suggests, taken together these efforts could be interpreted not as an investigation but a sting operation intended to dirty a presidential campaign.

This is a long article, but read it at the link to see how these seven events played out, and compare them to the "narrative" of "collusion" which has been presented since the start of the Trump Administration.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on August 19, 2018, 19:47:43
If anyone wants to fact. Heck the source Thuc posted.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-investigations/
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: E.R. Campbell on August 19, 2018, 22:10:13
If anyone wants to fact. Heck the source Thuc posted.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-investigations/

I used Remius' tool to check the four sources (daily/weekly newspapers, not e.g. Foreign Affairs) to which I have subscriptions: three (The Economist, the Financial Times and the South China Morning Post) are in the "least biased" category and one (the Globe and Mail) is is the "centre-right" bias category.

The fact that I tend to follow "least biased" sources does not mean that my interpretations are not highly biased ... it just means I prefer to draw my own conclusions.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 19, 2018, 22:14:02
RC is useful and should be on everyone's daily go-to list.

A media bias opinion isn't a fact check.  If you want to fact check the article, read it and check its claims.  (And this is what the "media bias" article about RC has to say: "A factual search reveals they have not failed a fact check, however some of the sources they utilize have failed fact checks such as the conspiracy website, Zerohedge.")

Go to RealClearPolitics (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/) and peruse the list of selected articles.  Today's afternoon selection includes items from: The Atlantic, American Spectator, NYT, Asia Times, Washington Examiner, South China Morning Post, The Guardian, LA Daily News, LA Times, Washington Post.  RCP is a useful aggregator.  The morning selection is likewise broadly sourced.  I find RCP useful: generally at least one linked article from either "side" of an issue, on several issues of the day.

Apparently "mediabiasfactcheck" has its own critics, who refer to its founder Dave Van Zandt as "just some guy".

Palmer Report (http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/palmer-report-exclusive-media-bias-fact-check/2115/) (apparently also just some guy).

PolitiFact Bias (https://www.politifactbias.com/2017/10/can-you-trust-what-media-biasfact-check.html) (apparently devoted to fact checking a fact checker).

A wise person can make up his own mind about reliability and bias without referring to third parties, each of whom may be unreliable and biased.  GIGO.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: RomeoJuliet on August 19, 2018, 22:39:10
With comments like that, you are simply uninformed.
Uniformed about what?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on August 19, 2018, 23:45:04
RC is useful and should be on everyone's daily go-to list.

A media bias opinion isn't a fact check.  If you want to fact check the article, read it and check its claims.  (And this is what the "media bias" article about RC has to say: "A factual search reveals they have not failed a fact check, however some of the sources they utilize have failed fact checks such as the conspiracy website, Zerohedge.")

Go to RealClearPolitics (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/) and peruse the list of selected articles.  Today's afternoon selection includes items from: The Atlantic, American Spectator, NYT, Asia Times, Washington Examiner, South China Morning Post, The Guardian, LA Daily News, LA Times, Washington Post.  RCP is a useful aggregator.  The morning selection is likewise broadly sourced.  I find RCP useful: generally at least one linked article from either "side" of an issue, on several issues of the day.

Apparently "mediabiasfactcheck" has its own critics, who refer to its founder Dave Van Zandt as "just some guy".

Palmer Report (http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/palmer-report-exclusive-media-bias-fact-check/2115/) (apparently also just some guy).

PolitiFact Bias (https://www.politifactbias.com/2017/10/can-you-trust-what-media-biasfact-check.html) (apparently devoted to fact checking a fact checker).

A wise person can make up his own mind about reliability and bias without referring to third parties, each of whom may be unreliable and biased.  GIGO.

Lol.  I posted that link in support of RC...never heard of it and wanted to check the source.  But ok.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on August 20, 2018, 00:08:23
I used Remius' tool to check the four sources (daily/weekly newspapers, not e.g. Foreign Affairs) to which I have subscriptions: three (The Economist, the Financial Times and the South China Morning Post) are in the "least biased" category and one (the Globe and Mail) is is the "centre-right" bias category.

The fact that I tend to follow "least biased" sources does not mean that my interpretations are not highly biased ... it just means I prefer to draw my own conclusions.

Washington Post, G+M, Foreign Policy and Foreign Affair are my paid subscriptions.  I am also trying to stay close to top dead center....
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: E.R. Campbell on August 20, 2018, 06:25:18
By the way, almost everything in the South China Morning Post (https://www.scmp.com/frontpage/international) is free for registered users.

It is, of course, of special interest to me because it is the 'journal of record' for English speakers in Hong Kong, but it also has its own, close, insights into China, especially, and Asia in general.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: beirnini on August 20, 2018, 13:16:21
>So if hewing to stability only gets him ignored, what options does he have if the threat is as grave as he has every reason to believe it is?

Trump's bombast and rhetoric don't matter; what matters is what the agencies are actually doing.
You can't just magically divorce the material pronouncements of the head of the executive branch from all the institutions he's in command of and then hand-wave them away as somehow ingenuine. He's "legitimate" in your words, but what you're drawing is the very picture of illegitimacy.

Beyond that what those agencies do in part is advise the president on national security matters. We live in a world now where the president almost verbatim says he alone knows better than these agencies. He doesn't explain at all how he knows beyond taking the word of Putin. That's not bombast and rhetoric, but something else entirely.

It's telling and I think perhaps instructive that much the same thing is happening with Brennan as the last time the intelligence community embroiled itself in a politicized national security threat: Whistleblower Joseph Wilson dared to say the emperor had no clothes and he and his wife suffered retribution from the highest levels of the Bush admin, getting his character smeared in the "conservative" media-sphere along the way. It's a little strange that one of the tailors for those clothes for Bush is the knowledgeable whistleblower this time around, but all that means to me is that Fox et al. is merely smearing the wrong aspects of Brennan's character.

Speaking of the lead-up to the Iraq War, whatever happened to that "1% Doctrine" I wonder. It would seem to me that we're far beyond that threshold this time around.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 20, 2018, 14:03:24
That's a waffle.  Either counteractions are happening, or they are not.  Brennan hasn't called out the administration for inactivity, and hasn't chosen to work quietly with it.

Wilson didn't "suffer retribution".  Reporter Bob Novak asked Deputy SoS Richard Armitage why Wilson - a not-expert in the subject area - had been sent to Niger, and Armitage answered that Wilson's wife (Plame) suggested Wilson be sent.  Novak then included Valerie Plame by name in an article.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Thucydides on August 22, 2018, 17:49:11
Remembering that President Trump is a symptom of they dysfunction in the US political system (and more broadly, the social and economic systems underpinning it), this article is somewhat disturbing in how it sees the political situation in the United States playing out. The writer modelled 30 different historical systems from around the world, so this is more than a SWAG (Scientific Wild Assed Guess), but history and other "social sciences" are descriptive rather than predictive (very few would have been able to forecast the rise of Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Brexit, AfD, Viktor Orban or Movemento 5 Stelle five years ago), so unexpected factors could make this prediction moot as well.

http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/the-ginkgo-model-of-societal-crisis/

Quote
The Ginkgo Model of Societal Crisis
August 16, 2018 by Peter Turchinelites
political violence, structural-demographic79 Comments

It will soon be two years since the US presidential elections of 2016, which should have made it clear to everybody that our society is in deep crisis. The technical term in the structural-demographic theory (SDT) for it is a revolutionary situation: when the established elites are still holding the levers of power, but the social pressures for crisis have built up to the point where something has to give.

What I found remarkable as we have lived through the past two years (indeed, the past eight years since I made my prediction of the impending crisis), is how precisely we today are following the trajectory into crisis that my colleagues and I saw in the historical societies we have studied. The explanation, probably, is that the three major mechanisms driving up social pressure for crisis in the SDT work in a mutually reinforcing way. The fundamental drive (a kind of a “pump” that drives up social pressure) is the oversupply of labor, which developed after the 1970s as a result of multiple interacting factors, and more recently was made acute by technological change driving automation and robotization. Oversupply of labor is the root cause for both popular immiseration and elite over-production/intra-elite competition. Both of those factors, then, contribute to the fiscal crisis of the state, because immiserated population can’t pay taxes, while the elites work to reduce the taxes on themselves.

We saw all those mechanisms operating in our current crisis. Immiseration of large swaths of the American population was what fueled the successful campaign of a counter-elite presidential candidate, Donald Trump. Intra-elite conflict has reached unprecedented heights (since the First American Civil War), as the established elites are using various means at their disposal to get rid of the counter-elite chief of state. At the same time, a weird coalition of Trump and the established elites (remember, laws must be approved by the Congress) legislates deep cuts into the taxes the elites will pay, bringing the fiscal crisis of the state much sooner. Political violence has also reached new heights, although thankfully mostly demonstrators and counter-demonstrators are beaten up, not killed (a major exception was Charlottesville a year ago).

Until last year I thought that we collectively have a decent chance of avoiding the crisis, but I now have abandoned this hope. A major reason for my pessimism is the resolute refusal by our ruling class (including its both Liberal and Conservative wings) to see the real causes of the crisis. They are internal, not external. As a result, the mid-term elections will be completely free of (largely mythical) Russian influence, but no attempt is made to address the deep structural-demographic causes. All these pressures continue to increase.

The major question on my mind now, instead, is how we could sail through the crisis without a major amount of bloodshed. This is where the “Ginkgo Model” may serve as a useful conceptual device. As I said earlier in this post, the trajectories of entry into structural-demographic crises are fairly narrowly channelized. But once the crisis breaks out, suddenly a much broader fan of possibilities opens up. It’s just like a Ginkgo leaf:

Some post-crisis trajectories go to a really dire territory: a bloody civil war, a revolution bringing an oppressive regime, or disintegration of the state into a number of territorial sections. Other post-crisis trajectories are less dire. In the best scenario, the elites manage to pull together and implement the reforms needed to defuse the pressures for crisis—reversing trends of immiseration and elite overproduction and restoring the fiscal health of the state.

However, unlike in the Ginkgo leaf analogy, the fan of probabilities of emerging from a crisis is heavily lopsided—and unfortunately in favor of really negative outcomes. Over the years I have studied about thirty cases of historical societies going into crisis, and emerging from it, ranging from Rome and China to France, Russia, and the United States. I scored the crisis severity in each by such parameters as the effect on the population (none, mild decline, catastrophic decrease), on the established elites (from mild downward social mobility to dispossession or even extermination), and on the state (territorial fragmentation, external conquest). Adding together these indicators, here’s the result:

As you see, the more positive outcomes (lower severity on the left side) are fairly rare (about 10% of historical cases), while the majority of outcomes cluster in the middle-high severity territory. In fact, this way of presenting outcomes is somewhat misleading, for the following reason. We know that the scale of collective violence in humans, measured by the number of people killed, is not “normally” distributed. Instead, it follows a power law. As an example from my own work, here’s the distribution of the severity of political violence events in the United States between 1780 and 2010:

The frequency distributions of war severity, including both external, inter-state wars and internal, civil wars have the same shape. What it means in non-mathematical terms is that there is no “typical” scale for outcomes of societal crisis. We cannot say that “on average 10,000 people are killed when a civil war breaks out.” The idea of “average” is misleading. A civil war can kill 100, 1000, 10 000, 100 000, 1 000 000 people and even more. The probability of a really severe conflict (e.g., more than 1 mln people killed) is fairly low, but it is much higher than what a naïve person would estimate. This point is admirably discussed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in The Black Swan and other writings.

What it means for us here in the United States is that the severity of the troubles to come in the next few years to a decade is really impossible to predict. It could be as mild as the late 1960s–early 1970s, with the violent urban riots and a fairly ineffectual terrorist campaign by the Weather Underground. Or it could be as bad as the First American Civil War. Once again, a real catastrophic collapse of our society may not be highly probable, but it is much more probable than we think.

Charts and graphs are embedded in the original article, follow the link.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: beirnini on August 23, 2018, 12:42:25
That's a waffle.  Either counteractions are happening, or they are not.  Brennan hasn't called out the administration for inactivity, and hasn't chosen to work quietly with it.
You mean "counteractions" like (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/very-much-counter-to-the-plan-trump-defies-advisers-in-embrace-of-putin/2018/07/16/b2176bfe-8921-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html) "Ahead of the meeting, staffers provided Trump with some 100 pages of briefing materials aimed at laying out a tough posture toward Putin [...] “Everyone around Trump” was urging him to take a firm stance with Putin, according to a second person familiar with the preparations. Before Monday’s meeting, the second person said, advisers covered matters from Russia’s annexation of Crimea to its interference in the U.S. elections"?  "Counteractions" which Trump not only ignored, but very pointedly dismissed when he tweeted (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1018943446583668736) "“I have GREAT confidence in MY intelligence people.”

There's no reason to believe Brennan was not communicating with the current admin and it's advisors "quietly" behind the scenes since the beginning of Trump's admin however many months ago. That description of the preparation for Trump before his meeting with Putin strongly hints at it, and Trump's petulantly pointed reply to the blowback all but confirms it. That Brennan should suddenly choose to no longer be quiet should be cause for concern, not condemnation, if the threat is as remotely real as he believes it is.

As for waffling, I'm on a military forum chatting with military members. I'm taken aback that anyone here of all places would blithely dismiss 'friend or foe' declarations from the highest level of a chain of command. Moreover by mislabeling the sequence in question as "bombast" (for a guy who likes his definitions that's a pretty big whiff) and "rhetoric" (as persuasive as a bald-faced and fallacious appeal to authority can be I guess) only adds to the incredulity. If focusing on that dumbfounding sentence means I'm waffling, then pass the maple syrup.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Lumber on August 23, 2018, 13:26:19
Remembering that President Trump is a symptom of they dysfunction in the US political system (and more broadly, the social and economic systems underpinning it), this article is somewhat disturbing in how it sees the political situation in the United States playing out. The writer modelled 30 different historical systems from around the world, so this is more than a SWAG (Scientific Wild Assed Guess), but history and other "social sciences" are descriptive rather than predictive (very few would have been able to forecast the rise of Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Brexit, AfD, Viktor Orban or Movemento 5 Stelle five years ago), so unexpected factors could make this prediction moot as well.

http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/the-ginkgo-model-of-societal-crisis/

Charts and graphs are embedded in the original article, follow the link.

Ah. So, basically we need a big war and famine to reduce the surplus labour, possibly even a decrease that is greater that what is needed, thereby providing the survivors with a significant opportunity to find their natural fit and establish a new steady state.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 23, 2018, 14:27:50
>As for waffling

You're not convincingly addressing the crux of the matter.  Brennan is free to pitch a fit if the administration is not doing everything Brennan thinks it should, but that's not particularly "professional".  Not following Brennan's preferred script is not the same as doing nothing at all.  (I suppose most people on this forum have, several times, offered advice and a considered course of action and had it rejected in favour of something else.  I doubt many of them whined openly.)  Trump is free to pitch poses for the cameras which show him back-slapping and glad-handing Putin, even while agencies of his administration pursue policies and actions against Russian interests.

Brennan just looks like one of the guys PO'ed that Hillary lost, and determined to use his influence to join the ankle-biters determined to introduce friction.

Perhaps Trump is just trying to hold the relationship together until he has more flexibility after his re-election.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Thucydides on August 23, 2018, 14:39:56
Ah. So, basically we need a big war and famine to reduce the surplus labour, possibly even a decrease that is greater that what is needed, thereby providing the survivors with a significant opportunity to find their natural fit and establish a new steady state.

No, not the conclusion that is being drawn. The problem is the venality and incompetence of the ruling class and rent seekers who exploit this effect, and fail to take actions which might spread benefits outside of their circle.

Interestingly, this is the theme of this article by Salena Zito, and equally interestingly, this article was blocked on Facebook (not clear if it is in open circulation there now)

https://nypost.com/2018/08/22/why-trumps-supporters-wont-care-about-cohen-and-manaforts-convictions/

Quote
Why Trump’s supporters won’t care about Cohen and Manafort’s convictions
By Salena Zito August 22, 2018 | 5:16pm | Updated

ZANESVILLE, OH — Last week, a woman in her mid-40s who lives in a tidy suburban enclave just outside of Columbus, Ohio, summed up her continued support for President Donald Trump despite his morals, values and behavior not matching hers nor matching her expectations she had for any president of the United States.

“For decades I have been inspired by aspiring politicians and elected officials who took to the podium or the camera and delivered poetic speeches to earn my trust and my support. They would sway me with expressive words and artfully delivered promises,” she said.

While the words were beautiful, they never manifested into anything tangible in her community.

“It took me a while to realize those words weren’t theirs, but skillfully crafted sentences that had been massaged and focus-group tested by a full staff of speechwriters and strategists.”

Along comes Trump in 2016. She cannot abide anything he tweets, finds his speeches a stream of consciousness that is hard to unscramble and considers his morals in the gutter. She reluctantly voted for him and knows she will vote for him again, something she admits even surprises her.

Why does he hold her support?

He delivers results.

“It’s just that simple.”

She mentions the tax reform bill, the remaking of the judiciary, how he has repealed regulations that have improved the economic conditions in the state, both of his picks for the Supreme Court and his unflinching manner in taking on the establishment wings of both political parties as her reasons.

The woman shudders as she imagines what kind of problems she would encounter if she gave her name, so she declines.

In the aftermath of Tuesday’s news that both former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his lawyer Michael Cohen were found on the wrong side of the law in separate court cases, the question asked most frequently by the press, Democrats and “Never Trump”

Republicans is, “Where do Trump voters go now?”

The answer is the same that it has always been since they first started asking it Nov. 9, 2016: With Trump.

This new conservative populist coalition is not the fluke the political class hoped it was. Donald Trump did not cause it, he is just the result of it, so no matter what he does, it continues. It is predicated on them, not him.

The coalition is a strike at not just tone deafness in both Congress and the White House but also high levels of incompetence, negligence and shoddy performance at agencies, as well as inept social services, a bloated and incompetent bureaucracy, endless wars and multinational agreements and treaties that don’t benefit average people.

These voters knew who Trump was going in, they knew he was a thrice-married, Playmate-dating, Howard Stern regular who had the morals of an alley cat. They were willing to look past all of that because of how institutions had failed their communities for three consecutive presidencies.

Right now the value of Trump to the Trump voter is he is all that stands between them and handing the keys to Washington back over to the people inside Washington. That’s it. He’s their only option. You’ve got to pick the insiders or him.

So the question becomes: Can the Democrats pick someone who is Trump? Someone who just says, “I don’t trust anybody in Washington either. They all suck. The Democrats sucks, the Republicans suck and Trump’s a crook.”

If they could pick a Trump for their side, then Trump could have a problem. But as it stands we only really only have two parties; the party of the governing elite and the party of Trump.

That is why they stick with him.

Democrats are not making any efforts to drive a wedge between Trump and his voters. Instead, they’re running on issues like “abolish ICE.”

The party’s entire goal is get more Democrats to vote. It’s not to win back Trump voters. So how could you expect Trump voters to move away from him? Where would they go?

Salena Zito is the author, with Brad Todd, of “The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics.”

Find us a Preston Manning like figure to deliver, and none of this would have happened. Then again, look at the reality of Preston Manning or the US TEA Party movement which sought to reign in the Administrative State and crony capitalism. The establishment, from the politicians, bureaucrats, media and academia locked arms and fought back with everything they could throw at Reform or the TEA Party movement.

Surprise, the grievances still stood, so now we have Donald Trump, Doug Ford, Geet Wilders, Viktor Orban etc. etc. to take on these institutions and groups (I mention the European leaders to demonstrate this is not just confined to the US or Canada). If they are somehow defeated, the next iteration will be exponentially more driven.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Chris Pook on August 26, 2018, 14:44:38
Realclearpolitics on the Direction of the US

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

Peculiarly the portion of the US population content with the direction the country is heading is on the rise and has been on the rise since the Nov 2016 elections.  Seems counter-intuitive based on the international and national media reports.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on August 26, 2018, 16:38:01
The only thing that matters is the economy which grew by 4.6% according to the Fed this week.There is a lot of fake news that is intended to sipirit Trump's base,not working.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: CBH99 on August 26, 2018, 16:54:15
If Trump could continue to take the US in the direction it's going financially & economically, and in regards to re-negotiating trade issues, etc etc - I don't think anybody would be concerned.  Every administration does things differently than it's predecessor, and Trump's administration is no different in regards to that. 

Some may agree with his policies, others may not.  What sets him apart is that his policies are soooooooooooo different than previous administrations, and are often introduced out of nowhere, without much debate or research on the issues being done prior to his statements.


If Trump could continue his presidency with the above being the issues that constantly haunt him, so be it.  But it isn't.

It's that top officials are routinely fired for not being his puppets.  It's that from almost the very first day of his Presidency, he's been under investigation by national law enforcement agencies.  It's that key figures in his campaign have plead guilty to fraud, paying people off, and sweeping criminal activity under the rug.  It's that in exchange for immunity, key people in the US government have plead guilty to knowing about, supporting, or participating in the above - directly stating that they did those things under the instruction of the person who is now President.

It's that he revokes security clearances for people who disagree with him, or are linked to investigations looking his affairs.  It's that he openly attacks his own top officials for not going after his enemies.  It's that he refers to judges as fakes for upholding the law & constitution, and dismissing the "I woke up and thought of this" laws he seems to think are somehow legally binding.  And he does all of this while showing clear, open contempt for the law.



If people are happy with the direction the US is going...so be it.  I don't mean this harshly, but I'm guessing a lot of their opinions are shaped by their local media & aren't completely representative of the entire story.  But, that's no different there than anywhere else, so fair enough. 

The elephant in the room isn't "whether the US is doing well economically" -- it's "Is the President currently engaged in criminal activity, on multiple levels, and how is that going to affect the country?"
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on August 26, 2018, 16:58:56
The only thing that matters is the economy which grew by 4.6% according to the Fed this week.There is a lot of fake news that is intended to sipirit Trump's base,not working.

Actually, 4.1 %.  Hopefully it is sustainable growth.

https://apnews.com/72859d00212d40ac9a6ce9129502119e (https://apnews.com/72859d00212d40ac9a6ce9129502119e)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: dapaterson on August 26, 2018, 17:04:41
Actually, 4.1 %.  Hopefully it is sustainable growth.

https://apnews.com/72859d00212d40ac9a6ce9129502119e (https://apnews.com/72859d00212d40ac9a6ce9129502119e)

What do you mean?  How could record levels of government borrowing during a time of economic expansion and low interest rates possibly end badly?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on August 26, 2018, 17:11:57
What do you mean?  How could record levels of government borrowing during a time of economic expansion and low interest rates possibly end badly?

Budgets balance themselves, right?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on August 26, 2018, 18:23:21
And the "current economic expansion, which began in 2009, is now the second-longest on record . . ."

But wait! Doesn't that mean it started when the dreaded Obama began his presidency? How could that be?  :o

 :stirpot:

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on August 26, 2018, 18:29:16
I think any sort of expansion would be extraordinary after the 2008 collapse, regardless of who the President was...
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on August 26, 2018, 18:29:48
Budgets balance themselves, right?

Not if there is record levels of borrowing they don't.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on August 26, 2018, 18:43:06
Not if there is record levels of borrowing they don't.

Have to be careful with words. Obama holds the record for US Federal budget deficits (Deficit as a percent of GDP). https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-budget (https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-budget)

Trump is currently at Bush (GW and HW) levels, with only Clinton having positive numbers in the last 40 years and it took him until his second term to sort that out.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 26, 2018, 19:22:58
A reminder: presidents submit budget requests, which are basically wish lists.  Congress appropriates.  The credit or blame for budget management rests entirely with Congress.

Non-discretionary (mandatory, entitlement) spending is built-in.  The party that doesn't want to see non-discretionary spending increased or decreased simply has to block the other party from changing the legislation governing non-discretionary spending programs (eg. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security).

Appropriations are for discretionary spending.  If Congress can't agree on specific appropriation amounts, continuing resolutions are used.  CRs basically take the previous year's spending ("baseline") and multiply by some number greater than one.  Obama's movement of the Iraq war spending from "off-budget" to "on-budget" ensured that although the spending on war would eventually go away, the expenditure amount is now part of the "baseline" and prevents the spending from actually being turned off (an accounting trick to make the money available for other spending).

Non-discretionary spending has been increasing as a share of spending, while discretionary spending has been falling (as a share).  If you include interest payments as "mandatory", then mandatory spending is somewhere between 2/3 and 7/10 of total spending.  The rate of mandatory spending growth exceeds the rate of economic growth; it is generally regarded as being on an unsustainable trajectory.

Discretionary spending is about $1.2T (of which defense and related spending is about $0.9T), and the deficit is about $0.9T.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on August 26, 2018, 22:30:44
Have to be careful with words. Obama holds the record for US Federal budget deficits (Deficit as a percent of GDP). https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-budget (https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-budget)

Trump is currently at Bush (GW and HW) levels, with only Clinton having positive numbers in the last 40 years and it took him until his second term to sort that out.

I could point out the fact that was due to the Recession, which caused our own government to also move into a deficit, but the point is ultimately irrelevant.

I literally could not care less which brand of foreign (or domestic) politician made what decision.  I do not repeat do not see everything through the simplistic right versus left lens.

Bad decisions are bad decisions.  Being Republican does not make them badder, not does being a Democrat make them gooder.

There is more to critical thinking than labels.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on August 26, 2018, 22:44:47
I could point out the fact that was due to the Recession, which caused our own government to also move into a deficit, but the point is ultimately irrelevant.

I literally could not care less which brand of foreign (or domestic) politician made what decision.  I do not repeat do not see everything through the simplistic right versus left lens.

Bad decisions are bad decisions.  Being Republican does not make them badder, not does being a Democrat make them gooder.

There is more to critical thinking than labels.

Considering you tried making a point about Trump running historically high deficits but in reality its not true, you're either viewing things through a partisan lens or simply just not educated on the actual numbers. Either way, I don't really care as your statement was incorrect so any other justification of those incorrect facts is just trying to save face.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on August 26, 2018, 22:50:41
Considering you tried making a point about Trump running historically high deficits but in reality its not true, you're either viewing things through a partisan lens or simply just not educated on the actual numbers. Either way, I don't really care as your statement was incorrect so any other justification of those incorrect facts is just trying to save face.

I did not try to make a point.  I quoted facts from reliable sources.

Perhaps it is just that I understand the difference between % of GDP and totals.

I literally don't know how else to explain to you what a non-partisan looks like.  Facts are facts.  It turns out that truth really is truth.

You crack on from your righteous and right perch.  I will continue to think critically.  Feel free to put me on your ignore list - which would probably be a bit awkward for a Mod.

Have a nice evening.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: beirnini on August 27, 2018, 00:52:01
Ah. So, basically we need a big war and famine to reduce the surplus labour, possibly even a decrease that is greater that what is needed, thereby providing the survivors with a significant opportunity to find their natural fit and establish a new steady state.
Or perhaps less catastrophically we could implement disincentives to repetitively exploiting untapped and thus cheaper labour markets? Free market fundamentalists love to tout the way development reduces suffering in emerging markets, but they seem to be blind to the suffering it causes in mature markets: "Bootstraps" seems to be the only medicine offered.

Capital is both increasingly free to move anywhere and buy almost anything, speculatively or otherwise.  Labour is both increasingly restricted in movement and intrinsically incapable of quickly retraining to supply whatever capital is currently in the market for, speculatively or otherwise. Limiting the speed and movement of capital to something approaching proportional and equal to the biology that it depends on doesn't strike me as particularly radical.

I don't know how that fits into Mr. Turchin's analysis; whether that is an "internal" or "external" cause to his impending crisis, but I can say with reasonable certainty that Trump and his advisors have no interest in any aspect of it aside from riling up his base about illegal immigration.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 27, 2018, 03:31:52
I did not try to make a point.  I quoted facts from reliable sources.

Perhaps it is just that I understand the difference between % of GDP and totals.

I literally don't know how else to explain to you what a non-partisan looks like.  Facts are facts.  It turns out that truth really is truth.

You crack on from your righteous and right perch.  I will continue to think critically.  Feel free to put me on your ignore list - which would probably be a bit awkward for a Mod.

Have a nice evening.

Why not just post your reliable sources and end the debate?   :dunno:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Scott on August 27, 2018, 08:17:59
You crack on from your righteous and right perch.  I will continue to think critically.  Feel free to put me on your ignore list - which would probably be a bit awkward for a Mod.

I don't think the swipe about moderators putting users to ignore is fair, or justified in this case.

If a moderator, as a user (because they are all users first and foremost), takes that step then they're fully within their rights and it's not awkward. It is actually encouraged and not something done lightly, or without them letting me know. There are multiple moderators in case one's needed as a fire brigade.

Just wanted to clear that one up.

Cheers

Scott
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: beirnini on August 27, 2018, 12:25:43
You're not convincingly addressing the crux of the matter.
Insisting on a far higher standard of decorum, professionalism and accountability in a private citizen over the POTUS is the crux.
Quote
Brennan is free to pitch a fit if the administration is not doing everything Brennan thinks it should, but that's not particularly "professional".  Not following Brennan's preferred script is not the same as doing nothing at all.
That a purported national security threat, replete with indictments against 12 Russian intelligence officers for hacking, can be disparagingly construed as a mere script preferred by Brennan is also a big part of the crux.
Quote
(I suppose most people on this forum have, several times, offered advice and a considered course of action and had it rejected in favour of something else.  I doubt many of them whined openly.)
No offense, but elevating the advice and courses of action offered by members of this board to the same level of importance and consequence as designating a world leader as an enemy of the nation - with the full backing of the entire American law enforcement and intelligence community to boot - is a wee bit of a stretch.
Quote
Trump is free to pitch poses for the cameras which show him back-slapping and glad-handing Putin, even while agencies of his administration pursue policies and actions against Russian interests.
You don't have to convince me that Trump is completely and totally full of it. The question and the crux (at least for me) is why does it not matter?
Quote
Brennan just looks like one of the guys PO'ed that Hillary lost, and determined to use his influence to join the ankle-biters determined to introduce friction.
So much skepticism, doubt and questioning of motives for a private citizen, and none for the words and actions of the POTUS is yet another crux of the matter.
Quote
Perhaps Trump is just trying to hold the relationship together until he has more flexibility after his re-election.
With GOP control of the house of reps possibly about to end Trump has already had the maximum "flexibility" he could ever hope to get. The only explanation for Trump's streadfast "trying to hold the relationship together" with Putin is that he simply wants the relationship with Putin.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 27, 2018, 13:40:09
>Insisting on a far higher standard of decorum, professionalism and accountability in a private citizen over the POTUS is the crux.

Then we're talking about two different things.  I've been talking about Brennan's standard of decorum and professionalism, which I find wanting.

People can insist on whatever standards of behaviour they wish Trump to achieve with respect to decorum and professionalism, but it's a waste of time; Trump's character was well established long before he ran for president.  The accountability aspect is being looked after by a small army of people who have been at it for over two years.

Once upon a time the USSR occupied much of Europe, was an open state sponsor of terrorism, worked incessantly to infiltrate the US government and many others, and was generally a busybody interfering everywhere it wished to destabilize governments and societies.  Its opponents worked, mostly without pitching fits, to oppose it.  The Obama administration fell asleep at the wheel ("And the 1980’s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back") and took the threat too lightly and throttled back its responses.  "Russian interference" only became a cause celebre with the loss of the presidency.  I agree with the commentators who conclude that "Russian interference" is just a way of directing attention away from incompetence and an excuse to find some pretext to impeach Trump.

The point about advice is that a "professional" doesn't go off whining when his advice isn't taken.

>You don't have to convince me that Trump is completely and totally full of crap. The question and the crux (at least for me) is why does it not matter?

Good, because there's no a priori reason to take Trump's comments about this matter any more seriously than his comments about the hundreds of other things he lies about and reverses direction upon.  His behaviour matters, but at this point effective people have learned to work around it instead of repeatedly butting their heads against it insisting it must change.  Trump's motives are to serve Trump - no particular importance should be attached to anything he says except to understand that it is whatever he thinks make him look good at that moment.  If circumstances change, then later he will baldly reverse himself if it serves his needs.

Whatever Trump said on the platform with Putin was what Trump thought would best serve himself at the time.  Pretending it is a statement of policy that means nothing is being done against Russian interference is unwarranted - there's no authority competent to assert which of Trump's statements reflect administration policy and which are humbug.

Meanwhile, "The Resistance" continues, as does the dissatisfaction on the part of all the people noting the double standards being applied to Republicans versus Democrats.  Rule of law isn't under threat because Trump rages against investigators or judges; rule of law is under threat because of inconsistent application of standards.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on August 27, 2018, 20:34:31
I don't think the swipe about moderators putting users to ignore is fair, or justified in this case.

If a moderator, as a user (because they are all users first and foremost), takes that step then they're fully within their rights and it's not awkward. It is actually encouraged and not something done lightly, or without them letting me know. There are multiple moderators in case one's needed as a fire brigade.

Just wanted to clear that one up.

Cheers

Scott

Fair enough - I was ennervated at the time.  I recant that element of my post. 

With respect,

PPCLI Guy
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on August 28, 2018, 12:06:51
Quote
Trump slams Google search as 'rigged' — but it's not
by Hadas Gold   @CNNTech

President Donald Trump has renewed his claims of bias against conservatives on the internet, accusing Google of rigging its results to show "bad" stories when users search for "Trump news."
"Google search results for 'Trump News' shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake New Media," the president said Tuesday on Twitter.

"In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out," he added. "Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives."

Trump suggested that Google's actions could be "illegal" and he said that the situation would be addressed. He did not specify what actions he would take, or say what laws may have been violated. . . .

See rest of article here:

https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/28/technology/donald-trump-google-rigged/index.html (https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/28/technology/donald-trump-google-rigged/index.html)

 :rofl:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: QV on August 28, 2018, 13:07:47
 
I'm sure @CNNTech has the purest intentions.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/blockbuster-cnn-trump-russia-story-in-more-doubt.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/attorney-for-michael-cohen-backs-away-from-confidence-that-cohen-has-information-about-trumps-knowledge-on-russian-efforts/2018/08/26/09d7f26e-a876-11e8-97ce-cc9042272f07_story.html

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/403718-lanny-davis-tempers-confidence-that-michael-cohen-has-info-on-trumps

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 28, 2018, 14:00:05
See rest of article here:

https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/28/technology/donald-trump-google-rigged/index.html (https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/28/technology/donald-trump-google-rigged/index.html)

 :rofl:

It's not the first time Google  has been accused of biased results.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 28, 2018, 15:21:26
Google responded by saying

""Every year, we issue hundreds of improvements to our algorithms to ensure they surface high-quality content in response to users’ queries. We continually work to improve Google Search and we never rank search results to manipulate political sentiment"[/quote]

High-quality content seems rather ambiguous.

You're right Google isn't without its unethical accusations, like that guy who was fired for talking about their bullshit diversity claims.
Google, like Twitter Instagram and all those other social media sites are left wing or at least very left leaning.

It's not really hard to guess what their inturputation of high quality content is.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: daftandbarmy on August 28, 2018, 19:53:49

Google, like Twitter Instagram and all those other social media sites are left wing or at least very left leaning.

It's not really hard to guess what their inturputation of high quality content is.


Like our mostly publicly funded Canadian media....



Most Canadian Media Guilty of Left-Leaning Bias, Says Author

Conservative viewpoint on issues such as abortion, global warming usually absent, Gerry Bowler says

The majority of Canadian news outlets have a left-leaning bias and do not include enough variety or conservative voices, according to a Canadian author and historian.

Gerry Bowler, who taught history at the University of Manitoba for 25 years, is a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a think tank that lobbies for smaller government.

Bowler recently zeroed in on news coverage in North America, suggesting it has gotten so biased toward supporting a progressive or leftist agenda that certain issues such as gay marriage, global warming, abortion, and gun control typically do not contain a conservative viewpoint.

“There’s a lot of Canadian life that is invisible to the media and there is a lot that is highlighted that just happens to fit the progressive agenda,” he said.

“And that narrowing of the window of public opinion is very dangerous, whether the drift is to the right or to the left, as it is in North America in the 21st century.”

Bowler said people who possess left-wing values tend to gravitate to the media as a profession—from reporters to editors to managers—and they have a tendency to give a progressive perspective while rushing from one story to the next, leaving out a diverse mix of opinions and analysis.

“The media figures would never admit out loud to being biased. As far as they are concerned they are straight-down-the-middle objective reporters of reality,” he said.

Bowler points to a recent Gallup poll in the United States that finds 62 percent of Democrats say they trust the media whereas only 14 percent of Republicans found the media to be objective.

He argues the situation is much the same in Canada, where conservatives feel alienated due to the kind of news coverage that gives more airtime to progressive voices favouring political correctness while stigmatizing religious or conservative views.

“Just look at the coverage in Canada of the American election as the results came in,” he said. “The CBC was absolutely disgraceful with its coverage—they were openly weeping at the results and there was no intent at objectivity at all,” said Bowler, adding that the only conservative voice on a panel dissecting the election results was David Frum, a known critic of President Donald Trump.

Conservatives are known to target the CBC because it’s a large, publicly funded institution, and Bowler and the Frontier Centre have often also focused on the state broadcaster. The CBC is not fulfilling its prime duty to reflect all Canadians and rather has become more of “a cheerleader for the left,” Bowler said.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/most-canadian-media-guilty-of-left-leaning-bias-says-author_2347119.html
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on August 28, 2018, 21:26:43
Like our mostly publicly funded Canadian media....



Most Canadian Media Guilty of Left-Leaning Bias, Says Author

Conservative viewpoint on issues such as abortion, global warming usually absent, Gerry Bowler says

The majority of Canadian news outlets voters have a left-leaning bias

As such, it is not surprising that the media, who have to sell their product, cater to the majority.

Not a conspiracy.  Just business.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 28, 2018, 21:43:16
The adults around me were referring to CBC as "Communist Broadcasting Corporation" (laughingly, not bitterly) when I was a kid.  It's reputation for leaning left is not new.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 29, 2018, 13:08:27
As such, it is not surprising that the media, who have to sell their product, cater to the majority.

Not a conspiracy.  Just business.

If the CBC were CTV or Global, you'd have a point.

The CBC is a tax funded entity. It is not a business, in the usual sense, nor is it a normal business when it comes to operating. It depends on taxpayer funding, for the most part. Kind of like a forced upon you PBS.

"...the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains;

...the programming provided by the Corporation should:

be predominantly and distinctively Canadian, reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions,
actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression,
be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities,
strive to be of equivalent quality in English and French,
contribute to shared national consciousness and identity,
be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose, and
reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada."

I can see a number of their mandated things that they are not providing, IMHO.

At any rate, you cannot have a fall back that business is business when it comes to the CBC. Simply because it is not a business like the others in the category.

The CBC is a publicly funded, biased information and opinion station. Not a business that has to scrabble and meet customer expectation or fulfill their mandate.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on August 29, 2018, 13:35:10
I love it when these reporters, who have a few years of life experiences, are recent taxpayers, inform us how things should be run.

To add to recceguy's post, Christie Blatchford always down to earth comment.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-mainstream-media-is-starving-but-certainly-not-the-cbc

Christie Blatchford: Mainstream media is starving — but certainly not the CBC
- 29 Jun 18
The government might stop subsidizing CBC online; it might tell the CBC to get out of digital advertising, though of course there’s no guarantee any of those dollars would flow to newspapers


It was literally the day after Justin Trudeau was first elected in 2015 that I noticed the difference. I was in a line-up outside the clerk’s office at the main Toronto courthouse with a bunch of other reporters who were covering a trial, I think that of Toronto Police Const. James Forcillo, who was charged and ultimately convicted of attempted murder in the streetcar shooting death of Sammy Yatim. Lining up is part of the reporter’s life.

Securing public documents in Canadian courts always requires journalists to prostrate ourselves before various officials, fill out endless and sundry forms, overpay for copies of the documents we want, and generally bow and scrape. Anyway, at one point I turned around and realized that the two CBC folks in line had vanished, replaced by interns. And just like that, we were all transported back to the glory days of the CBC, when it was routine that five or six CBC journalists (from TV, radio, French, English, national, local, etc.) not only covered the same events but also often had serfs to do the actual waiting about for them.

The Liberals had just barely been elected, but one of Trudeau’s many promises was to restore — nay, restore and increase — CBC funding that had been sorely cut under Stephen Harper’s government, and happy days were here again already. As the CBC itself reported a year later, in a promises scorecard on the new government, Trudeau had indeed kept his pledge to restore the $115 million in annual cuts imposed by the Tories — and more. That more, as myriad reports on the 2016 budget noted, was “to help drive the public broadcaster’s continuing shift to digital platforms.”

Fast forward to the recent Ontario election campaign. It was May 17. I was following former premier Kathleen Wynne, who had an interview at CBC Radio headquarters in Ottawa, and part of the deal was that we on the press bus were allowed in and put in a room adjacent to the studio where Ontario Today host Rita Celli would talk to the then-Premier and take calls from listeners. Into the building we went and, there before us, like a damp nostalgic dream come to life, was a newsroom the likes of which virtually all Canadian newspapers haven’t seen in more than a decade.

Most of our newsrooms now are funereal, with skeletal staffs and row upon row of empty desks, even in the new, pared down offices to which so many papers have relocated. I could hardly believe it. This place was buzzing. Every desk was filled. Reporters were busy. Phones were ringing. It was bedlam, like every newsroom in the world used to be.

It was the other end of what I have seen every day since the Liberal victory — that so many of the best and brightest young reporters now work for CBC; that it is often only a reporter from the CBC who has the luxury of sitting through entire criminal trials; that it is the CBC, not either of the major national papers, which has bureaus all over the country; that whenever someone else leaves the newspaper business, frequently the next shoe to drop is that they’ve gone to the CBC.

Nota bene: Many of these people aren’t going to work for CBC TV or CBC Radio, but for the CBC website, the direct competitor to newspapers, which, as print advertising revenue continues to plummet, are struggling to survive via their online products. It’s bad enough that the duopoly of Facebook and Google, neither of which employ any journalists, get about 82 per cent of digital ad dollars in Canada. That means, from the get-go, that newspapers are fighting for the scraps. It’s bad enough that most Canadians don’t want to pay for news; as the Public Policy Forum reported last year in its study of the devastated newspaper landscape, only one in five Canadian households pays for newspapers. And it’s bad enough that we in the business have contributed to our own decline and apparent imminent demise. No one would ever accuse newspaper owners and managers of being geniuses.

I remember how, many years ago, the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun both began producing free giveaway mini-versions of the papers for distribution on subways. It made no sense to me: Why would people then pay for the real newspaper if they could get a simplified version for free? Oh, we were told, it will whet their appetites for more. It did nothing of the sort, of course. It merely whetted the collective appetite for free stuff and devalued journalism. But on top of all that, Canadian newspapers directly compete against the CBC website, which is of course richly subsidized by the taxpayers.

God forbid Ottawa should start to subsidize newspapers too. As a journalist, the thought gives me the shudders. But the government might stop subsidizing CBC online; it might tell the CBC to get out of digital advertising, though of course there’s no guarantee any of those dollars would flow to newspapers. Both Postmedia and the Star this week announced yet more voluntary buyouts and/or layoffs and, for Postmedia, more shuttering of small-town and community papers. The situation is frankly desperate.

The memory of that CBC newsroom, all a-buzz and chock-full of people, gets harder and harder to bear.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on August 29, 2018, 14:23:58
If the CBC were CTV or Global, you'd have a point.

Thanks.  I am aware of the CBC's status and mandate.

I made no mention of the CBC in my post - indeed I deleted that part of the original article deliberately.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 30, 2018, 02:18:50
Thanks.  I am aware of the CBC's status and mandate.

I made no mention of the CBC in my post - indeed I deleted that part of the original article deliberately.

Of the MSM, the CBC is so far left it makes Pravda blush. You can't speak about Canadian MSM  (or left leaning voters) without including the CBC..

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: E.R. Campbell on August 30, 2018, 11:38:22
I'm sorry to keep repeating myself, but: ALL media is biased about almost everything almost all the time ... hells' bells, I've even heard weather reports that sounded like advertising for the local tourist industry. Some media outlets, like the Toronto Star are up front about their institutional bias, others, like the CBC, try to deny it ~ which is dishonest.

In my opinion the Canadian mainstream media is reasonable balanced, across the board, given e.g. The Star and the CBC being on the left, as recceguy says, the Globe and Mail and CTV being, roughly in the centre, and the National Post (especially the Financial Post)  the Sun Media chain and Global TV being pretty firmly right of centre. There is no right wing media in Canada because, as PPCLI GUY points out, very correctly, there is no market for it.

If you withdrew CBC's massive public subsidy and got the CRTC out of the content (censorship) business then I suspect that CTV would slide left, towards The Star and the Globe and Mail and Global TV would occupy the centre and centre right bit of the bias spectrum and the National Post, the Sun chain and a few new, independent, local TV stations ~ former CBC licences will have real value in Greater Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, South Western Ontario, maybe Ottawa (it's hard to say, it's a small market and it already over-served) Montreal and, maybe Halifax ~ will have the right of centre area. I doubt there will ever be enough 'market' to support a 'Trump Party' TV station,  much less a network in Canada.

My  :2c:  ... worth precisely what you're paying for it.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on August 30, 2018, 11:49:21
ERC:
Quote
.....Global TV being pretty firmly right of centre.

Your joking are you not? Possibly before Shaw Communications purchased in 2010, not now.

Global TV Washington correspondent just spits out half the story, leaving the facts out. Never seen him a WH press meeting so maybe he gets his feed from the Washington post.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on August 30, 2018, 16:01:12
You can't speak about Canadian MSM  (or left leaning voters) without including the CBC..

It is clear that you can't - I on the other hand certainly can, given that I spoke of media as a group, and felt no compunction to single out specific outlets, or to list all of them.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 30, 2018, 16:16:43
It is clear that you can't - I on the other hand certainly can, given that I spoke of media as a group, and felt no compunction to single out specific outlets, or to list all of them.

Kinda like stacking the deck in poker. Make sure your narrative fits your opinion, even if you leave the elephant outside.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on August 30, 2018, 16:41:57
The political leaning of most of the media I think has its roots at college where they learned journalism. US journalists and their foreign brethren seem to be the same. Their are some exceptions like business media. But climate warriors seem to be found in the science or weather section. US college campii have evolved into some radical places. I wonder why the States don't crack down on their state universities. I saw first hand while my dad went through journalism school at Wisconsin back in the late 60's. One of his professors was an unapologetic communist and the university ROTC was almost run off campus.If you are in uniform you must be a baby killer even though the military was a draftee force then.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on September 04, 2018, 17:46:18
Something to look forward to.

Quote
Bob Woodward: Trump's aides stole his papers 'to protect the country'
By Jeremy Herb, Jamie Gangel and Dan Merica, CNN

(CNN)WARNING: This story contains graphic language.

President Donald Trump's closest aides have taken extraordinary measures in the White House to try to stop what they saw as his most dangerous impulses, going so far as to swipe and hide papers from his desk so he wouldn't sign them, according to a new book from legendary journalist Bob Woodward.
Woodward's 448-page book, "Fear: Trump in the White House," provides an unprecedented inside-the-room look through the eyes of the President's inner circle. From the Oval Office to the Situation Room to the White House residence, Woodward uses confidential background interviews to illustrate how some of the President's top advisers view him as a danger to national security and have sought to circumvent the commander in chief.

Many of the feuds and daily clashes have been well documented, but the picture painted by Trump's confidants, senior staff and Cabinet officials reveal that many of them see an even more alarming situation — worse than previously known or understood. Woodward offers a devastating portrait of a dysfunctional Trump White House, detailing how senior aides — both current and former Trump administration officials — grew exasperated with the President and increasingly worried about his erratic behavior, ignorance and penchant for lying.

Chief of staff John Kelly describes Trump as an "idiot" and "unhinged," Woodward reports. Defense Secretary James Mattis describes Trump as having the understanding of "a fifth or sixth grader." And Trump's former personal lawyer John Dowd describes the President as "a ******* liar," telling Trump he would end up in an "orange jump suit" if he testified to special counsel Robert Mueller.

"He's an idiot. It's pointless to try to convince him of anything. He's gone off the rails. We're in crazytown," Kelly is quoted as saying at a staff meeting in his office. "I don't even know why any of us are here. This is the worst job I've ever had."

. . .

See rest of article here.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/04/politics/bob-woodward-book-donald-trump-fear/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/04/politics/bob-woodward-book-donald-trump-fear/index.html)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Infanteer on September 04, 2018, 18:46:42
Pretty damning, but not surprising....
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on September 04, 2018, 19:18:42
And by Bob Woodward, no less. He is not a man easily dismissed by anyone. What a gong show.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on September 04, 2018, 19:49:42
I don't see the book changing anybody's mind one way or the other. It will mostly be read by TV talking heads and internet analysts. General Kelly and General Mattis already came out and said his supposed quotes from them are full of crap.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Infanteer on September 04, 2018, 20:20:00
It won't change anyone's mind, but this is a different case than the previous crackpot-style books.  Woodward has a couple Pulitzers, a fearsome reputation, and garnered a phone call from the President.  It's not that he's 100% accurate, but I'm less likely to take political dismissals (which Generals Kelly and Mattis are now) seriously.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on September 04, 2018, 20:42:05
I don't see the book changing anybody's mind one way or the other. It will mostly be read by TV talking heads and internet analysts. General Kelly and General Mattis already came out and said his supposed quotes from them are full of crap.

Looking forward to seeing the sources for that allegation.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: CBH99 on September 04, 2018, 20:49:36
His administration is like high school, except worse...

I work with a ton of high school kids & interact with a lot of them in their graduating year.  Even in the throws of the schoolyear, these kids are nothing compared to the "He said, she said..."   "No I didn't!"   nonsense that comes out of the White House these days.  It's truly unbelievable.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq4M4YmO7xQ

John Kelly segment starts at the 3 minute mark roughly...


I'm still trying to find the quotes of John Kelly basically saying he's quit trying to intervene in attempts to blunt Trump's stupidity, and is instead just waiting for him to get himself impeached and/or convicted of various crimes. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on September 05, 2018, 08:04:37
And by Bob Woodward, no less. He is not a man easily dismissed by anyone. What a gong show.

Nope.  He’s pretty legit and you can bet he has transcripts and recordings of his interviews. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on September 05, 2018, 09:19:05
Woodwards book is loaded with "anonymous" quotes.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on September 05, 2018, 17:35:36
Here is Trump's response.

Quote
President Trump argued Wednesday that Bob Woodward's book on his presidency is so bad that Congress ought to consider changes to U.S. libel laws.
“Isn’t it a shame that someone can write an article or book, totally make up stories and form a picture of a person that is literally the exact opposite of the fact, and get away with it without retribution or cost,” Trump tweeted. “Don’t know why Washington politicians don’t change libel laws?”
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on September 05, 2018, 19:12:45
Nothing wrong with US libel laws.

If you are dealing with  totally made up stories that form a picture that is the complete opposite of the facts about a person - and it's a negative one, that IS libel under US laws.

However, Trump would have to prove that they are made up and the opposite of the truth before a civil jury, with all of his White House personnel being called in to testify under oath about the facts.

 :whistle:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: boot12 on September 05, 2018, 21:14:33
Woodwards book is loaded with "anonymous" quotes.

As was stated above by Infanteer, Woodward's reputation as a top-tier investigative journalist is well established.  That's why, IMO, this book will hold significantly more weight than "Fire and Fury", or the one that Omarosa put out.  I suspect that there are not too many people left out there who remain neutral on their position on Trump, but who knows.


On a related note, Trump recently tweeted his position on anonymous sources: (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1034783131855998976)

(https://i.imgur.com/7db8Sfc.png)

Unfortunately,  old tweets last forever (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/232572505238433794):

(https://i.imgur.com/WVYrWLK.png)


 :dunno:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on September 06, 2018, 00:17:43
The hunt is on for the author of the NYT op ed and for those that spoke to Woodward. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-sleeper-cells-have-awoken-trump-and-aides-shaken-by-resistance-op-ed/2018/09/05/ecdf423c-b14b-11e8-a20b-5f4f84429666_story.html?utm_term=.fb544e6fd5ec
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Infanteer on September 06, 2018, 09:06:32
As it should be.  Regardless of one's political outlook, that kind of disloyalty is toxic and anathema to the good governance.  There are proper and legal ways to oppose legal authority, but such blatant obstructionism (sedition is probably too strong of a word) is not one of them.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on September 06, 2018, 09:44:34
"13 people who might be the author of The New York Times op-ed"
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/donald-trump-mystery-op-ed/index.html

Or, none of the above.

 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: QV on September 06, 2018, 10:55:45
The book and this op-ed are timed to influence the mid terms.  My feelings are the op-ed is fake and from what I know of the book I feel it is probably greatly exaggerated if not all complete BS.

I'm bracing for more gigantic scandalous releases between now and November...  ::) 

 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on September 06, 2018, 11:07:51
Must be the Russians again!
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on September 06, 2018, 11:41:42
The book and this op-ed are timed to influence the mid terms.  My feelings are the op-ed is fake and from what I know of the book I feel it is probably greatly exaggerated if not all complete BS.

I'm bracing for more gigantic scandalous releases between now and November...  ::) 


You are likely spot on as far as the mid terms are concerned.  I'm curious, given the author's reputation though (Pulitzer prize winner, stellar reputation etc) why you would think it is complete BS?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Halifax Tar on September 06, 2018, 12:05:02
You are likely spot on as far as the mid terms are concerned.  I'm curious, given the author's reputation though (Pulitzer prize winner, stellar reputation etc) why you would think it is complete BS?

Political bias and extreme polarization ?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on September 06, 2018, 12:21:18
Political bias and extreme polarization ?

Woodward has gone after administrations of both parties. If he was easily tarred as some rabid democrat we'd have seen it already.

As for the NYT piece- I think they're smart enough to know that fabricating and publishing such an Op Ed would be an absolute disaster if the fabrication leaked, which it would. I find it more likely that someone within the administration is in fact disaffected enough to have written than. A bunch of the various insider accounts that have emerged of the current white house corroborate the general feel and attitudes within the present administration. I'm going with Occam's razor on this one.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: sandyson on September 06, 2018, 15:28:56
I find difficult to believe that Generals Kelly or Mattis would give their personal opinion of their President to any but their most intimate.  They have too much experience operating successfully in military circles such as the Pentagon.
As for Woodward: "Kindred subscribes to the triumphant school of Bob Woodward evangelism and thinks that Woodward and Carl Bernstein were the precursors of the great, crusading, truth-seeking reporting that, with Watergate, brought on a golden era of investigative journalism.  He does not mention Woodward's book Veil, where the author simply invented a hospital-deathbed interview with former CIA director William Casey, nor the wild exaggerations of the Watergate literature that claimed Woodward and Bernstien feared for their physical safety while reporting the crisis." {C Black in A House that Murdoch Bought, National Post Nov/Dec 2010 review of D Kindred's (Wash. Post) Kingdom & the Power.}
I can think of very little good to say about the image of Trump which we receive via the media. Nevertheless I question these attributions to Kelly and Mattis, and therefore the source.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: QV on September 06, 2018, 15:35:47
Mattis and Kelly have both vehemently denied this. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on September 06, 2018, 15:43:14
Mattis and Kelly have both vehemently denied this.

As, of course, they must, or they instantly lose their jobs and any ability to keep things in check. I don't really know what to believe.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on September 06, 2018, 16:00:06
As, of course, they must, or they instantly lose their jobs and any ability to keep things in check. I don't really know what to believe.

Mattis and Kelly are both good soldiers and will act accordingly.  They would probably resign rather than write an OP ED so I doubt they did that.   but one thing is certain, this administration is unravelling exponentially at this point.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Chris Pook on September 06, 2018, 18:08:40
As it should be.  Regardless of one's political outlook, that kind of disloyalty is toxic and anathema to the good governance.  There are proper and legal ways to oppose legal authority, but such blatant obstructionism (sedition is probably too strong of a word) is not one of them.

It seems to me that the article lends credence to the notion of the Executive Staff being personally loyal to the President.  The checks and balances are programmed into the system to work externally to the Executive Office.  That probably doesn't extend to the Attorney General but should likely extend to his Chief of Staff and the typists.

The Civil Servants have just demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to be neutral.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Infanteer on September 06, 2018, 18:58:31
We're not totally free from this either.

https://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2011/Jeffrey.pdf

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/yes-minister-no-more-todays-bureaucrats-have-a-different-attitude/article26551463/
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Chris Pook on September 06, 2018, 19:14:43
We're not totally free from this either.

https://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2011/Jeffrey.pdf

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/yes-minister-no-more-todays-bureaucrats-have-a-different-attitude/article26551463/

Pace Yakabuski 2015 - Thanks Infanteer.

Quote
...This view is echoed in a March article in Optimum Online, a public-sector management journal that Prof. Paquet edits. The article, by a senior Ottawa-based policy analyst using a pseudonym, asserts that "many senior federal public servants [develop] a conviction that they are better guardians of basic values of our democracy than elected officials. While this attitude had to be somewhat tamed while they were on active duty, it has become fully unleashed in retirement."

The author goes on: "This has naturally generated a flow of self-righteous condemnation of current government policies by many newly unencumbered retired senior officials, and has thereby provided immense moral support for those senior public servants still in active duty – former colleagues and friends – to heighten their own passive (or semi-active) opposition to the elected government from within. As a result, the corridor of what has come to be regarded as tolerable disloyalty from within would appear to have widened considerably."...
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Cloud Cover on September 06, 2018, 19:27:12
... being employed in a form of the public service, I can say without a doubt there is a definite and substantial bias in favour of socialist ideology. To the extent that correlates with the "Liberals" is anybody's guess.

This stinging quote about the Harper Government (TM) from the Jeffrey article provided by Infanteer was an eyebrow raiser:
"This Canadian version of the Maoist cultural revolution, in which expertise is routinely derided in favour of anecdotal evidence, has arguably introduced an entirely new element into the already tense relationship between the Conservative politicians and their bureaucrats."

Where are the bodies?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Journeyman on September 06, 2018, 22:59:22
"This Canadian version of the Maoist cultural revolution, in which expertise is routinely derided in favour of anecdotal evidence, has arguably introduced an entirely new element into the already tense relationship between the Conservative politicians and their bureaucrats."

While it certainly seems odd to post this in a 'US Presidency' thread, especially on this site, I recommend Tom Nichols' The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters  (2017)  Amazon Link (https://www.amazon.ca/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-Knowledge/dp/0190469412/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1536285288&sr=1-1&keywords=the+death+of+expertise)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Cloud Cover on September 07, 2018, 14:07:41
While it certainly seems odd to post this in a 'US Presidency' thread, especially on this site, I recommend Tom Nichols' The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters  (2017)  Amazon Link (https://www.amazon.ca/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-Knowledge/dp/0190469412/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1536285288&sr=1-1&keywords=the+death+of+expertise)

Oh I think that book is quite appropriate for the US President 2018 thread.
Ordered the book.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 13, 2018, 14:39:43
Temporarily breaking my Trump moratorium to drop this awesome story.

Professor shoots himself in the arm to protest Trump.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/shootings/report-las-vegas-professor-shot-himself-in-arm-to-protest-trump/


The Trump presidency is bringing out some interesting American views.

Ironically the professor didn't have a licence to possess the gun  ::)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on September 13, 2018, 21:33:57
In a more traditional form of protest, Admiral McRaven has resigned from the Pentagon's Defence Innovation Board.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/mcraven-pentagon-advisory-board-trump/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/mcraven-pentagon-advisory-board-trump/index.html)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Journeyman on September 13, 2018, 23:01:50
In a more traditional form of protest, Admiral McRaven has resigned from the Pentagon's Defence Innovation Board.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/mcraven-pentagon-advisory-board-trump/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/mcraven-pentagon-advisory-board-trump/index.html)
Unlike many in the growing circus that is "politics," Bill McRaven was widely respected for his integrity, intellect, and willingness to compromise when required as a 'team player.'
Shame it came to this.   :not-again:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on September 29, 2018, 00:43:59
Quote
U.S. Drops To 27th In The World For Education And Health Care
In 1990, the U.S. was ranked sixth in “human capital,” based on a person’s expected productive years of work. Now it’s 27th.

The United States is ranked 27th globally on education and health care, a new study based on 2016 data reports.

The study, organized by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington, seeks to identify “the number of productive years an individual in each country can be expected to work between the ages of 20 to 64,” based on education and health care. This number is referred to as the “human capital” of a nation’s people.

America’s human capital measurement is 23 years, that’s the amount of time a person can be expected to work at peak productivity when accounting for life expectancy, general health and education. The U.S. ranked sixth in the world in 1990, and the drop apparently took researchers by surprise.

“The decline of human capital in the United States was one of the biggest surprises in our study,” said Dr. Christopher Murray, director of IHME.

The study shows that China has had the opposite trajectory since 1990, going from 69th in the world to 44th.

. . .

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/whelp-the-us-now-ranks-27th-in-the-world-on-education-and-healthcare_us_5bae5d02e4b0425e3c23508f (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/whelp-the-us-now-ranks-27th-in-the-world-on-education-and-healthcare_us_5bae5d02e4b0425e3c23508f)

http://www.healthdata.org/results/country-profiles (http://www.healthdata.org/results/country-profiles)

And that's based on statistics from before Trump took office and started to dismantle and degrade two already stressed systems.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Colin P on September 29, 2018, 20:36:14
As i recall the US Federal government has little role in education, it being a State responsibility?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on September 29, 2018, 20:52:22
As i recall the US Federal government has little role in education, it being a State responsibility?

For reference to the discussion,

United States Secretary of Education
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Education
"This Secretary deals with federal influence over education policy, and heads the United States Department of Education."

U.S. Department of Education
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/om/fs_po/osods/office.html
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Colin P on October 03, 2018, 12:36:48
Thanks, but reviewing those links, it appears their main role is ensuring that institutions of higher learning meet the criteria for federal funding. There are a couple of Acts mentioned, with lots of gushing about Obama, seems the US gov is not as good as the Canadian about purging previous government records.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Journeyman on October 04, 2018, 09:19:02
….seems the US gov is not as good as the Canadian about purging previous government records.
Is it possible that, rather than some politicized conspiracy, Obama simply took a more active interest in education than his successor (thus providing something to write about)?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Colin P on October 04, 2018, 19:52:18
Is it possible that, rather than some politicized conspiracy, Obama simply took a more active interest in education than his successor (thus providing something to write about)?

The Canadian government being smaller, seems to be more through in purging the previous government wording and achievements, generally changing promotional language to either just dates or oblique criticisms of the previous government without naming names. Happens with every change and they both do it. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Journeyman on October 06, 2018, 10:41:10
"The Suffocation of Democracy" by Christopher R. Browning in the New York Review of Books  (October 25, 2018) provides a very interesting look at the common and contrasting aspects of the current US government and Germany's 1930s transition from the Weimar Republic to Nazism.
LINK (https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/10/25/suffocation-of-democracy)

The US in the 1920s valued a foreign policy of isolationism, rejecting international organizations like the League of Nations, financial agreements targeting “free-loading” former allies, high tariffs that crippled international trade, increased domestic income disparity, highly restrictionist immigration policies.... deja vu.

In Germany, von Hindenburg destroyed democratic norms, ruling by decree because parliamentary majorities were increasingly impossible to obtain because German politics had become hyperpolarized.  Given the shrinking support base for traditional, more moderate conservatism, Hindenburg and the old right made their deal with Hitler and installed him as chancellor, thinking that they could control him while enjoying the benefits of his popular support.

Browning has a particular hate-on for Mitch McConnell, but his analysis spans widely and is worth the read.  He considers aspects of the Mueller investigation, and the notion that a Trump presidency indebted to Putin is far preferable to the nightmare of a Clinton victory.  Hitler's Ministry of People’s Enlightenment and Propaganda is seen in a similar light to the privatized form of Fox News and Sean Hannity, in which "Fox faithfully trumpets the 'alternative facts' of the Trump version of events, and in turn Trump frequently finds inspiration for his tweets and fantasy-filled statements from his daily monitoring of Fox commentators and his late-night phone calls with Hannity.  The result is the creation of a 'Trump bubble' for his base to inhabit that is unrecognizable to viewers" of other news services or those who read beyond confirmation biases.


While it's unfortunate that "Trump is not Hitler and Trumpism is not Nazism" doesn't come until the end, I can't imagine those who dismiss the premise out of hand reading that far anyway.   :2c:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Colin P on October 07, 2018, 21:34:28
The Weimer Republic I suspect had neither the traditions, the law, the history, the Constitution and the extensive checks and balances that the US system has. Hillary knowingly abdicated the middle of the country, instead basked in her bubble, the results were predictable based on how the US system works. I am impressed the drafters have anticipated many of the pitfalls of democracy and wove in checks and balances. This to govern a people who had just so recently defeated one of the great powers of the world at their time. I suspect it has worked far better than even the drafters had hoped for.   
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on October 08, 2018, 10:42:49
The Weimer Republic I suspect had neither the traditions, the law, the history, the Constitution and the extensive checks and balances that the US system has. Hillary knowingly abdicated the middle of the country, instead basked in her bubble, the results were predictable based on how the US system works. I am impressed the drafters have anticipated many of the pitfalls of democracy and wove in checks and balances. This to govern a people who had just so recently defeated one of the great powers of the world at their time. I suspect it has worked far better than even the drafters had hoped for.   

For reference to the discussion of checks and balances in the United States during the 21 months he has been in power,

Globe and Mail ( "Published October 6, 2018 - Updated 17 hours ago" )
 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-kavanaughs-appointment-isnt-a-step-backward-its-a-head-first/


Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on October 08, 2018, 12:43:01
The Weimer Republic I suspect had neither the traditions, the law, the history, the Constitution and the extensive checks and balances that the US system has. Hillary knowingly abdicated the middle of the country, instead basked in her bubble, the results were predictable based on how the US system works. I am impressed the drafters have anticipated many of the pitfalls of democracy and wove in checks and balances. This to govern a people who had just so recently defeated one of the great powers of the world at their time. I suspect it has worked far better than even the drafters had hoped for.   

The reference to Clinton is a Red Herring that has no bearing on the article nor adds anything to the discussion and is completely irrelevant.

For the Weimar Republic, the system in place to elect representatives was similar to the British system in that states were given seats in the Reichstag based on population. The president in this system was were elected (for a 7 year term vice 4) and could issue decrees and new laws in "emergency" situations, though parliament had the right to veto these decrees with a majority. As the political situation grew more divided in the early '30's, Hindenburg (who hated democracy and wanted to restore the Kaiser) used more and more decrees to get things accomplished. The enabling acts which were declared by decree are generally where the Nazi era is believed to have begun.

For the article by Journeyman, I share his belief that the mentions of McConnell indicate a hate on and detract from the article. However, the general point in drawing a comparison to modern US politics and the Weimar republic is a useful one in that it at least makes one consider the course of divisiveness that the US is on and potential impacts. Ugly aspects of democracy such as the republicans essentially stealing a supreme court nomination than forcing through Kavanaugh who was a poor choice for many reasons, many republican supporters apparently being ok with Trump interacting with the Russians (such as the 2 gentlemen in the picture below), or the constant and persistent gerrymandering that occurs must be viewed with historical context such as the Weimar Republic. That way, agree or disagree, you can at least formulate an intelligent opinion on the matters. The constant "my side is better than your side" is both historically silly and unhelpful in a contemporary context as if you believe that one side is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong than you're not very intelligent, regardless of which side you fall on.




Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on October 08, 2018, 12:45:17
The Weimer Republic I suspect had neither the traditions, the law, the history, the Constitution and the extensive checks and balances that the US system has. Hillary knowingly abdicated the middle of the country, instead basked in her bubble, the results were predictable based on how the US system works. I am impressed the drafters have anticipated many of the pitfalls of democracy and wove in checks and balances. This to govern a people who had just so recently defeated one of the great powers of the world at their time. I suspect it has worked far better than even the drafters had hoped for.   

One should note these general comments about the Weimar Constitution:

Quote
In his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, historian William L. Shirer described the Weimar Constitution as "on paper, the most liberal and democratic document of its kind the twentieth century had ever seen ... full of ingenious and admirable devices which seemed to guarantee the working of an almost flawless democracy." Yet, the Weimar Constitution had serious problems. . . .

The allocation of presidential powers was deeply problematic. The Weimar Constitution allowed the president to dismiss the chancellor, even if the chancellor retained the confidence of the Reichstag. Similarly, the president could appoint a chancellor who didn't have the support of the Reichstag. . . .

The use of a proportional electoral system without thresholds to win representation has also been cited. This system, intended to avoid the wasting of votes, allowed the rise of a multitude of splinter parties, many of which represented the extreme ends of the political spectrum, which in turn made it difficult for any party to establish and maintain a workable parliamentary majority. . . .

Even without these real and/or perceived problems, the Weimar Constitution was established and in force under disadvantageous social, political, and economic conditions. In his book The Coming of the Third Reich, historian Richard J. Evans argues that "all in all, Weimar's constitution was no worse than the constitutions of most other countries in the 1920s, and a good deal more democratic than many. Its more problematical provisions might not have mattered so much had the circumstances been different. But the fatal lack of legitimacy from which the Republic suffered magnified the constitution's faults many times over."[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Constitution)

The US Constitution itself is not a paragon of virtue. Most foreign democratic constitutions took their model from the US one but added or changed provisions where a weakness was seen or perceived.

In a parliamentary system the executive (prime minister and cabinet) is responsive to it's party's elected representatives. A conflict between them results in a change of leadership. The US President is not beholden to his party but does need to work on cooperation with the government. When a conflict exists (such as when they come from different parties, stasis can and does result.

Also, the US Constitution allocates substantial rights to the States based on it's historical foundation from a loose confederation of disparate societies (agricultural v industrial). The result is that there is only a veneer of a single unifying culture and, as a result, disparate individual rights. Add to that the the varying vestigial attitudes harkening back to the days of slavery and you have the social and political issues that divided Weimar Republic. But for the fact that the US economic situation has been generally favourable (even during it's recent recession it was nowhere near that which hit Weimar in the 1920s and 30s) the US could easily fragment again like it did in 1860. Remember that during the American Civil War each side was absolutely convinced that it acted in accordance with the country's constitution.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Vitech on October 09, 2018, 09:25:15
Same old fear monger, Trumps going to unite the nazis and cause a civil war, it’s ridiculous at this point. Racism is at an all time low, and finally people get to have two distinct choices to vote for. The media pushes this nonsense, but too many people have woken up it’s like the Russia Pravda. Only the extremely useful idiots on the left will revolt, most people have too
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Journeyman on October 09, 2018, 09:44:05
Globe and Mail ( "Published October 6, 2018 - Updated 17 hours ago" )
 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-kavanaughs-appointment-isnt-a-step-backward-its-a-head-first
While I agree with the overarching sentiment, I think it's a bit too hyperbolic;  the world hasn't really ended.  My cynicism towards the electorate leads me to believe that this will be largely forgotten within two weeks because Kavanaugh isn't "the final nail in that coffin," he's merely another symptom. 



Same old fear monger, Trumps going to unite the nazis and cause a civil war
???  You didn't actually read the article, did you.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on October 09, 2018, 13:21:20
Same old fear monger, Trumps going to unite the nazis and cause a civil war, it’s ridiculous at this point. Racism is at an all time low, and finally people get to have two distinct choices to vote for. The media pushes this nonsense, but too many people have woken up it’s like the Russia Pravda. Only the extremely useful idiots on the left will revolt, most people have too

You've got a hard sell. Trump supporters are an anathema to many in Canada, even some here. People equate it with being a supporter of the US, opposed to Canada, right or wrong, which is a ridiculous premise, but fits their narrative. Favouring Trump over Trudeau is an act of a subversive, a traitor even, to some. Trump has done some great things, that detractors refuse to see or acknowledge, even in the clear light of day with overwhelming proof. Some will slight, with falsification, innuendo and outright lies, some will try beat others down with their self serving, intellectual diatribes. All designed to humiliate and dominate, not debate. Things are a little better here, but you may want to read back and just put your toes in the water before jumping right in. Just to get a feel how people think about Trump, the GOP and US politics around here. It may save you some angst.  ;)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Colin P on October 09, 2018, 17:25:09
The reference to Clinton is a Red Herring that has no bearing on the article nor adds anything to the discussion and is completely irrelevant.

For the Weimar Republic, the system in place to elect representatives was similar to the British system in that states were given seats in the Reichstag based on population. The president in this system was were elected (for a 7 year term vice 4) and could issue decrees and new laws in "emergency" situations, though parliament had the right to veto these decrees with a majority. As the political situation grew more divided in the early '30's, Hindenburg (who hated democracy and wanted to restore the Kaiser) used more and more decrees to get things accomplished. The enabling acts which were declared by decree are generally where the Nazi era is believed to have begun.

For the article by Journeyman, I share his belief that the mentions of McConnell indicate a hate on and detract from the article. However, the general point in drawing a comparison to modern US politics and the Weimar republic is a useful one in that it at least makes one consider the course of divisiveness that the US is on and potential impacts. Ugly aspects of democracy such as the republicans essentially stealing a supreme court nomination than forcing through Kavanaugh who was a poor choice for many reasons, many republican supporters apparently being ok with Trump interacting with the Russians (such as the 2 gentlemen in the picture below), or the constant and persistent gerrymandering that occurs must be viewed with historical context such as the Weimar Republic. That way, agree or disagree, you can at least formulate an intelligent opinion on the matters. The constant "my side is better than your side" is both historically silly and unhelpful in a contemporary context as if you believe that one side is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong than you're not very intelligent, regardless of which side you fall on.

Hillary's crap campaign led to the current result, despite the apparent pleadings of Middle America Dem candidates, so it is pertinent. Germany had no real experience running such a democracy and as FJAG points out, a lot of people trying to sabotage it. The US has had 200 years of creaking and groaning along with many crisis along the way to understand how to use it. Americans are pretty dam passionate about their system of government and many on both sides are well read and well informed, I guess I have faith in that.
 Those dry boring chapters of history, were just as painful and detailed as the events of today, we just have problems realizing that one day our events will be just as boring as those earlier chapters. Eventually the US and other current nation states will fail and be replaced by something else, but it won't be because of Trump or a somewhat conservative court bench. The Dems would happily stacked the deck with their brand of judges given the chance, which they were given and subsequently screwed the pooch and tossed their opportunity out the window. They appear to be setting up to repeat the process yet again.   
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on October 09, 2018, 22:39:22
Hillary's crap campaign led to the current result, despite the apparent pleadings of Middle America Dem candidates, so it is pertinent. Germany had no real experience running such a democracy and as FJAG points out, a lot of people trying to sabotage it. The US has had 200 years of creaking and groaning along with many crisis along the way to understand how to use it. Americans are pretty dam passionate about their system of government and many on both sides are well read and well informed, I guess I have faith in that.
 Those dry boring chapters of history, were just as painful and detailed as the events of today, we just have problems realizing that one day our events will be just as boring as those earlier chapters. Eventually the US and other current nation states will fail and be replaced by something else, but it won't be because of Trump or a somewhat conservative court bench. The Dems would happily stacked the deck with their brand of judges given the chance, which they were given and subsequently screwed the pooch and tossed their opportunity out the window. They appear to be setting up to repeat the process yet again.   

Again, this thread is about the US president so references to Hillary are red herrings and irrelevant to the discussion at hand, particularly seeing as how the conversation was about an article related solely to the current US president. The further reference to democrats was equally as irrelevant.

To counter your point reference the efficacy of the US constitution, you may also note that the Weimar Republic and the US have had the same number of constitutional breakages, with the difference being that the US union was able to corral its slave owning cousins to the south back into the Republic whereas the Weimar republic wasn't as fortunate. If the US could break apart once there's no real reason why it couldn't happen again, particularly with a president who seems to mimic the worst aspects of the end of the weimar republic.

As for the boring aspects of history, context and understanding of the dull stuff is what allows you to understand why the more exciting things (WW2 in this case) happened. In reality, it's the more important part of understanding history or any topic.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Chris Pook on October 10, 2018, 02:46:22


In a parliamentary system the executive (prime minister and cabinet) is responsive to it's party's elected representatives. A conflict between them results in a change of leadership.



This is a real problem that we are running into these days.  The Parliamentary Party and the Extra-Parliamentary Party are no longer aligned.  Before the EPP elected the PP and the PP elected the PM.  Now the PM can play both ends against the middle by arguing that he has the support of one or the other.  He/She no longer needs the support of the MPs of the PP if he/she carries the EPP.

This allows the PM even more dictatorial powers than the original parliamentary system granted.

And, just as a reminder, for those that have forgotten, I am a parliamentarian (with monarchist tendencies).

 :whistle:

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 10, 2018, 07:00:29
Again, this thread is about the US president

'US Presidency 2018'
So the collective administrative and governmental entity that exists around the office of the president  and not just the president IMO.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on October 10, 2018, 09:32:12
Hillary's crap campaign led to the current result, despite the apparent pleadings of Middle America Dem candidates, so it is pertinent. 

In spite of her "crap" campaign, three million more Americans voted for her than him.

The current result is a Special Counsel investigation.




Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on October 10, 2018, 09:33:54
Quote

Two years of shock-and-awe tactics have altered the missions of several federal departments and left others scrambling for money. And the policy isn’t even working.

By Roque Planas

Two years in, President Donald Trump’s promised immigration crackdown is hardly on pace to deliver his stated goal of deporting up to 3 million people. But it has produced something else: gaping budget holes that the administration has scrambled to fill.

Since taking office, the president has repeatedly ordered sweeping and often improvised changes that gave federal agencies a greater stake in immigration enforcement but muddled their missions. The sudden policy shifts sparked self-inflicted crises that regularly required band-aid solutions far more expensive than the status quo. And to pay for it all, the administration pulled money from federal agencies that have nothing to do with immigration ― including cancer research, Head Start and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It’s policymaking for the Trump era: rushed, chaotic, expensive — and ultimately self-defeating.

A Tent Camp For The Price Of A Luxury Hotel

Perhaps the most glaring example of the wastefulness of the White House’s approach is the creation of the tent shelter for migrant children at Tornillo, Texas. The administration had the camp hastily erected in June as an emergency measure to shelter 400 unaccompanied minors and children it had separated from their families at the border. The Tornillo contract was supposed to expire in September. But as the month wound to a close, officials decided to keep the facility open to solve a new crisis of the administration’s own making. . . .

See rest of article here: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-immigration-crackdown-federal-agency-budgets_us_5bbd37c9e4b0876edaa336db (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-immigration-crackdown-federal-agency-budgets_us_5bbd37c9e4b0876edaa336db)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Chris Pook on October 13, 2018, 20:40:38
A curious turn of events.

From Slate via RCP: "The Supreme Court Is a Historically Regressive and Presently Expendable Institution"

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/supreme-court-bad-history-reform.html

Apparently a real democracy doesn't need a Supreme Court after all.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on October 13, 2018, 21:40:38
'US Presidency 2018'
So the collective administrative and governmental entity that exists around the office of the president  and not just the president IMO.

Hillary has no part in this as she isnt the president aside from shes allowed to have an opinion like anyone else. It's a red herring, that's all.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 14, 2018, 03:30:02
Hillary has no part in this as she isnt the president aside from shes allowed to have an opinion like anyone else. It's a red herring, that's all.

I hope I didn't sound like I was trying to be a smartass.
Clinton has an opinion like everyone else but she also has a lot more political sway and horsepower than your average American.
She's a former secretary of state and owns the (aledged) pay for play Clinton foundation which gets "donations" from all kinds of political organizations and foreign countries.  I'd say she's very much still relative in the politics scene and can attect the  2018 US presidency even if she isn't in office.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on October 14, 2018, 10:49:18
I hope I didn't sound like I was trying to be a smartass.
Clinton has an opinion like everyone else but she also has a lot more political sway and horsepower than your average American.
She's a former secretary of state and owns the (aledged) pay for play Clinton foundation which gets "donations" from all kinds of political organizations and foreign countries.  I'd say she's very much still relative in the politics scene and can attect the  2018 US presidency even if she isn't in office.

Politics absolutely, presidency no. PM me if you want to debate.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on October 14, 2018, 12:42:50
The US founding fathers would be astounded by the size of the bureaucracy grown up around the President,which I think makes governing difficult maybe impossible. Trump still has to deal with the Democrats embeded in the government which is like a shadow government.In the old days the previous government would resign and the next would staff their own departments.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on October 14, 2018, 15:45:51
The title is the US Presidency. Not the US President.  The Presidency contains all the elements affecting the POTUS. That includes the acts of the Democrats and others intent on shortening his term. This thread is not specific to the POTUS only. It's about his Presidency and everything involved in it.
 :2c:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Colin P on October 15, 2018, 11:22:16
Hillary has no part in this as she isnt the president aside from shes allowed to have an opinion like anyone else. It's a red herring, that's all.

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. She and Obama are hell bent on trying to get rid of Trump, either through elections or other means. They use their influence to block and oppose as many of his initiatives as possible. She also influences any new potential candidate the Dem might run to oppose Trump. While she has much support from her base, she is a poison pill for those undecided, something the Dems have a hard time seeing.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Colin P on October 15, 2018, 11:25:51
In spite of her "crap" campaign, three million more Americans voted for her than him.

The current result is a Special Counsel investigation.

Except the POTUS position is chosen through a process using the electoral college and she basically ignored that fact and gave up States that they might have been able to swing enough of the college votes to elect her. But they didn't and she decided to live in her own echo chamber. Self sabotage at it's finest.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on October 15, 2018, 18:56:00
Self sabotage at it's finest.

So, Trump didn't WIN the election: Clinton LOST it?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Colin P on October 15, 2018, 19:56:00
It's an odd mix, Trump galvanised a delusioned base that was fractured, so he definitely contributed to his win. Hillary, while happily appealing to her base was not appealing to a lot of people outside her base. Hillary could have won had they focused on ensuring they had enough electoral votes, but that would have meant a very hard road campaign and I have to wonder if her managers knew she could not hack such a campaign and major health breakdown would skewer her completely? So perhaps they risked taking the easier route, basically handing those States to Trump. Or it could be that they were living in a bubble where they thought that there was no way for Trump to win and Hillary could glide to an easy victory. Either way, they failed to fight in many of the States and therefore lost the college vote. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on October 15, 2018, 22:40:37
It's an odd mix, Trump galvanised a delusioned base that was fractured, so he definitely contributed to his win. Hillary, while happily appealing to her base was not appealing to a lot of people outside her base. Hillary could have won had they focused on ensuring they had enough electoral votes, but that would have meant a very hard road campaign and I have to wonder if her managers knew she could not hack such a campaign and major health breakdown would skewer her completely? So perhaps they risked taking the easier route, basically handing those States to Trump. Or it could be that they were living in a bubble where they thought that there was no way for Trump to win and Hillary could glide to an easy victory. Either way, they failed to fight in many of the States and therefore lost the college vote.

You had me at the beginning. I agree that Trump galvanized more Republican voters which he did by concentrating on white fears about immigration and lost jobs. Similarly I agree that Hillary's campaign did not galvanize Democrat voters. The proof in the pudding is that Trump had more votes than any recent previous Republican candidate and Hillary had less than her predecessor had generated.

To say that Hillary could have won had she focused on winning the electoral college is erroneous. Everyone--including Democrats and Hillary--knows that the only way that the presidency is won is by way of the electoral college. They focus on winning the college from square one. So did her campaign. The key states that she lost were ones that had been in hand in prior elections and before the vote but then failed to deliver the anticipated numbers on the critical day. The real question is why.

To state that she had health problems and didn't campaign hard enough, or lived in a bubble, or failed to fight in key states is merely repeating arch conservative propaganda.

We'll probably never know the real reason, regardless of the uncounted pundits pontificating on this subject, because the margins were so narrow and the factors effecting the turnout and the vote were so numerous and varied that one can put together just about any argument based on speculation and a few statistics. To put the blame entirely on internal forces within her own campaign while denying the major role that the various other external factors such as Comey, white fear, racism/misogyny, the role of the traditional press, the Russian/Wikileaks/social media campaigns, etc is to ignore key components of the lessons to be learned from this. I personally prefer Tina Fey's explanation of why Hillary lost:

Quote
“I have to say, I think the real reason that Hillary lost—and it’s the thing that people are afraid to talk about: not enough celebrity music videos urging people to vote.”

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: YZT580 on October 15, 2018, 23:19:37
Perhaps it was simply because they didn't believe her promises and she was carrying too much baggage left over from her Sec. of State days.  Add to that 8 years of struggle and poor economy from Obama and people wanted a change.  Just as people here voted anyone but Harper people in the states voted anyone but a democrat. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Colin P on October 16, 2018, 11:32:14
FJAG I recall Dem bloggers talking about her being absent in many key places, it was not just conservatives talking about it. As I understand it, the number of seats taken in a State influences the number of Electoral College votes they have up to a certain number per state. It was clear she also seem to be struggling with health issues. I think YZT580 is also correct about baggage and the desire for change, Obama allowed expectations for him to grow far beyond what he could deliver or wanted to. I suspect the handling of Bernie did not help internally either.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: QV on October 16, 2018, 11:56:56
When some people complain of unchecked illegal immigration and the loss of jobs and the response is "white fear, racism/misogyny," ... Well then I suggest the Democrats can expect more electoral losses and the mid terms will be a victory for Trump and the Republicans.         

   
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Journeyman on October 16, 2018, 12:23:16
When some people complain of unchecked illegal immigration and the loss of jobs and the response is "white fear, racism/misogyny," ... Well then I suggest the Democrats can expect more electoral losses and the mid terms will be a victory for Trump and the Republicans.
???    Why would anyone respond to immigration and employment concerns with "misogyny"?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Dimsum on October 16, 2018, 15:31:49
???    Why would anyone respond to immigration and employment concerns with "misogyny"?

Ye olde "shotgun" method?  Hurl a bunch of accusations and see what sticks?

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on October 16, 2018, 19:01:22
>So, Trump didn't WIN the election: Clinton LOST it?

It's reasonable to look at it that way.  I recall reading articles in which it was noted that both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama noticed trouble in the "blue wall" states, which the campaign ignored (the "data crunchers" were the court favourites, and they - as it turned out - were wrong about those states).  That mistake was compounded byHillary's choice to go for the landslide win, which saw her in the late stages spending irrecoverable campaigning time trying to win unlikely states (an opportunity cost).
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Cloud Cover on October 16, 2018, 21:37:59
Either way, there still does not appear to be a lot of deep thinking on the part of the US electorate in terms of what the consequences are of assuming the Presidency.  People do seem exhausted, perhaps even exasperated and consequently uninterested so long as their lot is not immediately affected. 
One thing that Trump has repeated several times that appears to resonate with broad appeal with unintended consequences: "I was elected to be President of the United States, not President of the World", and he's making good progress on that one.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on October 17, 2018, 00:16:49
If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. She and Obama are hell bent on trying to get rid of Trump, either through elections or other means. They use their influence to block and oppose as many of his initiatives as possible. She also influences any new potential candidate the Dem might run to oppose Trump. While she has much support from her base, she is a poison pill for those undecided, something the Dems have a hard time seeing.

So the opposition is opposing? The same could be said for the conservatives in Canada who appear to be bent on getting rid of Trudeau or one Donald J. Trump who went around the US accusing Obama of not being a US citizen. The Republicans also spent a majority of their time blocking Obama's initiatives same as the Liberals attempted to do with Harper in minority situations. It's the nature of the beast.

For the rest, she would be better to leave politics and will likely influence the democrats process. Whether that's a "poison pill" is yet to be seen as many had said that Trump was the ultimate poison pill.

For the comments about how Clinton lost/Trump won, 12 states/voting districts were won by a margin of less than 5%, which represented 102 college votes for Trump and 31 for Clinton. As opposed to broad statements claiming she lost/he won for any one or two reasons, the reality is that those 12 districts swayed the election. The real story then is what it was in those voting blocks that caused them to go one way or the other. Its doubtful the reason for Michigan and New Hampshire (both under .5%, going to each party) are the same, so understanding the dynamics in each state is key and more important than broad statements.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Thucydides on October 25, 2018, 16:21:51
An interesting infographic attempting to piece together the activities of the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies surrounding the election. Certainly the way these agencies have behaved is less than inspiring of confidence in their activities, but I suspect it will be a long time before their actions will be fully unravelled and understood.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/spygate-the-true-story-of-collusion_2684629.html

Once again, since all the information is still not available, this should only be taken as a working hypothesis.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on October 25, 2018, 17:18:48
So the opposition is opposing? The same could be said for the conservatives in Canada who appear to be bent on getting rid of Trudeau or one Donald J. Trump who went around the US accusing Obama of not being a US citizen. The Republicans also spent a majority of their time blocking Obama's initiatives same as the Liberals attempted to do with Harper in minority situations. It's the nature of the beast.

For the rest, she would be better to leave politics and will likely influence the democrats process. Whether that's a "poison pill" is yet to be seen as many had said that Trump was the ultimate poison pill.

For the comments about how Clinton lost/Trump won, 12 states/voting districts were won by a margin of less than 5%, which represented 102 college votes for Trump and 31 for Clinton. As opposed to broad statements claiming she lost/he won for any one or two reasons, the reality is that those 12 districts swayed the election. The real story then is what it was in those voting blocks that caused them to go one way or the other. Its doubtful the reason for Michigan and New Hampshire (both under .5%, going to each party) are the same, so understanding the dynamics in each state is key and more important than broad statements.

The journey is immaterial, as is how they got there.

Trump won.

There are no second place winners.

Only losers.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on October 25, 2018, 22:09:40
The journey is immaterial, as is how they got there.

Trump won.

There are no second place winners.

Only losers.

True. Remember your advice the next time theres a Democrat president and Congress. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on October 26, 2018, 02:19:33
True. Remember your advice the next time theres a Democrat president and Congress.

Not advice....just stating fact.

There certainly won't be the unacceptance, violence or open, overt attempts to overthrow the government by the Republicans the way the democrats are doing, even after they said they accept the results. Just more lies from the left.

When obama had his eight years, the Republicans accepted the will of the people, swallowed their disgust and carried on.

So don't forget your own advice when Trump wins again in 2020.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: garb811 on October 26, 2018, 12:30:29
I'm going to step in here with a word of warning. 

Within minutes there were people, on both sides, rolling out conspiracy theories about who is "actually" behind the packages and what the "motives" are.

This forum is not the venue for that.  If you want to flog your favourite conspiracy theory, go find someplace else to do it.

- Milnet.ca Staff
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: garb811 on October 26, 2018, 16:30:16
This is getting a 24 hour lock while the posts that followed my very simple request get sorted out.

- Milnet.ca Staff
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on November 11, 2018, 14:22:49
Quote
Trump takes heat over scrapped trip to cemetery in France

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-takes-heat-over-scrapped-trip-to-cemetery-in-france (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-takes-heat-over-scrapped-trip-to-cemetery-in-france)

Quote
Twitter Pelts Trump With Photos Of Obama In The Rain After He Ditches Cemetery Visit
President dodges trip to honor U.S. war dead in France due to weather. Critics show how another leader behaved.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/twitter-pelts-trump-with-photos-of-barack-obama-in-the-rain_us_5be76113e4b0769d24cdebb7 (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/twitter-pelts-trump-with-photos-of-barack-obama-in-the-rain_us_5be76113e4b0769d24cdebb7)

 [cheers]
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 11, 2018, 15:19:23
I'm pretty sure movement plans of the POTUS are done by the Secret Service. They likely didn't have the hardened vehicle required to move him by road. Maybe they had some intel that would have prevented his attendance. That's their call, not his. It won't stop his detractors though, from trying to spin this up into something it's not. Trump has never shirked his responsibility to praise and honour the troops.  He has stood out in inclement weather before to do so. He is also sincere and heartfelt when he does as compared to the previous POTUS. There was something else, IMO, that prevented his attendance and it wasn't the weather.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: dapaterson on November 11, 2018, 15:30:56
Meeting with his handler?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on November 11, 2018, 17:00:40
They likely didn't have the hardened vehicle required to move him by road.

"The Beast", as many call it, goes wherever he goes,

QUOTE

11/11/2018

"Donald Trump arrived first aboard his armored vehicle, "The Beast".
https://www.uspa24.com/bericht-14447/presidents-trump-und-macron-had-a-more-relaxed-dialogue-than-was-expected.html

END QUOTE
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 11, 2018, 17:25:14
Even if it was there, was it able to be utilized? There's a myriad of possible reasons why he couldn't go. Do you know all the protocols for using the beast? A simply traffic plan could've possibly stopped it. Let's face it, France and Paris are the Middle East of Europe, not exactly the safest spot for the POTUS to be joyriding around in. There are tons of reasons why he may not have been able to attend, but the mindless would rather go for the easy win and just say he doesn't like the rain, while smirking at others, in derision, who would rather put some thought into it.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on November 11, 2018, 17:28:33
Even if it was there, was it able to be utilized? There's a myriad of possible reasons why he couldn't go. Do you know all the protocols for using the beast? A simply traffic plan could've possibly stopped it. Let's face it, France and Paris are the Middle East of Europe, not exactly the safest spot for the POTUS to be joyriding around in. There are tons of reasons why he may not have been able to attend, but the mindless would rather go for the easy win and just say he doesn't like the rain, while smirking at others, in derision, who would rather put some thought into it.

My reply was only to this one sentence,

They likely didn't have the hardened vehicle required to move him by road.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 11, 2018, 17:40:33
My reply was only to this one sentence,

Ahhh, so you didn't wish to discuss this then? You just wanted to correct me.

Understood, my mistake
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on November 11, 2018, 18:19:00
Ahhh, so you didn't wish to discuss this then?

We did not have a discussion.

My one sentence reply was to one sentence.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on November 11, 2018, 19:54:12
Maybe his bone spurs were acting up?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on November 11, 2018, 20:11:24
I don't see a problem with the cancelled visit to the ceremony. The weather was too windy and wet for the helicopter. Well, maybe he could have taken a motorcade there. Maybe not. They take planning and preparation. He is a extremely high value target and all precautions must be taken. I heard mention of bone spurs from somebody, petty.

Edit to add. How long would it take and how many personnel would be required to clear and secure a 60 mile route?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on November 11, 2018, 20:46:02
I don't see a problem with the cancelled visit to the ceremony. The weather was too windy and wet for the helicopter. Well, maybe he could have taken a motorcade there. Maybe not. They take planning and preparation. He is a extremely high value target and all precautions must be taken. I heard mention of bone spurs from somebody, petty.

Edit to add. How long would it take and how many personnel would be required to clear and secure a 60 mile route?

They always have a rain plan involving ground transportation. Always. And an event of this magnitude would have already had ample police assigned; adding one more motorcade to security arrangements is not hugely arduous; you don't close off a whole road for the whole time; mostly it can be done with a rolling tunnel of police motorcycles. With the president of the USA on the ground they would have had them standing by ready just in case a ground move was necessary regardless. He had the choice, and he chose not to go. The Secret Service make a lot of tactical calls, but if he says he's going to something it's their job to make it happen. He decided he had better things to do than to go to the ceremony to honour the fallen. That's on him.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on November 11, 2018, 21:05:36
They always have a rain plan involving ground transportation. Always. And an event of this magnitude would have already had ample police assigned; adding one more motorcade to security arrangements is not hugely arduous; you don't close off a whole road for the whole time; mostly it can be done with a rolling tunnel of police motorcycles. With the president of the USA on the ground they would have had them standing by ready just in case a ground move was necessary regardless. He had the choice, and he chose not to go. The Secret Service make a lot of tactical calls, but if he says he's going to something it's their job to make it happen. He decided he had better things to do than to go to the ceremony to honour the fallen. That's on him.

Mattis and Dunford made it....
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: CBH99 on November 11, 2018, 23:08:01
Along with plenty of other world leaders, to their respective ceremonies...

Pretty sure part of the planning process is checking the weather forecast.  Everybody's planning team seemed to be able to figure things out. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on November 11, 2018, 23:20:27
Trump has never shirked his responsibility to praise and honour the troops.

But has never visited them in the field...

Quote
  He has stood out in inclement weather before to do so. He is also sincere and heartfelt when he does as compared to the previous POTUS.

Uhuh.

https://www.military.com/undertheradar/2016/07/27-times-the-commander-in-chief-visited-a-combat-zone (https://www.military.com/undertheradar/2016/07/27-times-the-commander-in-chief-visited-a-combat-zone)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 12, 2018, 12:24:20
I don't see a problem with the cancelled visit to the ceremony. The weather was too windy and wet for the helicopter. Well, maybe he could have taken a motorcade there. Maybe not. They take planning and preparation. He is a extremely high value target and all precautions must be taken. I heard mention of bone spurs from somebody, petty.

Edit to add. How long would it take and how many personnel would be required to clear and secure a 60 mile route?

I think you are probably wasting your time. There appear to be two major groups wherever this is discussed, anywhere, on social media.

Those that think there may have been an incident of some sort to stop his attendance and are willing to discuss possibilities.

and

Those that think his non attendance was a purposeful, pre-designated snub. Or that Trump doesn't like the rain. I especially like the ones that second guess the secret service motives and protocols as if they were the policy authors of those contingency plans and directing the operation from the epicentre.

Then there's a small group that doesn't seem to have a lot of direction, one way or another, that just toss around one liners attempting to humiliate a poster or opinion on social media. They are not interested in discussion, just weak personal agendas. Best to be avoided and ignored, IMO.

I'm willing to go either way the truth goes. As long as it's a proven. Others not so much.

YMMV. Good luck. I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference, no matter where the topic is discussed.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on November 12, 2018, 12:53:34
They always have a rain plan involving ground transportation. Always. And an event of this magnitude would have already had ample police assigned; adding one more motorcade to security arrangements is not hugely arduous; you don't close off a whole road for the whole time; mostly it can be done with a rolling tunnel of police motorcycles. With the president of the USA on the ground they would have had them standing by ready just in case a ground move was necessary regardless. He had the choice, and he chose not to go. The Secret Service make a lot of tactical calls, but if he says he's going to something it's their job to make it happen. He decided he had better things to do than to go to the ceremony to honour the fallen. That's on him.

For reference to the discussion,

QUOTE

Staff for former presidents were incredulous. They claim there is always a wet weather plan.

Indeed the President's motorcade has been seen rushing by in Washington DC when bad weather has prevented Marine One whisking the President to a MAGA rally.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-12/donald-trump-europe-tour-emmanuel-macron/10487120

END QUOTE
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on November 12, 2018, 13:19:18
I especially like the ones that second guess the secret service motives and protocols as if they were the policy authors of those contingency plans and directing the operation from the epicentre.

That can only be a reference to me. Suffice to say I have some personal knowledge and experience of major events security, how VIPs get moved about, what sort of stuff is in place, etc. You can take that at face value or not, I don't really care, but I did not reach deeply up my *** to pull this information out.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 12, 2018, 13:41:54
That can only be a reference to me. Suffice to say I have some personal knowledge and experience of major events security, how VIPs get moved about, what sort of stuff is in place, etc. You can take that at face value or not, I don't really care, but I did not reach deeply up my *** to pull this information out.

I said nothing of the sort. You must be projecting. I was very specific to general social media. I pointed no fingers here. If you identify with something I say, that would be your decision alone, not an accusation on my part.

Truthfully, I seldom see your posts anyway, because like you, I don't really care what you post, but thanks for the attack anyway. It makes it easy to flip the switch again.

HAGO
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 12, 2018, 13:46:53
Posted without comment

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-speaks-at-military-cemetery-without-umbrella-in-soaking-rain?fbclid=IwAR3WLCBCahQisajkRzi8wf2oAiV_AMPfNeXYqeGhj7xmzq_paGjZXGCNkec
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on November 12, 2018, 13:51:57
I said nothing of the sort. You must be projecting. I was very specific to general social media. I pointed no fingers here. If you identify with something I say, that would be your decision alone, not an accusation on my part.

Truthfully, I seldom see your posts anyway, because like you, I don't really care what you post, but thanks for the attack anyway. It makes it easy to flip the switch again.

HAGO

Uh huh.  ::) Given that you specifically referenced the Secret Service earlier in the thread, hypothesized about what involvement they may have had, and I replied directly to that. If you want to pretend you were not at least in part referring to me with your reply, go nuts, but I'm not convinced. You post to participate in discussion, a discussion resulted, and you now want to claim you were collectively referencing other discussions but not this one despite posting about those other discussions on this platform mere posts after your prior contributions to the thread.

Nor was there any 'attack' in my post. I acknowledged what you wrote and qualified my prior response to what you had said. If you find an attack in that, it's manufactured offense on your end. Carry on.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Dimsum on November 12, 2018, 14:15:25
Trump has never shirked his responsibility to praise and honour the troops.  He has stood out in inclement weather before to do so.

Aside from the ceremony yesterday (whether or not he didn't use an umbrella was specifically to counter the criticism is neither here nor there at this point), and since he hasn't visited troops overseas in 2 years, please tell me in detail how he praises and honours the troops aside from using them as political props in his rallies.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on November 12, 2018, 14:29:30
He is an expert in the art of political theatre, and in the US, praise of the military and its soldiers is a necessary part of that. This is the administration that is working to open up the VA to privatization of healthcare services for veterans, and that fired the head of VA who pushed back on that. And of course we cannot forget his disgusting treatment of John McCain.

I would need to be convinced through evidence the Trump has any interest in or concern for veterans beyond the bare minimum necessitated by his political position.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Petard on November 12, 2018, 14:31:11
What’s the excuse this time?

It’s a matter of respect and he’s supposed to be the commander in chief; respect is a two way street

https://mic.com/articles/192418/as-nation-observes-veterans-day-trump-not-visiting-arlington-national-cemetery
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 12, 2018, 15:19:09
Uh huh.  ::) Given that you specifically referenced the Secret Service earlier in the thread, hypothesized about what involvement they may have had, and I replied directly to that. If you want to pretend you were not at least in part referring to me with your reply, go nuts, but I'm not convinced. You post to participate in discussion, a discussion resulted, and you now want to claim you were collectively referencing other discussions but not this one despite posting about those other discussions on this platform mere posts after your prior contributions to the thread.

Nor was there any 'attack' in my post. I acknowledged what you wrote and qualified my prior response to what you had said. If you find an attack in that, it's manufactured offense on your end. Carry on.

Meh. You're just wrong.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on November 12, 2018, 15:19:26
I'm pretty sure movement plans of the POTUS are done by the Secret Service. They likely didn't have the hardened vehicle required to move him by road. Maybe they had some intel that would have prevented his attendance. That's their call, not his. It won't stop his detractors though, from trying to spin this up into something it's not. Trump has never shirked his responsibility to praise and honour the troops.  He has stood out in inclement weather before to do so. He is also sincere and heartfelt when he does as compared to the previous POTUS. There was something else, IMO, that prevented his attendance and it wasn't the weather.

So, who is in charge then, the POTUS or the secret service?

As for spin, do you believe for a second that if Obama had of missed this event that Fox news and the howling right wing commentators wouldn't be having seizures right now? I dont personally care if Trump went or didn't, nor do I care if anyone is offended by it. However, the troubling thing with your comment is the detachment from the reality that partisanship is as real or on the right as it is the left and the willingness to attempt to put everything into a "box" where it is all or nothing.

Do you know 100% that Obama wasn't heartfelt and sincere when he addressed the troops anymore than you know the Trump is? If so, how? If the answer is no than you are blindly adding to the hyper-partisanship that you profess to hate.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 12, 2018, 15:29:28
What’s the excuse this time?

It’s a matter of respect and he’s supposed to be the commander in chief; respect is a two way street

https://mic.com/articles/192418/as-nation-observes-veterans-day-trump-not-visiting-arlington-national-cemetery

I don't know what the reason is, but I doubt the Trump detractors do either. However, they'll feel free to speculate and disparage some more without facts or reason, then attack those opposite for the same thing. Blah, blah, blah.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on November 12, 2018, 15:29:58
Meh. You're just wrong.

Entirely possible. I'm just going by how it read to me. I doubt either of us will lose sleep over it.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on November 12, 2018, 15:58:50
What’s the excuse this time?

It’s a matter of respect and he’s supposed to be the commander in chief; respect is a two way street

https://mic.com/articles/192418/as-nation-observes-veterans-day-trump-not-visiting-arlington-national-cemetery

He arrived back at the White House around 7 PM last night, so he was in town. He has only tweeted 8 times so far today, and there was a three hours gap in them mid morning, so I suppose it's possible he was consumed some some matter of great national urgency. As the president's daily schedule is no longer publicly disclosed since the change in the administration, we can't really know how his time was booked for the day.

Then again, he was on pretty busy working travel for the weekend. If he needed a day off I can't begrudge him that, same logic as I'd apply to any leader.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on November 12, 2018, 16:20:02
How does the phrase:

Meh. You're just wrong.

reconcile with the tag line on all of your posts of:

Diversity includes adverse opinions, or it is not diversity.
Inclusive includes adverse opinions, or is not inclusive.
?

Just asking for a friend  ;D

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on November 12, 2018, 16:45:27
How does the phrase:

reconcile with the tag line on all of your posts of:
 ?

Just asking for a friend  ;D

 :cheers:

In fairness, he is talking about my interpretation of his comment. Only he can truly say with certainty what he did and didn’t mean, so he is qualified to say that, and really beyond perceptions there’s nothing for the rest of us to go on to disprove it.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on November 12, 2018, 16:47:01
I'm going to remind everyone to debate positions, and steer clear of personal attacks. If you have a personal comment to make, take it to PMs.

- Milnet.ca Staff
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on November 12, 2018, 17:14:32
I'm going to remind everyone to debate positions, and steer clear of personal attacks. If you have a personal comment to make, take it to PMs.

- Milnet.ca Staff

I think we had successfully bypassed that and carried on on our own. There still needs to be some room here for people to butt heads and deal with it as adults.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on November 12, 2018, 17:36:17
I think we had successfully bypassed that and carried on on our own. There still needs to be some room here for people to butt heads and deal with it as adults.
Wasn't targetted specifically at you. What I am seeing is the direction the recent replies are going, and they're moving into a personal direction, especially as more folks pile in.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on November 12, 2018, 17:41:32
Fair enough
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on November 13, 2018, 06:36:56
Quote from: Bird_Gunner45

As for spin, do you believe for a second that if Obama had of missed this event that Fox news and the howling right wing commentators wouldn't be having seizures right now?

President Obama will skip Memorial Day visit to Arlington National Cemetery
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052702696.html

Happens.


I'd say the best way for US presidents to honour the fallen is to prevent the US from getting mired in even more needless conflicts costing more lives.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on November 13, 2018, 09:22:47
President Obama will skip Memorial Day visit to Arlington National Cemetery
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052702696.html

QUOTE

Obama will appear at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery

"We don't really see the big deal, so long as he's taking the time to honor our fallen war heroes throughout Memorial Day weekend," said Ryan Gallucci, spokesman for AMVETS. " . . . Arlington is certainly not the only place our fallen heroes are buried, so why not pay your respects to veterans around the country?"

Steve Muro, the Department of Veterans Affairs acting undersecretary responsible for 131 national cemeteries, said Obama's decision to visit a cemetery named for Lincoln is appropriate, since the 16th president established the country's first 14 national cemeteries.

Obama is not the first president to miss the Arlington ceremony. Ronald Reagan spoke at West Point one year, and went to his California ranch another year. George H.W. Bush, a war veteran, did not go at all.

END QUOTE

QUOTE

The critics were either ignorant of the facts or they failed to mention the 2007 Veterans Day ceremony when Vice President Dick Cheney spoke while President George W. Bush observed the holiday in Texas.

Vice President Dan Quayle laid the wreath at Arlington on Memorial Day, 1992. I recall covering President George H.W. Bush, a distinguished World War II vet, as he marked the holiday that year at his favorite vacation spot, Kennebunkport, Maine, where he spoke to a veterans group.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-not-the-1st-president-to-miss-memorial-day-at-arlington/

END QUOTE

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: dapaterson on November 13, 2018, 19:00:42
For any pilots interested, the METARS for Orly are available at:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/can-trumps-helicopter-marine-one-fly-rain/575695/

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on November 14, 2018, 09:09:23
For any pilots interested, the METARS for Orly are available at:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/can-trumps-helicopter-marine-one-fly-rain/575695/

In the comments section of the linked article,

QUOTE

Donald Trump did not attend the ceremony in the rain, because his hair would have fallen apart, and he would have looked terrible.

His hair and image are the most important things to him, and a horrible photo of Donald Trump in the rain does far more damage to him than missing an event, with an excuse.

The side by side comparisons to Obama, vigorous and impervious to rain would have been unbearable.

The vanity-focussed explanation is likely the best one; Trump was afraid of what would happen to his hair in the rain and the wind. It’s both reasonable and logical, considering his obsession with his ‘do’.

Imagine the photo ops? His ego would never have survived.

END QUOTE

Sounds a bit hard to believe. But, considering other "bad hair days",

Jimmy Kimmel Mocks Trump’s Bald Spot
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jimmy-kimmel-mocks-trumps-bald-spot-reveal-now-the-red-hats-make-sense

A different take on things,

Los Angeles Times

13 hrs ago

Trump, stung by midterms and nervous about Mueller, retreats from traditional presidential duties
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/newspolitics/trump-stung-by-midterms-and-nervous-about-mueller-retreats-from-traditional-presidential-duties/ar-BBPG1i8?ocid=ientp
"For weeks this fall, an ebullient President Donald Trump traveled relentlessly to hold raise-the-rafters campaign rallies - sometimes three a day - in states where his presence was likely to help Republicans on the ballot."

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Journeyman on November 14, 2018, 09:44:09
Donald Trump did not attend the ceremony in the rain, because his hair would have fallen apart, and he would have looked terrible.
Whew... back to suppositions;  people were posting wa-ayyy  too many verifiable facts... and we've all seen how unsettling those can be.  :pop:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on November 14, 2018, 10:27:06
Classic Trump. crap talking France about WW1&2.

He really doesn't know when to shut up. He should probably try squeezing in a uniform before criticizing other countries military actions.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.france24.com/en/20181113-usa-trump-macron-france-burst-tweets-paris-visit-twitter-wwi-wwii-germany-wine

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Dimsum on November 14, 2018, 10:59:31
Classic Trump. crap talking France about WW1&2.

He really doesn't know when to shut up. He should probably try squeezing in a uniform before criticizing other countries military actions.


Reddit had a few good retorts to that.

"Europe should pull its weight in NATO!"
"OK, we will do so with our own weapons instead of ones bought from you."
"Nononono go back to buying US weapons!"

and...

Trump: I want to leave NATO.
EU: Okay we'll turn the EU into more of a military bloc then just a trade zone.
Trump: No don't do that.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on November 14, 2018, 11:06:35
Classic Trump. crap talking France about WW1&2.

He really doesn't know when to shut up. He should probably try squeezing in a uniform before criticizing other countries military actions.

A couple of books I have read come to mind,

Massacre Over the Marne - The RCAF ( and RAF ) bombing raids on Revigny ( France ) in July 1944:
"One thing that I hope emerges from this book, quite apart from the day-to-day heroism of the average bomber crew, is the wonderful assistance given by the average French family to the airmen whose misfortune it was to be shot down. We might have our national differences today but, when the chips were down....well, let's just say that for the French it was all or nothing. It was their life not yours on the line, and that should never be forgotten."

"Rendez-vous 127" by A.C.M. Sir Basil Embry:
"It is perhaps difficult for anyone who has not lived under the oppression of German occupation and witnessed first-hand the frightful evil of Gestapo police methods to appreciate fully what it meant to work in direct opposition to them. The married man or woman caught harbouring an Allied airman brought reprisals on the whole family - even small children were put to death."
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 14, 2018, 12:17:39
I think the tweets were childish. Were they warranted?  Macron and a few others decided to politicize the whole Remembrance occasion and intimated that a European Union could take care of itself. He opened that door wide open to the same retort that we've been hearing from the US since 1919. I doubt we would have seen the retaliatory tweets otherwise.

As for knowing history, the vast majority of Americans have been indoctrinated through movies, education, books, etc to believe they were the absolute saviors of Europe during both World Wars. He was only expressing the opinion that millions of Americans believe to be true. Just like Canadians today, claim responsibility for burning the White House.

Perhaps it might be better to step back and question why Macron would do this, and voiced by Merkel and Trudeau also? Why are they telling us nationalism doesn't mean patriotism? That's exactly what it means according to mast any dictionary. Is it possible that that was a direct shot at Trump for calling himself a nationalist? The whole thing appears engineered from the start. Maximum exposure, maximum audience, in their house on EU territory and all about globalism.

Just seems weird.

Now, before I lose more milpoints and am called a Trump bootlicker again, I'm just playing devil's advocate and shining the light from a different angle. Discuss the points, if you wish, don't discuss me.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on November 14, 2018, 12:52:50
Remember the Caravan tweets?

"Donald Trump has sent a total of 0 tweets on the caravan since the election"
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/14/politics/donald-trump-caravan/index.html


Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Furniture on November 14, 2018, 13:15:31
For any pilots interested, the METARS for Orly are available at:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/can-trumps-helicopter-marine-one-fly-rain/575695/

A ceiling at 600 feet isn't necessarily super low, but combined with visibility down to 1 3/4  miles in light rain and mist it makes for poor flying conditions. T



Here are the METARS and TAF for that period.

Weather data for Orly, FR (Sat Nov 10 15:00:00 2018)
Station Info
Id    Syno    Name    Political    Latitude    Longitude    Elevation
   ft    m
LFPO    7149    Orly       FR    48'43'00N    2'23'04E    295    90
METARs, Aviation Forecasts
LFPO Orly, FR 48'43N 2'23E 295ft 90m

METAR LFPO 100730Z 19009KT 9999 -RA OVC011 11/10 Q1002 TEMPO 4000 RA BKN009

METAR LFPO 100800Z 18009KT 9999 -RA FEW010 OVC012 11/10 Q1002 TEMPO 4000 RA BKN009

METAR LFPO 100830Z 18009KT 150V210 9999 -RA FEW010 OVC012 11/10 Q1002 TEMPO 4000 RA BKN009

METAR LFPO 100900Z 18010KT 9999 -RA BKN010 11/10 Q1002 TEMPO 4000 RA BKN009

METAR LFPO 100930Z 19011KT 7000 RA BKN010 11/10 Q1002 TEMPO 4000 RA BKN009

METAR LFPO 101000Z 18011KT 6000 RA BKN008 11/10 Q1002 NOSIG

METAR LFPO 101100Z 19011KT 2700 -RA BR OVC006 11/11 Q1002 NOSIG

METAR LFPO 101130Z 20011KT 3000 -RA BR BKN006 OVC013 12/11 Q1001 TEMPO 2500 RA BKN006

METAR LFPO 101200Z 19012KT 9999 -RA BKN009 12/11 Q1001 TEMPO 2500 RA BKN006

METAR LFPO 101230Z 25010KT 7000 -RA BKN010 12/11 Q1001 TEMPO 2500 RA BKN006

METAR LFPO 101300Z 21009KT 180V250 9999 -RA BKN010 12/11 Q1001 TEMPO 2500 RA BKN006

METAR LFPO 101330Z 21010KT 170V250 9999 -RA BKN011 12/11 Q1001 TEMPO 2500 RA BKN006

METAR LFPO 101430Z 20010KT 170V230 7000 -RA BKN010 13/11 Q1001 TEMPO 2500 RA BKN006

METAR LFPO 101500Z 20010KT 9999 BKN010 13/11 Q1001 NOSIG

TAF AMD LFPO 101015Z 1010/1112 20015KT 9999 BKN020
TEMPO 1010/1012 20015G25KT -RA BKN012
PROB40 TEMPO 1010/1012 2500 RA BKN008 SCT020TCU
TEMPO 1012/1112 20015G28KT 4000 -SHRA BKN014 SCT020TCU

TAF LFPO 101100Z 1012/1118 19010KT 9999 BKN020
TEMPO 1012/1014 2500 RA BKN006
TEMPO 1014/1021 19015G25KT 4000 -SHRA BKN012
TEMPO 1021/1108 20020G30KT 3000 SHRA BKN012 SCT020CB
TEMPO 1112/1118 4000 RA BKN012 BKN050TCU

The forecast included the presence of cumulonimbus and towering cumulus clouds which imply severe convective turbulance in and in the vicinity of the clouds, combined with the presence of moderate mechanical turbulance casued by the strong gusts from the clouds.

The author is right that helos can fly in worse conditions, but when it's not a necessity why risk the life of the president and the entire crew? Based on poor conditions through the likely launch and recovery time it makes sense that they would cancel a non-urgent/emergency flight.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 14, 2018, 15:42:23
Remember the Caravan tweets?

"Donald Trump has sent a total of 0 tweets on the caravan since the election"
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/14/politics/donald-trump-caravan/index.html
I dont see anyone caring. The situation is being handled. Nothing to talk about. Only CNN.

And honestly, given the animosity between the two and CNNs trouble with the truth, when speaking of the GOP and Trump, I myself wont believe anything they say unless i can corroborate with other sources.  Any orgnization that gives people like Lemon a podium to shriek his racist screes is not legitimate IMO.

If I came here citing an alt right wing news source, I'd be ridiculed for doing it. CNN fits the same category.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on November 14, 2018, 16:17:52
Fox is an alternative.

But, "Its average viewer is extremely old."

QUOTE

Jul 21, 2016

It's a crisis faced by other news networks as well, but Fox most of all: Its average viewer is extremely old. The median age of a primetime Fox News viewer is 68, according to Nielsen. That means half of the channel's viewers are older than 68. CNN's median primetime viewer, meanwhile, is 59.
https://qz.com/738346/fox-newss-biggest-problem-isnt-the-ailes-ouster-its-that-its-average-viewer-is-a-dinosaur/

END QUOTE

QUOTE

CNN was the No. 1 news network — on broadcast and on cable — during coverage of the 2018 midterm elections among adults 25-54.
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/fox-news-cnn-split-2018-midterm-election-night-ratings-battle/383740

END QUOTE

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 14, 2018, 16:40:59
Fox is an alternative.

But, "Its average viewer is extremely old."

QUOTE

Jul 21, 2016

It's a crisis faced by other news networks as well, but Fox most of all: Its average viewer is extremely old. The median age of a primetime Fox News viewer is 68, according to Nielsen. That means half of the channel's viewers are older than 68. CNN's median primetime viewer, meanwhile, is 59.
https://qz.com/738346/fox-newss-biggest-problem-isnt-the-ailes-ouster-its-that-its-average-viewer-is-a-dinosaur/

END QUOTE

QUOTE

CNN was the No. 1 news network — on broadcast and on cable — during coverage of the 2018 midterm elections among adults 25-54.
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/fox-news-cnn-split-2018-midterm-election-night-ratings-battle/383740

END QUOTE


You're point is missing, I believe.

Old people watch Fox, young people watch CNN. That seems to be it. Is that adding something, to the conversation, we should be exploring?

Ratings are cherry picked and really mean zero.

That's the whole gist of your post.

Posting links and articles sans explanation, leaves people wondering where you're going.

I don't understand your highlighting of 'old people', or where you're trying to lead us with it.

If you're attempting to stay neutral by posting something and not commenting, I think you're failing. However, when we're left to try and establish your point, without your help, we have to find what suits us and it might not convey what you were attempting to infer.

That's just my take on it though. Perhaps I'm missing something.

edit - sp
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Thucydides on November 14, 2018, 16:58:03
President Trump, energy and diplomacy:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/trump-wields-his-energy-weapon

Some key takaways is the United States is leveraging the ability to export energy to weaken opponents like Russia and Iran, and this energy independence provides much more flexibility for the Administration to pursue goals such as renegotiating trade deals and other aspects of the Administration's foreign policy.

While not mentioned in the article, the growing availability of inexpensive energy also is helping in other ways, particularly in powering the US economy and helping allied nations economies with overall lower global energy prices. As an energy producing nation ourselves, we need to unplug our hydrocarbon industry to reap the benefits of greater international market access, not to mention reducing our own reliance on imported oil (particularly on the East coast).
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on November 14, 2018, 17:31:11
I dont see anyone caring. The situation is being handled. Nothing to talk about. Only CNN.

And honestly, given the animosity between the two and CNNs trouble with the truth, when speaking of the GOP and Trump, I myself wont believe anything they say unless i can corroborate with other sources.  Any orgnization that gives people like Lemon a podium to shriek his racist screes is not legitimate IMO.

If I came here citing an alt right wing news source, I'd be ridiculed for doing it. CNN fits the same category.

Actually President Trump did care.  He sent 45 tweets about it in the two weeks prior to the mid terms.  Immediately after.  0.  His previous tweets made it sound like a barabarian invasion.

So I guess then that the border is ok now?  Or is going to be bad again when he needs to scare up votes?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 14, 2018, 18:29:06
Actually President Trump did care.  He sent 45 tweets about it in the two weeks prior to the mid terms.  Immediately after.  0.  His previous tweets made it sound like a barabarian invasion.

So I guess then that the border is ok now?  Or is going to be bad again when he needs to scare up votes?

You're confusing then with now.

I just don't see anything for him to tweet about. He has the troops there. Mattis is doing his job. Everything that needed saying has been said. Until they get to the border, there's nothing to say.

Barbarian invasion? I don't recall him saying that. Got a source? Otherwise, it's just a bit simplistic and hyperbolic.

People ***** when he tweets and now are upset he isn't tweeting. Seriously, he hasn't mentioned the caravans and that's what you guys are losing sleep about? I find it comical that that is what the left is crowing as news. It simply shows how gullible and accepting people are of the Max Headrooms of the airwaves. Especially if said teleprompter reader is espousing something the listener agrees with. One simply has to dislike Trump and they'll lap up all this cold pablum like a prime rib dinner.

Nobody would even care if it weren't for the media.

Mark Twain said it better than I ever could.

Trump isn't tweeting about the caravan, something nefarious is about to happen. The game is afoot Watson!  :rofl:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 14, 2018, 18:47:48
Further to my thoughts of the media.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/exclusive-72-percent-say-media-dividing-americans-spreading-hate?fbclid=IwAR3Jq43X5IzIwhe9J4AYxExD5RhoPh-NzClQA9sAPkVECkK_6tg5h-n32Vw

There will be a follow up on Trump's role. I'll wait for that before commenting.

I think, it's pretty clear what the vast majority of people really think about today's media. I think those being polled were being generous, but that's just me.

The only thing that old people and young people had to do with anything was in an observation to the study.

"While both genders were in agreement, generational age groups had an inverse relationship. Interestingly, younger voters age 18-24 and age 18-29 (81-82% strongly and somewhat agree/18-19% strongly and somewhat disagree) were much more likely to blame the media for spreading hate and misunderstanding than older voters age 65+ (62% strongly and somewhat agree/38% strongly and somewhat disagree) and age 70+ (67% strongly and somewhat agree/33% strongly and somewhat disagree)."
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Loachman on November 14, 2018, 23:01:09
A ceiling at 600 feet isn't necessarily super low,

Well, that depends on a bunch of things.

Like whether one's flying in it...

For those not familiar with flying operations, minimum VFR (Visual Flight Rules) requirements for operating in controlled airspace, in Canada, are three miles vis, no less than 500 feet vertical distance from cloud, and no less than one mile horizontally. Subtract, then, 500 feet from the reported ceiling. There are slightly different minima in control zones and uncontrolled airspace, and between helicopters and seized-wing aircraft, but not enough to make a difference in this case.

The ceiling given in a METAR (METeorological Aerodrome Report) is accurate for the reporting airfield. It does not take terrain or building heights into account at any distance from the airfield. Orly is south of the core of Paris, and well within the built-up area of the city. I do not know the height of the tallest buildings that would have been encountered along the route, but accepting a low ceiling and reduced visibility, with or without a head of state aboard, would have been stupid.

Broken cloud (“BKN” in TAFs and METARs) means 5/8 to 7/8 coverage. Broken cloud constitutes a ceiling. Gaps between clouds can close pretty quickly, which is why they’re known as “sucker holes”.

The crew would have received much more in-depth briefings from the Met guys at Orly than just a cursory glance at METARs and TAFs (Terminal Aerodrome Forecasts), and would have studied the terrain enroute as well. Based upon my limited (compared to theirs) information, I’d not have flown in the stated conditions, either. I’ve spent more than enough time concerned about weather conditions in which I’ve found myself over many years, and known too many who died or were severely injured in weather-related crashes.

I spent three years with 444 Squadron in Lahr, West Germany (1986-1989), where our limits for completing a mission were 250 feet AGL (Above Ground Level), clear of cloud, and 800 metres vis. Flying in those minima could be very uncomfortable at times, even with greatly-reduced airspeed. At normal cruise speed, one would cover that 800 metres in 15 seconds. Gary Larson nailed it in the Far Side “What’s that mountain goat doing way up here in these clouds” cartoon (but major towers, power lines, and high-rise buildings are more common).

Airspace is much more dense, complex, and busy in Europe than in most of Canada. We were far less familiar with much of the geography over which we often flew than the natives were, and geography can make big differences at low altitudes in poor weather. The Marine crew would have been even less familiar with the geography in which they were scheduled to fly than we were back then.

I also flew two six-month Police helicopter trials in Canada: Peel Region (Brampton and Mississauga) in the last half of 1999, and Toronto in the last half of 2000. Toronto International was slap in the middle of our patrol area during the Peel Region trial. Most of our work was done at night. A lot of the workload (and the Peel Region trial was the busiest that I’ve ever been in a cockpit) was intently monitoring a very busy ATC frequency as, from the controllers’ points of view, we bumbled around unpredictably (and, yes, I always kept them informed). We flew at a comfortable 1000 feet AGL while patrolling, and only went below that when absolutely necessary. Descending below 500 feet, on the rare occasion that we did so, above lit buildings at night was not comfortable; in theory, there are no unlit cranes or antennae poking up that high above building tops, but I was NOT going to break my comfort limits unless somebody’s life depended upon it.

Flying, then, after all of that, was not an option.

I am not sure where in Paris he was staying (one article mentioned the US Embassy), but I have read that it was a 60 km drive to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery and that it would have taken 2.5 hours in each direction and required road closures throughout the total duration of the drive in both directions. Google Maps gives a distance of 87 km and a driving time of 1.1 to 1.5 hours, depending upon the route, from the city core (as defined by Google Maps). That distance might not sound like it would take that long, but this would have been a large motorcade.

Instead of going to Aisne-Marne, he went, later, to Suresnes American Cemetery about 12 km west of the city core (as defined by Google Maps), with a normal driving time of 29 minutes, or one-third that of the max time to Aisne-Marne.

What security concerns did his Secret Service, and French security personnel, have, with the route and driving time to Aisne-Marne? It’s generally best to listen to their recommendations. We also do not know how packed his schedule was. Was roughly six hours available? When was it known that conditions would be too bad to fly? Forecasts can change quickly. It may (or may not) have looked perfectly feasible to fly a few hours prior to the planned departure time, and then become too late to safely engage Plan B. I don’t know what the forecast was the previous day, when the flight was planned to depart, or how long it takes to fully engage the back-up plan.

Plus, of course, the headline would then have been “Trump Ignores Secret Service, Drives Anyway, Recklessly Endangers Many Lives”.

His visit to Suresnes also occurred in rain. Was there more, the same, or less rain there than Aisne-Marne? Nobody seems to have noted that. His hair likely got as wet as it would have had he gone to the original location, but I presume that the Presidential Umbrella would have been neither more nor less effective in either place. I don’t think that wet hair was his prime concern. Safety, security, and concern for others would have trumped that yugely.

This is a fuss with no substance - merely a concerted exercise to demonize a President, about whom so many have been wound up to believe the worst, by media and others. A fair chunk of the Parisien citizenry would certainly have bitched, justifiably so, in my opinion, if his motorcade had interfered with their drives home on top of any rain-related delays that already faced them.

Erring on the side of caution - sometimes A Good Thing, no matter what others may say.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on November 15, 2018, 09:11:22
I tend to agree to an extent.  I see absolutely no political gain whatsoever in missing the ceremony.  Not at home, not with the base.  But given the president’s habit of playing petty politics it is easy to see how it may be seen by some as something more deliberate.  Nothing shocks me when it comes to him.  But it was likely something technical rather than some sort of snit fit.

And besides, as far as conflicts go WW1 doesn’t seem to have the same importance in American culture as it does for us (including all former British colonies) and most of Europe. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Furniture on November 15, 2018, 10:58:56
Well, that depends on a bunch of things.

Like whether one's flying in it...

...

Erring on the side of caution - sometimes A Good Thing, no matter what others may say.

Much more detailed explanation than I gave for sure.

Given that the TAF was ammended part way through it's forecast period due to unexpected worse conditions, it's safe to assume the forecast from the planning brief the day before likely did not reflect conditions that morning either.

Edit: To keep on topic, sloppy reporting like I saw on CBC with a headline along the lines of Light Rain Keeps Trump from Ceremony just creates distrust in the media's ability to report impartially and reasonably on some topics.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Strike on November 15, 2018, 11:58:32
Much more detailed explanation than I gave for sure.

Given that the TAF was ammended part way through it's forecast period due to unexpected worse conditions, it's safe to assume the forecast from the planning brief the day before likely did not reflect conditions that morning either.

Edit: To keep on topic, sloppy reporting like I saw on CBC with a headline along the lines of Light Rain Keeps Trump from Ceremony just creates distrust in the media's ability to report impartially and reasonably on some topics.

Now, in the media's defence, that may have been what they were told - the rain is too bad for the helicopter to fly in.  Was that the case? Not exactly. But do you think that the media would have understood Loach's explanation, even in Coles Notes version?

Many times I have done the same thing - given a short version of why we do what we do in a way people would understand because the full version is too complicated and the media would probably F it up in translation anyway.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Loachman on November 15, 2018, 12:55:52
No reporter can ever be a complete expert on all of the subjects on which he or she reports - generally multiple completely different topics every day. I've found that most are genuinely interested, and do the best that they can.

There is always a minority, however, that have agendae and deliberately twist everything to match.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on November 15, 2018, 13:02:49
It is being able to sift through the noise though.  For example after seeing the initial reports on rain keeping the president away I came across an article about how French officials attended the Arlington’s ceremony despite Trump not going to the one in Europe.

While true, sure, it is misleading.  The president had way more distance tontravel than French officials posted to D.C.  also it was officials, not the PM or the president of France attending at Arlington.  But it was trying to drive a narrative that was not required.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on November 15, 2018, 13:46:12
I think that much of this discussion fails to meet the point.

There undoubtedly was a severe enough weather condition so that the air planning element recommended against flying to the site. Similarly I would assume that there was a concern about the ground transport security with the distance involved. I would expect, however, that, like any of these types of events, there was already a contingency plan for ground transport in place with a risk assessment.

The question I am left with is whether or not Trump saw this event as a significant enough one to trigger the ground transportation plan in light of the contingency plan risk assessment.

My viewpoint on this matter is greatly influenced by the fact that Trump did not tweet anything about there being a security risk that made travel unacceptable. His tweet addressing the issue said:

Quote
. . . when the helicopter couldn’t fly to the first cemetery in France because of almost zero visibility, I suggested driving. Secret Service said NO, too far from airport & big Paris shutdown. . . .

That can be interpreted several ways but IMHO it does not disclose a "security risk", just a difficulty that could be overcome if the President thought it important enough. Again, IMHO, while the Secret Service has a lot to say about security arrangements, it's up to the President and his political staff to determine if the risk is acceptable in the face of political reality. I would think that considering the significance of this event at this particular time the political backlash and criticism was readily foreseeable and the decision not to go but to send representatives was a poor one.

Do I think that he is deliberately dissing veterans or afraid of a little rain. No. What I do think is that he makes poor decisions and when it comes to making one that favours his "convenience" rather than other considerations. He, and his advisers (or maybe in spite of his advisors), makes impulse decisions that do not properly weigh the consequences of his actions. This was one of those. It's not a matter of deliberate disrespect just that the event didn't matter enough to him.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: QV on November 15, 2018, 13:56:10
That is quite the supposition.           
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on November 15, 2018, 14:28:25
That is quite the supposition.         

Not really.  As I said, WW1 is not as culturally important in the U.S as it is in Canada or France or GB or other countries that were more involved at the time.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 15, 2018, 15:14:58
I think that much of this discussion fails to meet the point.

There undoubtedly was a severe enough weather condition so that the air planning element recommended against flying to the site. Similarly I would assume that there was a concern about the ground transport security with the distance involved. I would expect, however, that, like any of these types of events, there was already a contingency plan for ground transport in place with a risk assessment.

The question I am left with is whether or not Trump saw this event as a significant enough one to trigger the ground transportation plan in light of the contingency plan risk assessment.

My viewpoint on this matter is greatly influenced by the fact that Trump did not tweet anything about there being a security risk that made travel unacceptable. His tweet addressing the issue said:

That can be interpreted several ways but IMHO it does not disclose a "security risk", just a difficulty that could be overcome if the President thought it important enough. Again, IMHO, while the Secret Service has a lot to say about security arrangements, it's up to the President and his political staff to determine if the risk is acceptable in the face of political reality. I would think that considering the significance of this event at this particular time the political backlash and criticism was readily foreseeable and the decision not to go but to send representatives was a poor one.

Do I think that he is deliberately dissing veterans or afraid of a little rain. No. What I do think is that he makes poor decisions and when it comes to making one that favours his "convenience" rather than other considerations. He, and his advisers (or maybe in spite of his advisors), makes impulse decisions that do not properly weigh the consequences of his actions. This was one of those. It's not a matter of deliberate disrespect just that the event didn't matter enough to him.

 :cheers:

So if Trump tweets the left is upset.

If he doesn't tweet, they get upset because he didn't tweet about national security concerns while visiting an enclave of islamic terrorism?

Not sure whether I've got that right.

What I'm finding, though, is that no matter how this is explained, or who's doing the explaining, some just cannot get their head around that this was probably a glitch, nothing untoward.

Even if it was because Trump had had a heart attack, there are those that would try extrapolate it to the point that Trump administered sodium pentothal to himself to avoid the cemetery service.

It has nothing to do with the Fallen or Remembrance and all about casting about and refusing to believe all this wasn't Trumps fault. Sad that the left let their personal vendetta and agenda take over such a solemn occasion, but I've come to accept that they have no more concern over sacrifice than the next protest. Nothing stands in the way if they can stick it to Trump. The agenda is number 1, not the truth.

I like Trump. I don't like the left. No surprise to anyone. However, I have priorities, unlike the single minded Trump haterz. Trump is human, he makes mistakes. I can admit that.

I don't know what happened, but I'll take the word of SME's over some second rate journalist, or those that just can't be satisfied that maybe, just maybe Trump might be innocent in all of this. They must be running out of rocks to look under. Or maybe they are finding so many friends there, they forgot what they were looking for. Loachman provided the most succinct, educational explanation I've heard so far, anywhere. Here, on other social media or in the Press. It's there in black and white for anyone that wants to understand. Yet there are those that discount it out of hand because of their hatred for Trump.

Not really.  As I said, WW1 is not as culturally important in the U.S as it is in Canada or France or GB or other countries that were more involved at the time.

Does that mean you're current narrative blames Trump not going because the US doesn't think WWI was culturally important, because that's the way it reads?

I have met hundreds of Americans that will disagree with you.

Maybe, it's just the pompous attitude Canadians seem to have when speaking about Americans.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on November 15, 2018, 16:23:58

Does that mean you're current narrative blames Trump not going because the US doesn't think WWI was culturally important, because that's the way it reads?

I have met hundreds of Americans that will disagree with you.

Maybe, it's just the pompous attitude Canadians seem to have when speaking about Americans.

Oh give it a rest.  Go back a few posts and read my thoughts about what I think about him not going and why.

Instead of shotgun blasting your thoughts maybe read and consider what people here are actually trying to say. I actually agree with you about why he might not have gone.  But you likely just skipped that.

I’ve already been warned once about responding to you. I suppose i’ll get another one.

Yes I actually do believe that WW1 is less important culturally to most Americans.  Look at all the movies made about Americans in WW1 compared to the myriad of WW2, Vietnam, civil war or any other major conflict other than WW1.  Or littérature or what ever.  WW1 seems to be more or less at the bottom or close to it.

WW1 was a coming of age for most British Colonial states.  It was also a much more drawn out affair for them than it was for the US.

It isn’t a knock on the US or Trump it’s just a fact.  Feel free to disagree but how about you argue the point without being so passive aggressive.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 15, 2018, 17:25:08
You'll have to use better bait than that.

I reserve the right to comment, my thoughts, on any given topic presented here, just like you and others.

It probably would have been better to just explain what you meant instead of attacking me.

Been warned about replying to me? That's really rich. You no doubt have. Likely by those that have not successfully silenced me, but that's a guess and really I could care less about faceless people making faceless comments about what I write.

It doesn't matter anyway, but again, thanks for making it all about me, then trying to slip a little explanation in there.

I've been written as a Trump boot licker here, literally, but no one seems concerned. I've been called a very long established alt right racist, nobody's concerned here. I've been demonized by the left, here, for my stances. People keep insisting I read their stuff, but they don't read mine or ask for clarification, before responding and calling me names or impinging on my integrity. Contrary to your, and others belief, I do read what is written and I read it like hearing a conversation. If what you're saying isn't making sense, I'll question it.

If you don't like my style or comments, challenge them.

I'll respond in kind to any that want to discuss things. I'll also respond in kind to those that wish to attack me instead of my comments.

I've about run my course on the subject of the cemetery anyway. There's those that have some intelligence and recognize that there were probably real circumstances that prevented the visit, then there are those that will accept nothing less than Trump wanting to protect his hair. The former warrant discussion, the latter don't

Enough of the tangent. You brought it out in the open, in public, I've given my side, in response. If you still want to vilify me, do it over PMs.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Larry Strong on November 15, 2018, 20:47:47
From the Washington Post no less........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-could-be-the-most-honest-president-in-modern-history/2018/10/11/67aefc5a-cd76-11e8-a3e6-44daa3d35ede_story.html?utm_term=.ec7850fb8d83



Cheers
Larry
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Loachman on November 15, 2018, 21:38:52
I am truly surprised to see that in the Washington Post.

I monitor a number of unconventional sources and analysts, as well as the "reputable" ones who prove less insightful and accurate reporting and commentary. The non-standard ones have been pointing this stuff out all along.

President Trump's background is business - and an often cutthroat one - and entertainment. He approaches his current job in the same way, self- and national-promotion, which generally involves a little excessive hype, but actual results are the most important.

He has frequently had to work with people that he doesn't like, and set aside differences, to achieve results - the "greater good". This is why he has been able to get further with Kim Jong-Un than any of his predecessors, firstly responding in kind, then holding out a carrot. Whatever his personal opinion of Kim Jong-Un really is, and he is certainly aware of Kim's brutal crimes, a peace treaty is definitely the "greater good".

One can find interviews with him going back decades on YouTube. He is remarkably consistent in his views over that time.

Yes, there are some truly cringe-worthy tweets, and he is far from perfect, but the US (and the planet) is far better off with him as President than any of his contenders, from either party, when one looks at the bigger picture.

And the entertainment value is second-to-none.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on November 16, 2018, 20:28:52
From the Washington Post no less........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-could-be-the-most-honest-president-in-modern-history/2018/10/11/67aefc5a-cd76-11e8-a3e6-44daa3d35ede_story.html?utm_term=.ec7850fb8d83



Cheers
Larry

As a long time subscriber, I can tell you that they go out of their way to ensure that a counter-voice is presented, almost every week.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on November 16, 2018, 20:32:00
I dont see anyone caring. The situation is being handled. Nothing to talk about.

Just like the 10% tax cut for the middle class that was going to be brought in "in the first week of Nov", notwithstanding that Congress was not sitting I guess.

Oh that's right - that was another pre-election lie with no chance or hope of being enacted.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on November 16, 2018, 20:50:14
What’s Trump up to now? More than four thousand documented lies or mistruths since he was sworn in? Counterpoint or no, calling him an ‘honest’ individual is hardly credible.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on November 18, 2018, 09:58:35
Well stranger things have happened....

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/11/16/chris-wallace-donald-trump-interview-preview-should-have-gone-veterans-day-arlington


But good on him for admitting a mistake.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on November 18, 2018, 10:42:03
Oh that's right - that was another pre-election lie with no chance or hope of being enacted.

Regarding the 2018 United States House of Representatives election,

Democrat votes:  58,590,379

Republican votes: 50,101,060

Source: The Cook Political Report
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WxDaxD5az6kdOjJncmGph37z0BPNhV1fNAH_g7IkpC0/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on November 18, 2018, 12:00:19
Regarding the 2018 United States House of Representatives election,

Democrat votes:  58,590,379

Republican votes: 50,101,060

Source: The Cook Political Report
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WxDaxD5az6kdOjJncmGph37z0BPNhV1fNAH_g7IkpC0/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0

It doesn't sound so impressive when you add in the unopposed districts. There were 38 districts like that. By a rough count it comes out to about 4 and a half million votes where the Republicans didn't field a candidate. There were even districts where 0 votes were cast and the Democratic candidate prevailed. Raw numbers don't seem to tell the true story. Anyway, I thought the historic outcome of a midterm election was for the party holding the White House to lose at least the House Of Representatives. Is it different now? Just because, you know, "He" is in the President.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on November 18, 2018, 12:10:39
Anyway, I thought the historic outcome of a midterm election was for the party holding the White House to lose at least the House Of Representatives. Is it different now? Just because, you know, "He" is in the President.

Nope- in fairness to the man, he did properly observe the midterm tradition of losing control of the House of Representatives. So no different now. It was amusing to see him try to call it a victory though. That was some amusingly tortured logic.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on November 18, 2018, 12:15:15
Nope- in fairness to the man, he did properly observe the midterm tradition of losing control of the House of Representatives. So no different now. It was amusing to see him try to call it a victory though. That was some amusingly tortured logic.

Certainly, we all know how he is, he loves to put a spin on it.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on November 18, 2018, 13:32:54
Regarding the 2018 United States House of Representatives election,

Democrat votes:  58,590,379

Republican votes: 50,101,060

Source: The Cook Political Report
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WxDaxD5az6kdOjJncmGph37z0BPNhV1fNAH_g7IkpC0/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0

My statement has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. President Trump stated that the tax cut would be enacted before election day, even though it was apparent to outside observers that this would be impossible, as the House had risen.  This of course begs two questions: did the President know that he would have needed congressional consent in order to deliver a tax cut; and if he did in fact know that, is his statement an indication of his contempt for his base, or perhaps the American voter in general.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 18, 2018, 20:24:02
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/365393-how-quickly-ny-times-forgets-obamas-lies-and-frauds


 
"How quickly NY Times forgets Obama's lies and frauds
© Getty

Donald Trump has been flogging the truth and twisting facts since the day he arrived in the Oval Office. But anyone who expected more candor from him as president than on the campaign trail was criminally naive. The real mystery nowadays is why the media seeks to expunge the falsehoods of prior presidents.

“Trump’s Lies versus Obama’s” was the headline in a Sunday Review New York Times piece aiming to drive a final coffin nail into Trump’s credibility. The Times claimed Trump has already “told nearly six times as many falsehoods as Obama did during his entire (8-year) presidency.”  The columnists seem so distraught that it is surprising the article is not in all caps.

But the Times’ list of falsehoods is itself a charade with gaping Montana-sized holes."
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on November 18, 2018, 20:25:32
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/365393-how-quickly-ny-times-forgets-obamas-lies-and-frauds


 
"How quickly NY Times forgets Obama's lies and frauds
© Getty

Donald Trump has been flogging the truth and twisting facts since the day he arrived in the Oval Office. But anyone who expected more candor from him as president than on the campaign trail was criminally naive. The real mystery nowadays is why the media seeks to expunge the falsehoods of prior presidents.

“Trump’s Lies versus Obama’s” was the headline in a Sunday Review New York Times piece aiming to drive a final coffin nail into Trump’s credibility. The Times claimed Trump has already “told nearly six times as many falsehoods as Obama did during his entire (8-year) presidency.”  The columnists seem so distraught that it is surprising the article is not in all caps.

But the Times’ list of falsehoods is itself a charade with gaping Montana-sized holes."

Obama has not been president in a couple years now, so the 'but Obama!' is wearing pretty thin and has long lost its relevance.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 18, 2018, 21:10:53
Obama has not been president in a couple years now, so the 'but Obama!' is wearing pretty thin and has long lost its relevance.

I really don't see why. People are acting like Trump is the only one that ever lied as President. Many of the lies are simply self aggrandizing. Some rub people the wrong way. Whatever the reason, a yardstick needs to be established and you can't do that with one president. Obama, Bush and Clintons lies resulted in the wrongful deaths of thousands of people and the raping of countries like Haiti

How many of Trump's lies have gotten as many innocent people killed as Obama's or Bush's? How many countries has Trump destroyed?

I suppose it's useless talking about how many campaign promises he's kept compared to other president's. More than any in recent history.

But that would lay bare the hypocrisy of the democrats and the left and anyone else that spends time looking only at one side, in order to further their bias against somebody because they dislike him.

So yes, Obama, Clinton, the Bushs are as equally important to the argument of presidents that lie, as Trump is.

That's how I judge. Has Trump's lies created an illegal operation, like Fast and Furious, that has killed hundreds in Mexico and the death of US Border agents and other civilian Americans? How many troops have been killed because Bush lied about the reason to start a war? Have Trump's lies created any situations like Benghazi?

When I compare incidents like these, created by lies of former presidents, to Trump grandstanding and claiming the best economy ever, I have a hard time understanding where the left is trying to go. Thousands of deaths, caused by lies of former presidents don't seem to matter if Trumps detractors can zero in on his bombastic platitudes.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 18, 2018, 21:14:36
Certainly, we all know how he is, he loves to put a spin on it.

As does everyone else.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Infanteer on November 18, 2018, 23:42:50
Tu Quoque.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on November 18, 2018, 23:56:42
Quote from: Fishbone Jones
like Fast and Furious, that has killed hundreds in Mexico and the death of US Border agents and other civilian Americans? How many troops have been killed because Trump lied about the reason to start a war? Have Trump's lies created any situations like Benghazi?

This is the main reason why I think Trump was and will always be a better choice for president.  The US has a sorid history of invading countries or getting involved in their affairs under bullshit reasons leading to soldier and civilian deaths.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Infanteer on November 19, 2018, 00:32:20
Tu quoque...again.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 19, 2018, 00:49:11
Tu Quoque.

I'm not condoning it, but at the same time, if you want to try define his lies, they need to be taken in the context of presidential lies. This is not a, he did it, so can I. It is simply a way of defining what a presidential lie entails and the severity of those lies.

Simply, there are those that will demonize Trump for lying, but will give a buy to others who lied as President and killed people and countries.

That your hypocracy right there. It not right for Trump to lie. However, it's not alright to try define him as the worst liar. He may tell more than others, but his lies are nowhere near as dangerous and fatal as those told by other presidents.

The hypocracy also bleeds though for those that only concentrate on his faults.

Tu Quoque for sure, but not from my end.




Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on November 19, 2018, 01:01:59
On a different topic - the ongoing feud with Adm McRaven:

Quote
Architect of bin Laden raid: Trump 'threatens the Constitution' when he attacks the media
By Jake Tapper and Devan Cole, CNN
Updated 5:29 PM ET, Sun November 18, 2018

Washington (CNN)Retired Adm. William McRaven on Sunday stood by his previous statement that President Donald Trump's attacks on the news media represent "the greatest threat to democracy" after the President dismissed him as a "Hillary Clinton backer" in an interview that aired on Fox News.

"I did not back Hillary Clinton or anyone else," McRaven, who oversaw the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, told CNN. "I am a fan of President Obama and President George W. Bush, both of whom I worked for. I admire all presidents, regardless of their political party, who uphold the dignity of the office and who use that office to bring the nation together in challenging times."

"I stand by my comment that the President's attack on the media is the greatest threat to our democracy in my lifetime," McRaven said, referencing remarks he made about Trump last year. "When you undermine the people's right to a free press and freedom of speech and expression, then you threaten the Constitution and all for which it stands."

. . .

See rest of article here:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/18/politics/donald-trump-william-mcraven/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/18/politics/donald-trump-william-mcraven/index.html)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Furniture on November 19, 2018, 08:25:09
On a different topic - the ongoing feud with Adm McRaven:

See rest of article here:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/18/politics/donald-trump-william-mcraven/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/18/politics/donald-trump-william-mcraven/index.html)

 :cheers:
If the media hadn't rushed out to declare him not president, and then not "really president" they might have a leg to stand on. Unfortunately the media has proven partisan, and questionable when reporting on Trump.


I don't agree with demonizing all media,  all times, but the media has appeared less that impartial, and less than reliable. Don't just blame Trump for how this has gone down.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Infanteer on November 19, 2018, 09:15:05
if you want to try define his lies, they need to be taken in the context of presidential lies. This is not a, he did it, so can I. It is simply a way of defining what a presidential lie entails and the severity of those lies.

It's actually quite humerous how you are trying to dig yourself out of your logical fallacy.  Just replace the words in the sort-of syllogism you made above, and the fallacy is apparent.

"If you want to try define his murders, they need to be taken in the context of serial killer murders.  This is not a, he did it, so can I.  It is simply a way of defining what a serial killer murder entails and the severity of those murders."

Tu quoque: to avoid having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - answering criticism with criticism.  It avoids the original argument.

The president either lies or does not.
The president either surrounds himself with indicted felons or does not.
The president either runs a hot economy or does not.
The president either insults long-standing allies to their face and on social media or does not.
The president either brings North Korea to the table or does not.
The president either cuts taxes or does not.
The president either supports economic protectionist policies or does not.

One can't defend the current President's actions/behaviors/failures by shifting the argument to past Presidential actions/behaviors/failures.  It is...logical fallacious.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FSTO on November 19, 2018, 10:13:26
The "Make your Bed" Admiral gets called names by the President.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/newspolitics/architect-of-bin-laden-raid-trump-threatens-the-constitution-when-he-attacks-the-media/ar-BBPR2l9?ocid=ientp

Trump made the remarks during a tense exchange with Fox News' Chris Wallace after the host brought up McRaven, a vocal Trump critic who led the bin Laden operation in 2011 during former President Barack Obama's administration.

"Bill McRaven, retired admiral, Navy SEAL, 37 years, former head of US Special Operations..." Wallace started.

"Hillary Clinton fan," Trump said, cutting off Wallace.

"Special Operations ..." Wallace continued.

"Excuse me, Hillary Clinton fan," Trump said.

"Who led the operations," Wallace added, "commanded the operations that took down Saddam Hussein and that killed Osama bin Laden, says that your sentiment is the greatest threat to democracy in his lifetime."

"OK, he's a Hilary Clinton backer and an Obama-backer, and frankly ... wouldn't it have been nice if we got Osama bin Laden a lot sooner than that? Wouldn't it have been nice? You know, living -- think of this -- living in Pakistan, beautifully in Pakistan."

After Wallace asked if the President would give McRaven any credit for taking down bin Laden, Trump said "they took him down" but quickly shifted to talking about US aid to Pakistan, where bin Laden was killed.

If you don't know who McRaven is, he also gained fame with this University of Texas commencement speech;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxBQLFLei70
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Journeyman on November 19, 2018, 10:56:35
Bill McRaven also weighed in last summer, when Trump revoked John Brennan's security clearance:

"Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John. He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don't know him. Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well...."

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on November 19, 2018, 20:32:54
So let's hear from someone who served under eight different Commanders in Chief....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/19/i-served-under-commanders-chief-trump-doesnt-grasp-role/?utm_term=.b566d196764b (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/19/i-served-under-commanders-chief-trump-doesnt-grasp-role/?utm_term=.b566d196764b)

Quote
By Wesley K. Clark
Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark is a former NATO supreme allied commander. He is a Centennial Fellow at Georgetown and a senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations.
November 19 at 9:00 AM
Of all the roles of the presidency, commander in chief was perhaps the one that candidate Donald Trump most relished. His take-charge style, his hat and slogan, his command presence on the stage, his early experience at New York Military Academy and his boasting that “I know more about ISIS than the generals do” demonstrated his inclinations. And many Americans, including service members and veterans, believed that he would be a strong and effective commander in chief.

Yet as president, Trump’s actions and behavior have led service members and veterans to question whether he really understands who a commander in chief is, or what he does.

I served under eight presidents. I applied for West Point as President John F. Kennedy confronted the Soviets in Berlin, went to Vietnam under President Richard Nixon and came home on a stretcher, worked in the White House under President Gerald Ford, and eventually retired as NATO supreme allied commander under President Bill Clinton. I ran for the presidency myself out of deep concern as the ill-considered Iraq War unfolded under President George W. Bush. My heart is with the men and women in uniform, as well as our veterans. It is that affinity that brings me to these observations.

President Trump believes he honors and respects the military. He praises our men and women constantly. “I don’t think anybody’s been more with the military than I have, as a president,” he told Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.” He has appointed numerous generals to serve in his administration (“I have generals that are great generals”) and gained pay raises and hikes in defense spending. He fired the VA chief. He has a snappy salute and appreciates a good military parade, like the one he saw in France last year. He wants to be loved, respected and admired, no doubt.

But there is more to being commander in chief. He commands us, but he also represents us. The military is mission-oriented and values-based. The mission is protecting the United States, securing our freedoms, advancing our interests. The commander in chief sets the directions, makes the big decisions and inspires us to carry out the mission. And in his person and character, he represents the men and women who serve, as well as the veterans. He is actually our chief recruiter, too. We are loyal, regardless of which party is in power or who is in the Oval Office. We can’t be bought. We believe in selfless service, telling truth to power, choosing the harder right over the easier wrong. We honor noble sacrifice.

For Trump, trouble began on several of these fronts before he was even in office. He dismissed the service and sacrifice of Sen. John McCain and, by implication, all those who had suffered as prisoners of war. “He’s not a war hero,” Trump said while campaigning in Iowa. “I like people who weren’t captured.” He engaged in a back-and-forth with Khizr and Ghazala Khan, Gold Star parents whose son, Army Capt. Humayun Khan, died in combat. After Khizr Khan pointed out in an emotional speech at the Democratic National Convention that Trump had “sacrificed nothing, and no one,” Trump suggested that “Hillary’s script writers” were responsible for the speech and said that Khan had “viciously attacked” him. And there were the references to what “his” generals would do and be. “I see my generals, generals that are going to keep us so safe,” he said on Inauguration Day.

Didn’t he understand that good leaders are big-hearted, that they don’t bully and quarrel with those they outrank? And doesn’t he respect that generals are loyal to the Constitution and chain of command -- you can’t “own” them?

In the first military operation of his tenure, which Trump personally authorized, Navy SEAL William “Ryan” Owens was killed. Trump seemed to slough off the blame onto his predecessor, and his own secretary of defense, retired Gen. Jim Mattis.

“Well, this was a mission that started before I got here,” the president said on “Fox & Friends,” referring to the Obama administration before turning on his own team: “They explained what they wanted to do, the generals,” he said. “My generals are the most respected that we’ve had in many decades,” he added, “and they lost Ryan.”

Good leaders accept responsibility, especially when things go wrong. Commanders in chief do that.

He apparently didn’t know how to console the widow of Sgt. La David Johnson, killed in an ambush in Niger, and ended up in a partisan spat with a congresswoman who had heard Trump tell Myeshia Johnson “something to the effect that ‘he knew what he was getting into when he signed up, but I guess it hurts anyway.’ ”

Commanders in chief don’t do that.

Posturing and electioneering were evident in the call for a parade in Washington, since canceled, and the rush to deploy active-duty forces to the border to stem “an invasion” from the south. We don’t want to be used that way.

The president hasn’t yet visited our men and women in a combat zone -- not Afghanistan, Iraq or even along the DMZ in Korea. And last week, when he failed to visit the U.S. cemetery at Belleau Wood in France, where so many Americans gave their lives -- it was raining, and a long drive from Paris -- the criticisms exploded. Did he not understand that the troops and veterans want the president to see them where they work, to share in their hardships a little, and appreciate their sacrifices and risks?

“I’ve had an unbelievable busy schedule, and I will be doing it,” Trump said in the Fox interview on Sunday. I was in the ops center with the 1st Infantry Division in Vietnam, when President Nixon braved the rocket zone north of Saigon to see the troops. Yes, even Nixon.

But if Trump struggles with his role’s rites and rituals, there are deeper issues with his command. His blustering and combative diplomacy on Korea, cozying up with a potential adversary who has consistently worked to undermine the United States, and his pattern of insulting friends and disrupting allies are all deeply unsettling to the middle-grade and senior officers who plan and execute U.S. policy. They need steady, consistent, reliable leadership. The bobbing and weaving may work in a small family office, but he is now leading one of the largest, most structured organizations in the world -- and certainly the most powerful. It needs a steady hand, not just at secretary of defense, but also at the very top.

What actually drives Trump’s policies and actions as commander in chief? On what basis does he make the decisions that could separate us from our families, and send us to war? By all reports he doesn’t like to read, doesn’t suffer long briefings, doesn’t want to study, doesn’t seem to want much of the experience of the generals closest to him.

We honor the chain of command, so we trust him with the most central issues of our time -- war, peace, the nuclear button. But Russia is still bullying, North Korea is still polishing up its nuclear force, China is strengthening its position in the South China Sea, and Iran and the Islamic State are still there in the Middle East, while our oldest allies are cringing and disheartened.

In his campaign, Trump promised that only he knew how to lead America. In the field of national security the jury is still out.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Lumber on November 19, 2018, 22:06:41
Just watched this fox news clip (I know, haha, I peruse foxnews.com), and I'm confused.

https://fxn.ws/2FtkzCP (https://fxn.ws/2FtkzCP)

I thought fox newsers were his friend? They sure didn't sound like his friend...
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Infanteer on November 19, 2018, 23:50:46
So let's hear from someone who served under eight different Commanders in Chief....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/19/i-served-under-commanders-chief-trump-doesnt-grasp-role/?utm_term=.b566d196764b (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/19/i-served-under-commanders-chief-trump-doesnt-grasp-role/?utm_term=.b566d196764b)

He's a Clinton backer...
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on November 20, 2018, 16:46:17
The President’s gatemen this on Saudi Arabia.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-donald-j-trump-standing-saudi-arabia/

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Dimsum on November 20, 2018, 18:10:17
The President’s gatemen this on Saudi Arabia.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-donald-j-trump-standing-saudi-arabia/

Does anyone else think those exclamation marks were unneeded?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Baden Guy on November 20, 2018, 19:00:24
He's a Clinton backer...

For those of us without a Washington Post subscription
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/nov/20/wesley-k-clark-i-served-under-8-commanders-in-chie/
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on November 21, 2018, 01:08:21
Does anyone else think those exclamation marks were unneeded?

What a fluff job.

Quote
The country of Iran, as an example, is responsible for a bloody proxy war against Saudi Arabia in Yemen, trying to destabilize Iraq’s fragile attempt at democracy, supporting the terror group Hezbollah in Lebanon, propping up dictator Bashar Assad in Syria (who has killed millions of his own citizens), and much more. Likewise, the Iranians have killed many Americans and other innocent people throughout the Middle East. Iran states openly, and with great force, “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!” Iran is considered “the world’s leading sponsor of terror.”

On top of the civilian deaths caused from direct military action I've been told there's an estimated 500'000 civilian deaths in Iraq stemming from the sanctions the US placed on them. They ought to stop with the "killing their own people" line.

As for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia I think they would give Iran a run for their money when it comes to leading sponsoring terrorism. The former US secretary of state (via released emails) admitted the US was aware KSA was giving money and weapons to ISIS.


Trump seems to have conveniently forgotten that in his attempts to paint KSA as a buddy.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on November 21, 2018, 05:06:59
Not sure where he’a Getting that Assad has killed “millions” of his own citizens... The death toll, by my understanding is well under a million. Awful in its own right, it just irks me that on this he feels the need to lie again when the truth already serves nicely.

“Fluff job” indeed. He’s attempting to decently clothe naked pragmatism. He at least did flash his hand honestly when he spoke of the trade relationship. However dubious his business practices have been, Trump still is or at least fancies himself a money guy. He may not grasp international trade as well as we would like him too, but he does understand the political value of capital inflow with a lot of zeroes on the end. He is not wrong about the pragmatism of wanting the Kingdom to buy American arms in lieu of Russian or Chinese- and we of course don’t have a leg to stand on on that one either. But when he tries to wrap this as the Saudis being the ‘good guys’, as opposed to a flawed but useful regional ally, that’s when his statement becomes cringe-worthy.

It is ‘him’ though. I read that and can hear it in his voice at a MAGA rally. He is nothing if not consistent in how he addresses his base as the target audience. Much of what he says would not stand up to informed challenges, but he is adept at executing and remaining committed to the bypass when it comes to that.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Retired AF Guy on November 21, 2018, 13:04:45
The statement that Saudi Arabia is willing to invest $450 billion dollars in the US apparently comes from a statement Prince Mohammad bin Salaman made when visiting President Trump back in March 2018. This is above board which the Saudis already invest in the US and as this report (https://qz.com/1426370/silicon-valley-is-awash-with-saudi-arabian-money-heres-what-theyre-investing-in/) shows, that a lot. However, there is a backlash arising from the murder of Jamal Khashoggi(e.g. Richard Branson (https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/13/17967954/virgin-galactic-richard-branson-saudi-arabia-jamal-khashoggi) has put on hold a $1 billion dollar investment the Saudis were going to make in his space exploration companies).

As for, the Saudis buying $110 billion dollars in US weapon systems, the reality is, depending on the source, its closer to $12-14 billion dollars. The $110 billion figure appears to be more of a wish list then anything.

As for, the Russians or Chinese stepping in, in the past both countries have sold, or tried to sell weapons to the Iranians. So, its unlikely the Saudis would allow either country into the Kingdom.  Finally, Russian/Chinese weapons would be incompatible with the weapon systems the Saudis already have which are mostly (all?) from Western countries (US, UK, France, Germany, Canada).
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on November 21, 2018, 15:32:32
It's interesting how we gauge our disgust when it comes to death and murder and our "allies"

Tens of thousands of deaths in a few years of the Saudi - Yemen war.  Many more, including a hell of a lot of children, estimated to have died or will die from malnutrition. But it's the murder of one man, albeit in a pre-meditated and grotesque way, that grabs our attention.

Maybe it's the old adage about one death being a tragedy and a million just a statistic (or words to that effect).

Trump and friends should just be candid. We don't care who Saudi Arabia murders because we're making a LOT of money off them.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on November 21, 2018, 18:29:32
On a slightly different bent, Trump's war with the judiciary continues. Earlier this week he criticized the Federal 9th Circuit (California) for another loss his administration suffered there:

Quote
"It's a disgrace when every case gets filed in the 9th Circuit," Trump said as part of a lengthy criticism of the court. "That's not law. Every case in the 9th Circuit we get beaten and then we end up having to go to the Supreme Court like the travel ban and we won. Every case, no matter where it is, they file is practically, for all intents and purposes, they file it in what's called the 9th Circuit. This was an Obama judge. I'll tell you what, it's not going to happen like this anymore."

In a very rare move the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court made this statement:

Quote
"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts said in a statement responding to comments Trump made earlier in the week criticizing the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. "What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

Trump, not surprisingly doubled down:

Quote
"Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have 'Obama judges,' and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country. It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an 'independent judiciary,' but if it is why......" Trump tweeted.

Several minutes later, he continued, ".....are so many opposing view (on Border and Safety) cases filed there, and why are a vast number of those cases overturned. Please study the numbers, they are shocking. We need protection and security - these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/21/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts-trump/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/21/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts-trump/index.html)

Even Fox News seems to be on Robert's side in this. See the video with James Trusty which can at this time be accessed from Fox's home page https://www.foxnews.com/ (https://www.foxnews.com/)

 :cheers:

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on November 21, 2018, 19:52:26
Or, you know, they go to the 9th because federal appeals from California or Arizona have to, as that’s the appellate court for those federal districts.  ::)

A president should at least be vaguely more conversant in the functioning of the courts system before he goes head to head with a Supreme Court justice. His ignorance on this matter is painful.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on November 22, 2018, 10:54:32
I guess the hue and cry about Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation was a wasted effort. The public protests and politicians hand wringing was just bluster. The suit against the new border policy was not filed by a state government, it was from the ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center and the Center for Constitutional Rights. They are not based in northern California but specifically chose to file the suit there. They know where to go to get the results they want.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on November 27, 2018, 13:18:18
A quick take from Forbes about GM closing plants, steel tariffs and what it might it might mean for Donald Trump.

 https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkiley5/2018/11/26/gm-cuts-jobs-and-plants-to-deal-with-changing-tastes-and-trump-tariffs/#12887f276057
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Journeyman on November 28, 2018, 10:26:39
A quick take from Forbes about GM closing plants, steel tariffs and what it might it might mean for Donald Trump.
Most reporting is missing this linkage.  Good call.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Colin P on November 29, 2018, 14:29:14
The article does not mention Mexico at all, GM operates 4 plants there, two built in 2008 according to wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_General_Motors_factories
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 29, 2018, 18:00:47
GM has been folding it's Canadian operation for years. When they closed the transmission and trim plant, we lost over 7,000 jobs in Windsor. We absorbed those losses and it hurt for awhile. However, the population, here, has moved on and GM is now just a faded memory. The impact from loss of employment has not been as devastating as the union predicted. In fact, you'd almost never know GM was even here. Things change, people adapt and move on. I look at it as one less corporate welfare client to service. Any employment losses, will be picked up in other sectors. People are resilient.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on November 29, 2018, 22:16:43
Updated,

Regarding the 2018 United States House of Representatives election,

Democrat votes:  58,590,379    60,085,483

Republican votes: 50,101,060   50,673,163

Source: The Cook Political Report
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WxDaxD5az6kdOjJncmGph37z0BPNhV1fNAH_g7IkpC0/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on November 29, 2018, 23:25:26
An interesting opinion piece published on Fox News of all places.  :o

Quote
Judith Miller: The latest Trump outrages (and why I'm upset)
By Judith Miller | Fox News

Americans should be appalled. In one 24-hour period this week, President Trump has set a new standard for outrageous, if not surprising, behavior.

First of all, we should be outraged, if not shocked, by the president’s muted response to Russia’s armed seizure of three Ukrainian ships in the disputed Sea of Azov days before Trump and his “best friend” – Russian President Vladimir Putin – were scheduled to meet Saturday on the sidelines of the G-20 summit meeting in Argentina.

It took a Russian act of war to pressure President Trump into canceling the latest planned assignation in his ongoing bromance with the Russian leader. For days after the seizure, Trump had been virtually silent about Putin’s obvious provocation.

Only shortly before leaving for Argentina on Thursday did Trump announce – by tweet – that the meeting with Putin was off. Before that, his strongest response to Moscow’s aggression was to say he was “not happy” with Russia’s conduct.

There was no condemnation of Russia’s belligerence, no demand that Putin immediately release the ships and sailors and permit free transit in a sea vital to Ukrainian trade, no call for more sanctions on Russia or on Putin’s oligarch pals, no rallying of America’s European allies for an urgent NATO meeting to defuse the crisis.

Even President Trump’s cancellation was hedged. “Based on the fact that the ships and sailors have not been returned to Ukraine from Russia,” he tweeted, “I have decided it would be best for all parties concerned” not to meet with Putin in Argentina.

But consistent with his habit of kowtowing to Putin, Trump could not stop himself from adding that he would “look forward to a meaningful Summit again as soon as this situation is resolved!”

Closer to home, Americans should be outraged by the White House’s indifference to the decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs not to repay veterans who got smaller GI Bill benefit payments than what they were owed due to computer glitches and other accounting problems.

According to a report in The Hill newspaper, VA officials told congressional staffers Wednesday they could not reimburse veterans without auditing past claims, which would delay future claims. This latest outrage has occurred weeks after the department reported that unspecified computer problems would delay GI Bill housing payments to hundreds of thousands of veterans.

Remember how Republicans mocked the computer glitches that accompanied ObamaCare’s roll-out? Where is their outrage now?

President Trump never tires of telling us how much he supports our men and women in uniform, even when he began the deployment of 5,900 active-duty U.S. troops and 2,100 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border shortly before the Nov. 6 midterm elections. The troops spent Thanksgiving away from their families, and news reports say the deployment is expected to continue past the Christmas and New Year holidays into January.

The military forces were ostensibly sent to the border to protect the U.S. against caravans of unarmed Central Americans – including thousands of women and children – seeking asylum or other entry into America.

But apparently, the president’s concern about the fate of veterans of our armed forces does not extend to ensuring that his own Department of Veterans Affairs will pay veterans what they are owned for housing and health care. The gap between “promises made and promises kept” when it comes to veterans is as broad and deep as the Mississippi. But where are President Trump’s tweeted howls of outrage on their behalf?

The president has reserved his angry outbursts for his almost daily assaults on Twitter and in comments to reporters against Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

And President Trump has dangled the possibility of a pardon before his corrupt, hapless and imprisoned former presidential campaign chairman, Paul Manafort. Manafort pleaded guilty in September to two federal conspiracy charges and agreed to cooperate with Mueller. However, on Monday Mueller accused Manafort of violating his plea by lying to federal investigators.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., prevented legislation to protect the Mueller inquiry from even coming to the Senate floor this week by saying that such a measure was unnecessary because President Trump would never fire Mueller.

So the effort to impede a fair and thorough investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to get candidate Trump elected now includes the most senior elected officials.

Trump’s relentless attacks on the Mueller probe as a “witch hunt” are outrageous enough. But obstructing justice by hinting that he might pardon Manafort if his former campaign chairman’s behavior pleases the president should infuriate anyone who cares about the rule of law. It was recently revealed that Manafort’s lawyers have been feeding the president’s lawyers information about Manafort’s dealings with Mueller’s team, in violation of his own agreement with the special counsel.

But shouts of outrage from Republicans, or from the president’s stalwart base, are rarely heard. Thanks to Trump’s steady drumroll of tweeted threats, his repeated lies, misstatements, and exaggerated claims, many Americans have lost their capacity for outrage. That, too, should frighten us all.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/the-latest-trump-outrages-and-why-im-upset (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/the-latest-trump-outrages-and-why-im-upset)

 :subbies:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 30, 2018, 00:08:52
That would be this Judith Miller?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-reporters-defense-of-her-flawed-reporting/2015/04/09/5bf93f14-de15-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e9d28a8b7339
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Infanteer on November 30, 2018, 12:14:41
Mod edit.

The milpoint whining has been deleted as it isn't adding anything to the thread.  If you want to complain to each other about your -87 points, do it over PM.

Quite frankly, this is petty and irritating to moderate, and we're now reviewing milpoints because of stuff like this.  We all know the saying "this is why we can't have nice things...."

The Staff.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on November 30, 2018, 13:53:05
That would be this Judith Miller?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-reporters-defense-of-her-flawed-reporting/2015/04/09/5bf93f14-de15-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e9d28a8b7339

This definitely shows that Ms. Miller has a somewhat of a credibility issue but I'd be curious to know about more of her op eds since then to see if it is consistent.

She makes some good points though.  And I will echo FJAG's thoughts on it is that FOX News editorial and opinion types seem to be very entrenched in their views and support for the president so this is indeed interesting coming from that side of the debate spectrum.   

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on November 30, 2018, 14:04:22
This definitely shows that Ms. Miller has a somewhat of a credibility issue but I'd be curious to know about more of her op eds since then to see if it is consistent.

She makes some good points though.  And I will echo FJAG's thoughts on it is that FOX News editorial and opinion types seem to be very entrenched in their views and support for the president so this is indeed interesting coming from that side of the debate spectrum.   

Yup, it’s totally fair to scrutinize someone’s published work if they have evidenced a credibility problem. However the post FJAG shared is neither long nor complicated, and the three issues she raises in it as the three latest ‘outrages’ are all valid on their face. So dismissing the post based purely on the author of the editorial is, as I said, merely as hominem.

FJAG aid correct to note the additional interesting element that it is Fox of all outlets that published this particular piece. They are, shall we say... exceptionally lenient in their treatment of the Trump presidency thus far. To see an opinion piece as strongly worded as that on that outlet is interesting. All the more so in that she’s speaking to three issues that typically carry some significance with conservatives; the Russians as a competing foreign power; veterans,; and political corruption.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on November 30, 2018, 15:24:55
I thought the historic outcome of a midterm election was for the party holding the White House to lose at least the House Of Representatives. Is it different now?

For historic perspective, the prior record held by Republicans in 2010 was slightly above 44.5 million, according to the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives.

In 2018, the Democrats surpassed 60 million House votes.



Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on November 30, 2018, 15:52:22
For historic perspective, the prior record held by Republicans in 2010 was slightly above 44.5 million, according to the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives.

In 2018, the Democrats surpassed 60 million House votes.

Did you take into account the increase in population?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on November 30, 2018, 15:54:13
Did you take into account the increase in population?

309 million in 2010, 325m in 2017, FWIW. Rounded down to the nearest million.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: kkwd on November 30, 2018, 16:13:09
309 million in 2010, 325m in 2017, FWIW. Rounded down to the nearest million.

I won't be commenting on this particular subject from now on. It is neither interesting nor relevant.

2010 Voting-Eligible Population (VEP)
217,551,109

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xH_qRlVmK5JMZWxOJS_PPp0_6w6vMcTaZcjfSfIXJ-4/edit#gid=1424011440 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xH_qRlVmK5JMZWxOJS_PPp0_6w6vMcTaZcjfSfIXJ-4/edit#gid=1424011440)

2018 Voting-Eligible Population (VEP)
235,714,420

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tal3fAaKnEj_7Yy_7ftrNg4dJy4UxGk3oKSd3uPb13Y/edit#gid=2030096602 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tal3fAaKnEj_7Yy_7ftrNg4dJy4UxGk3oKSd3uPb13Y/edit#gid=2030096602)

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on November 30, 2018, 16:28:47
I won't be commenting on this particular subject from now on. It is neither interesting nor relevant.

2010 Voting-Eligible Population (VEP)
217,551,109

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xH_qRlVmK5JMZWxOJS_PPp0_6w6vMcTaZcjfSfIXJ-4/edit#gid=1424011440 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xH_qRlVmK5JMZWxOJS_PPp0_6w6vMcTaZcjfSfIXJ-4/edit#gid=1424011440)

2018 Voting-Eligible Population (VEP)
235,714,420

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tal3fAaKnEj_7Yy_7ftrNg4dJy4UxGk3oKSd3uPb13Y/edit#gid=2030096602 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tal3fAaKnEj_7Yy_7ftrNg4dJy4UxGk3oKSd3uPb13Y/edit#gid=2030096602)

I was going to post that VEP is a better indication.  But based on those numbers, this was an historic win voter wise for the democrats numbers wise.  But its a mid term.  Mind you a mid term with a polarising President.   
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on November 30, 2018, 16:49:30
But based on those numbers, this was an historic win voter wise for the democrats numbers wise. 

For reference to the discussion,

QUOTE

29 Nov 2018

The winning party's margin in votes the past 4 times the House has flipped:

1994: Republicans +6.8%
2006: Democrats + 8.0%
2010: Republicans +6.6%
2018: Democrats +8.4% and counting
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1068272303098798080

END QUOTE
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on November 30, 2018, 17:18:52
I won't be commenting on this particular subject from now on. It is neither interesting nor relevant.

2010 Voting-Eligible Population (VEP)
217,551,109

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xH_qRlVmK5JMZWxOJS_PPp0_6w6vMcTaZcjfSfIXJ-4/edit#gid=1424011440 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xH_qRlVmK5JMZWxOJS_PPp0_6w6vMcTaZcjfSfIXJ-4/edit#gid=1424011440)

2018 Voting-Eligible Population (VEP)
235,714,420

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tal3fAaKnEj_7Yy_7ftrNg4dJy4UxGk3oKSd3uPb13Y/edit#gid=2030096602 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tal3fAaKnEj_7Yy_7ftrNg4dJy4UxGk3oKSd3uPb13Y/edit#gid=2030096602)

It seemed it was interesting and relevant enough for you to bring it up in the first place? And still interesting enough that once you got a reply you insisted on assuring us that you found it uninteresting and irrelevant? Doesn’t compute.  :whistle:

Anyway- Democrats decisively won the midterm, and by something on the order of 33% more popular votes that the Republicans have previously mustered for the House. Even accounting for population growth, they clearly were able to mobilize considerable interest in a midterm election where historically voter turnout tends to lag. They did something right.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Thucydides on November 30, 2018, 20:23:24
Just curious as to why people are talking about the overall "popular vote", when it is irrelevant. The vote is calculated by individual district (just as our votes are calculated by riding). We see ourselves how you can have a majority government or not with 38% of the popular vote, it all comes down to how votes are distributed amongst the ridings.

This is much like the efforts to circumvent the constitution by denying the Electoral College vote.

American commentators need to actually write about the American governmental and electoral system with a real sense of understanding.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on November 30, 2018, 20:42:03
Just curious as to why people are talking about the overall "popular vote", when it is irrelevant. The vote is calculated by individual district (just as our votes are calculated by riding). We see ourselves how you can have a majority government or not with 38% of the popular vote, it all comes down to how votes are distributed amongst the ridings.

This is much like the efforts to circumvent the constitution by denying the Electoral College vote.

American commentators need to actually write about the American governmental and electoral system with a real sense of understanding.

In my case, purely out of interest. It’s still a valuable gauge of political sentiment, particularly given the rather horrendous gerrymandering many districts have been subjected to. While popular vote does not directly turn into seats controlled, it offers some insight into fundraising, voter turnout, and hence electoral prospects, which in turn are basically blood and oxygen to representatives. It’s less interesting as point data, but more interesting when compared longitudinally. Fair to say?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Loachman on November 30, 2018, 23:52:34
I've culled through several articles in which the recent US elections have been analyzed, and pulled the following snippets from three of them.

In short, the Republicans did fairly well overall, and much better than Obama did at the same point, and President Trump stands an excellent chance of re-election two years hence.

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/244661/providing-context-midterm-election-results.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=SIDEBOTTOM&g_campaign=item_242093&g_content=Providing%2520Context%2520for%2520the%2520Midterm%2520Election%2520Results

Perhaps most critically, the 34% who specifically said they were voting to oppose Trump was consistent with anti-presidential fervor in 2014 and 2010, when Obama's party lost seats.

More than six in 10 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters (62%) said they were sending a message of opposition to Trump, similar to the proportion of Republican and Republican-leaning voters who were doing the same against Obama in 2014 and 2010 (58% each).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-the-midterms-were-a-referendum-trump-won/2018/11/09/a39cc5fe-e44f-11e8-ab2c-b31dcd53ca6b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.13421cc18d12

After flipping dozens of seats in the midterm elections, Democrats are set to take control of the House of Representatives. Many pundits and analysts have attempted to frame the results as a referendum on President Trump. Among these, there seems to be a consensus that the president has somehow been "repudiated."

It was expected that the Republicans would lose a significant number of seats, irrespective of public opinions about Trump. Republicans had many more difficult House seats to defend than Democrats overall. There were twice as many Republican incumbents defending House seats in states Hillary Clinton won in 2016 than there were Democrats defending seats in states Trump won.

Republicans also had more than twice as many "open" House seats to hold on to as their Democratic rivals had: 36 Republican representatives chose not to stand for reelection this year because they were retiring or seeking another office. Seven others either resigned or otherwise left office before the election. As a result, Republicans had 43 House seats to defend without the benefit of a true incumbent candidate. On top of this, Republicans had three "open" Senate seats, and one more with a pseudo-incumbent (interim Mississippi Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith took office in April).

Yet Democrats managed to win surprisingly few of these "open" contests. In the vast majority of cases, a new Republican was elected instead, and they tended to be even closer to Trump than their predecessors. So Trump actually cemented his hold over the Republican Party: Most of his staunchest Republican critics have either stepped down, been removed through a primary challenge or otherwise failed to win reelection. On top of this, many of the Senate Democrats who voted against Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh from the states that Trump won in 2016 were voted out of office and replaced by Republicans.

Historically speaking, Democrats delivered a thoroughly average result in their first round as Trump's opposition. Going all the way back to the Civil War, there were only two instances when a new party seized the presidency but didn’t lose seats in the House during their first midterm elections: Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1934 (during the Great Depression), and President George W. Bush in 2002 (in the shadow of the 9/11 terrorist attacks). Even including these outliers, the average attrition during a party's inaugural midterms is 35 House seats; excluding these two exceptions, the average loss is 41. Regardless of which number we run with, Trump could end up performing better than average in preserving his party’s influence in the House. He performed much better than his last two Democratic predecessors: Bill Clinton lost control of both chambers in the 1994 midterm elections. Barack Obama saw historic losses in the House in 2010, and lost seats in the Senate as well - the most sweeping congressional reversal in 62 years. (Sixty-three House seats, and nine Senate seats, although a couple of sources had a different number of Senate seats lost - Loachman)

Yet, not only did Trump suffer far less attrition than Obama or Clinton in the House, his party will gain in the Senate. This may not be surprising given the slanted map against Democrats. It is also somewhat typical overall: Between 1862 and 2014, the president's party picked up seats in the Senate during their first midterms 56 percent of the time, lost seats 37 percent of the time and broke even once. In other words, there did not seem to be a thorough rebuke of Trump. In fact, there was little exceptional in the results at all, beyond the fact that they were so very normal. 

This reality should make Democrats deeply anxious because, as I've demonstrated elsewhere, if the 2020 presidential election similarly conforms to historical tendencies, the odds are roughly 8 to 1 that Trump wins reelection.

Indeed, the president's inaugural midterm results are eerily similar to those of another entertainment-star turned political game-changer: Ronald Reagan. In 1982, his party lost 26 seats in the House - but picked up one seat in the Senate. He, too, faced a split Congress. His approval rating going into those midterms was also in the low 40s. He went on to win reelection by a landslide in 1984.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-approval-rating/

Despite the overwhelmingly negative coverage of his administration, President Donald Trump's approval rating is as high or higher than half of the previous six presidents at this point in their first terms.

(But) according to the Gallup Poll, Trump's approval rating as of his 632nd day in office was 44%.

Is that good or bad? That depends on the context. Trump has never polled well. Gallup had his approval rating at 45% the day he took office.

The mainstream press focused intensely on Trump's initial rating, which was well below those of any president since Gallup first started tracking this in 1945.

Even Gerald Ford's approval rating 90 weeks into his accidental presidency was 71%.

But the press lost interest in such comparisons as time went by.

Perhaps one reason is that, by this point in their first terms, approval ratings for most presidents had declined. Sometimes sharply.

As a matter of fact, Trump's approval rating is now higher than, or tied with, three of the past six presidents at this point in their first terms.

He's currently tied with Obama (at 44%), and above both Clinton (41%) and Reagan (42%).

Obama's approval rating on day one was 67%, but steadily declined as his economic policies failed to re-energize the economy, despite the massive stimulus, while he forced through the highly unpopular Obamacare.

Clinton's eroded after he broke his promise on tax hikes.

At this point in Reagan's first term, the economy was in a painful recession, and unemployment was above 10%.

Needless to say, each went on to win re-election handily.

But look at who scored higher than Trump: George W. Bush (67%), George H.W. Bush (56%), and Jimmy Carter (49%). W. was coming off his sky-high approval rating in the wake of 9/11, which peaked at 90%. He ended his second term at 34% approval. George H.W. had just started building up troops in preparation for liberating Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm. Carter had recently signed the Camp David Accords.

What does all this mean?

First, it means that anyone who thinks Trump's low approval ratings today are a problem for his re-election prospects is mistaken. There's no correlation. Three presidents with ratings as low or lower than Trump's served two terms. Two with much higher approval ratings at this point ended up as one-term losers.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on December 01, 2018, 13:17:03
It’s still a valuable gauge of political sentiment, particularly given the rather   horrendous gerrymandering many districts have been subjected to.  

For anyone unfamiliar with how Gerrymandering works,

QUOTE

"Cracking" (i.e. diluting the voting power of the opposing party's supporters across many districts) and "packing" (concentrating the opposing party's voting power in one district to reduce their voting power in other districts).

In addition to its use achieving desired electoral results for a particular party, gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder a particular demographic, such as a political, ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, or class group, such as in U.S. federal voting district boundaries that produce a majority of constituents representative of African-American or other racial minorities, known as "majority-minority districts". Gerrymandering can also be used to protect incumbents.
http://www.redistrictinggame.org/learnaboutmission2.php

Manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.

•achieve (a result) by manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency.

END QUOTE






Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on December 01, 2018, 13:49:36
For anyone unfamiliar with how Gerrymandering works,

Wikipedia has a good article on the whole thing as well here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering)

In fairness one or another of the various processes have been used from time to time by both parties since the term was first coined in Boston in 1812.

 :subbies:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: mariomike on December 02, 2018, 09:09:35
Wikipedia has a good article on the whole thing as well here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering)

REDMAP has been described as, "Gerrymandering on steroids".  :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP

QUOTE

REDMAP (short for Redistricting Majority Project) is a project of the Republican State Leadership Committee of the United States to increase Republican control of Congressional seats as well as state legislators, largely through determination of electoral district boundaries. The project has reportedly made effective use of partisan gerrymandering, by relying on previously unavailable mapping software such as Maptitude to improve the precision with which district lines are strategically drawn.

The strategy was focused on swing blue states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin where there was a Democratic majority but which they could swing towards Republican with appropriate redistricting. The project was launched in 2010 and estimated to have cost the Republican party around US$30 million.

END QUOTE
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on December 05, 2018, 21:12:49
The Democrats have a new tool for stealing elections called ballot harvesting which was used to flip 6 California House seats. It is illegal in most States but it was enacted recently.Of course the Republicans in California could use the tactic as well. I remember when Cali and most of the west were red.Youtube of the entrance by the Trumps and how the Clintons snubbed him at least the Obama's were polite.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-trump-shakes-hands-with-obamas-doesnt-greet-clintons-at-bush-funeral/
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on December 05, 2018, 23:32:45
The Democrats have a new tool for stealing elections called ballot harvesting which was used to flip 6 California House seats. It is illegal in most States but it was enacted recently.Of course the Republicans in California could use the tactic as well. I remember when Cali and most of the west were red.Youtube of the entrance by the Trumps and how the Clintons snubbed him at least the Obama's were polite.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-trump-shakes-hands-with-obamas-doesnt-greet-clintons-at-bush-funeral/

You’re referring to third party collection of absentee ballots for deposit at a polling place, which as you note is legal in California. So you claim that this is used to “steal” elections despite saying it’s legal in the state where six seats flipped. So how does that figure? Sounds like one party has clued into a technique for voter mobilization that was underutilized by the other party, and it may have contributed to victory in that state. That cannot be called “stealing” an election if what was done was expressly legal. Can you clarify?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on December 05, 2018, 23:58:32
Unlike California where ballot harvesting is legal, in North Carolina (where it is illegal) it was done by the Republicans who are now in a dust-up over the election for a Republican house of representatives candidate whose campaign people did it under allegedly suspicious circumstances.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alleged-ballot-harvesting-in-north-carolina-house-race-may-wipe-out-gop-win (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alleged-ballot-harvesting-in-north-carolina-house-race-may-wipe-out-gop-win)

 :subbies:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Brihard on December 06, 2018, 00:10:57
Unlike California where ballot harvesting is legal, in North Carolina (where it is illegal) it was done by the Republicans who are now in a dust-up over the election for a Republican house of representatives candidate whose campaign people did it under allegedly suspicious circumstances.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alleged-ballot-harvesting-in-north-carolina-house-race-may-wipe-out-gop-win (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alleged-ballot-harvesting-in-north-carolina-house-race-may-wipe-out-gop-win)

 :subbies:

Whoops. How awkward is it going to be if it turns out that in fact the Republicans literally used it to ‘steal’ an election?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Journeyman on December 06, 2018, 10:13:26
How awkward is it going to be....
Not remotely. 

Such awkwardness would require an acceptance of culpability, an admission that facts are both real and important, and an understanding that moral judgements of acceptable and inacceptable behaviour have to be applied equally.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on December 06, 2018, 10:48:23
There is no resolving issues like this between you folks, since you all view things from radically different perspectives on the very same facts, not unlike in the following clip. Hang on! It comes at the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B0dqvXyx84
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on December 06, 2018, 17:22:26
There is no resolving issues like this between you folks, since you all view things from radically different perspectives on the very same facts, not unlike in the following clip. Hang on! It comes at the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B0dqvXyx84

If only this dichotomy was as funny as that clip.  ;D

 :subbies:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: E.R. Campbell on December 06, 2018, 21:10:10
There's an excellent piece in theFinancial Times (https://www.ft.com/content/340c8cc4-f903-11e8-af46-2022a0b02a6c) about the dissonance that runs through the administration. The author, Edward Luce, says "A pig is still a pig no matter how much lipstick you apply. The same goes for the law of the jungle with a diplomatic philosophy smeared on ... [and] ... Mike Pompeo, the US secretary of state, is the latest of President Donald Trump’s officials to try."

Mr Pompeo gave a speech in Brussels in which he said, basically, Russia and China are the biggest threats to the established, liber, world order and the best way to fight them is to dismantle the tools ~ like the WTO ~ that make it hard for them to tear down that world order. In Mr Luce's words: "There would be little point in Mr Pompeo — or Mr Trump — making the nationalist case in Moscow, Beijing or Pyongyang, for example. Their rulers already agree wholeheartedly. These are the countries that pose the biggest threats to the global order, according to Mr Pompeo. The best way to confront such adversaries is to abandon multilateralism, he said."

"Mr Pompeo did the world a favour this week," Mr Luce writes, "he crystallised the dissonance that runs through the Trump administration. Mr Trump’s aim is to contain China’s global rise. He also wants to remove the tools with which to blunt China’s rise. He offers with one hand what he removes with the other."

President Trump seems, to me more naturally aligned with Kim, Putin and Xi than he is with e.g. Marcon, May and Merkel et al. His blind pursuit of what he thinks America's very short term self interest might be it seems, to me, to blind him to the fact that Putin is either an adventurous opportunist or an opportunistic adventurer, take your pick, who is searching, like Trump, for short term gains whenever an opportunity presents itself while Xi is a long term, strategic thinker with a plan for equaling America in wealth and power by 2050 and displacing it as the world's dominant power by the end of this century. Donald Trump seems, to me, to be thinking about the next quarter's results, not the middle of the century. 



 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: tomahawk6 on December 06, 2018, 21:32:23
I disagree.No doubt that China is viewed as a threat one reason Trump wants to stop the theft of intellectual property. I think that's how China has reversed engineered military equipment based on western designs. They have poured money into their Navy and Air Force making them a real threat in the Pacific. Right now the competition is peaceful but its a question of time before that changes but I guess that would depend on who is in the White House. The historical counter to Chinese power has been Japan. A strong Japan makes a great ally for the US. A strong PI would also help counter China,but I think that will require change in Manila.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on December 08, 2018, 19:44:15
Quote
Trump says John Kelly will be leaving at the end of the year

President Trump on Saturday said that White House Chief of Staff John Kelly will leave his position at the end of the year -- after swirling rumors that Kelly's 17 month-long tenure in the Trump administration was nearing its end.

Trump spoke to reporters outside the White House, called Kelly a "great guy" and said his replacement will be announced in the next few days.


"John Kelly will be leaving at the end of the year, we will be announcing who will be taking John's place, it might be on an interim basis, I'll be announcing that over the next day or two," he said.

"I appreciate his service very much," he added.

. . .

See rest of article here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-john-kelly-to-leave (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-john-kelly-to-leave)

 :subbies:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Journeyman on December 09, 2018, 10:02:11
.... I think that will require change in Manila.
In what way?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on December 20, 2018, 10:32:32

So Donald Trump wants to withdraw all troops from Syria.

Fox news op ed piece on why that is a bad idea.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/in-syria-trump-must-avoid-following-the-obama-model-why-pull-defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory

Other sources are also stating that the decision raises eyebrows in regards to his relationship with Russia, which happens to praise the decision.

 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Journeyman on December 20, 2018, 10:41:36
Trump: "We have defeated ISIS in Syria"  [National Post (https://nationalpost.com/news/world/we-have-defeated-isis-trump-has-ordered-full-withdrawal-of-u-s-troops-from-syria-official-says)]

Syrian Observatory: "Islamic State Kills 700 Prisoners In East Syria" [Counter Extremism Project (https://www.counterextremism.com/news-and-media/eye-on-extremism)]


 I guess ISIS wasn't on the memo's distribution list.   :not-again:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Dimsum on December 20, 2018, 14:16:40
Wonder if they kept this then?   :whistle:

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on December 20, 2018, 16:06:35
So apparently Trump passed some kind of gun control?

Lots of talk about more gun control being passed in the 2 years of Trump in the hot seat than in the 8 years Obama was in.

Half of Trump's supporters are probably saying whoa wait a minute wtf while the  other half are playing down whatever was passed.

Meanwhile the left is probably too busy looking for songs and statues to be outraged about to notice. But when they do, think they'll have a hard time coming to terms with Trump doing something they've been asking for?  Gonna be lots of confusion there.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Target Up on December 20, 2018, 16:10:34
Trump: "We have defeated ISIS in Syria"  [National Post (https://nationalpost.com/news/world/we-have-defeated-isis-trump-has-ordered-full-withdrawal-of-u-s-troops-from-syria-official-says)]

Syrian Observatory: "Islamic State Kills 700 Prisoners In East Syria" [Counter Extremism Project (https://www.counterextremism.com/news-and-media/eye-on-extremism)]


 I guess ISIS wasn't on the memo's distribution list.   :not-again:

To be fair, claiming victory and leaving is a pretty well established presidential tactic, is it not?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on December 20, 2018, 16:25:07
So apparently Trump passed some kind of gun control?

Lots of talk about more gun control being passed in the 2 years of Trump in the hot seat than in the 8 years Obama was in.

Half of Trump's supporters are probably saying whoa wait a minute wtf while the  other half are playing down whatever was passed.

Meanwhile the left is probably too busy looking for songs and statues to be outraged about to notice. But when they do, think they'll have a hard time coming to terms with Trump doing something they've been asking for?  Gonna be lots of confusion there.

It is just bump stocks.  From the WAPO (and hence probably incorrect given that they are Fake News)  ::)

Quote
The Justice Department issued a regulation Tuesday banning bump-fire stocks, devices that can essentially transform semiautomatic weapons, such as an AR-15, into automatic rifles that fire at a rate of between 400 and 800 rounds per minute. These devices can inflict absolute carnage, as they did in October 2017, when a gunman killed 58 people at a concert in Las Vegas.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Dimsum on December 20, 2018, 16:27:25
So apparently Trump passed some kind of gun control?

Lots of talk about more gun control being passed in the 2 years of Trump in the hot seat than in the 8 years Obama was in.

Half of Trump's supporters are probably saying whoa wait a minute wtf while the  other half are playing down whatever was passed.

Meanwhile the left is probably too busy looking for songs and statues to be outraged about to notice. But when they do, think they'll have a hard time coming to terms with Trump doing something they've been asking for?  Gonna be lots of confusion there.

What PPCLI Guy said.  From Reddit and other social media, the comments are hilarious - does 2A apply to parts of arms as well?   :whistle:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: FJAG on December 20, 2018, 20:08:39
Quote
U.S. defence secretary announces resignation one day after Trump announces withdrawal of troops from Syria

President needs minister whose views are 'are better aligned with yours,' Mattis says

U.S. Defence Secretary James Mattis, a stabilizing force in President Donald Trump's cabinet, abruptly announced his resignation on Thursday and said Trump should pick a successor whose views align more with his own.

Mattis resigned one day after Trump announced that U.S. troops in Syria would be withdrawn, a decision that upended American policy in the region, and on the same day that officials said the president was considering a substantial U.S. pullout from the long-running conflict in Afghanistan.

"Because you have a right to a secretary of defence whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position," Mattis said in his resignation letter, released by the Pentagon.

. . .

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-mattis-leaving-1.4955095 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-mattis-leaving-1.4955095)

So. Who had 24 hours in the pool for how long it would take Mattis to resign?

Edited to add his resignation letter:

Quote
Dear Mr. President:

I have been privileged to serve as our country's 26th Secretary of Defense which has allowed me to serve alongside our men and women of the Department in defense of our citizens and our ideals.

I am proud of the progress that has been made over the past two years on some of the key goals articulated in our National Defense Strategy: putting the Department on a more sound budgetary footing, improving readiness and lethality in our forces, and reforming the Department's business practices for greater performance. Our troops continue to provide the capabilities needed to prevail in conflict and sustain strong U.S. global influence.

One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies. Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world. Instead, we must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances. NATO's 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside us following the 9-11 attack on America. The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof.

Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model - gaining veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic, and security decisions - to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense.

My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues. We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances.

Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position. The end date for my tenure is February 28, 2019, a date that should allow sufficient time for a successor to be nominated and confirmed as well as to make sure the Department's interests are properly articulated and protected at upcoming events to include Congressional posture hearings and the NATO Defense Ministerial meeting in February. Further, that a full transition to a new Secretary of Defense occurs well in advance of the transition of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September in order to ensure stability Within the Department.

I pledge my full effort to a smooth transition that ensures the needs and interests of the 2.15 million Service Members and 732,079 DoD civilians receive undistracted attention of the Department at all times so that they can fulfill their critical, round-the-clock mission to protect the American people.

I very much appreciate this opportunity to serve the nation and our men and women in uniform.

 :subbies:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on December 20, 2018, 22:12:39
What a mess.

If anyone thought the US is abdicating it’s role as leader of the free world this certainly confirms it.

How is anyone ever going to get on board with the US ever again for anything.  Kurds, coalition allies etc etc. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: milnews.ca on December 20, 2018, 22:30:45
Trump: "We have defeated ISIS in Syria"  [National Post (https://nationalpost.com/news/world/we-have-defeated-isis-trump-has-ordered-full-withdrawal-of-u-s-troops-from-syria-official-says)]
Trump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1075726666574544896) (continued):  "Russia, Iran, Syria & many others are not happy about the U.S. leaving, despite what the Fake News says, because now they will have to fight ISIS and others, who they hate, without us."
To be fair, claiming victory and leaving is a pretty well established presidential tactic, is it not?
:nod:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on December 21, 2018, 08:03:44
What a mess.

If anyone thought the US is abdicating it’s role as leader of the free world this certainly confirms it.

How is anyone ever going to get on board with the US ever again for anything.  Kurds, coalition allies etc etc.

I was thinking the same thing.

Isn't this what so many people wanted? American and other? 
The US to stop acting like the world police. Looks like they're getting what they asked for.

The US has Afghanistan fatigue, Iraq fatigue, let's say Middle East fatigue. It appears like the US is pulling back from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc.   Good?
Will this be another instance of hyprocracy and the same people calling for no US world peace will now lament about leaving our allies behind and ISIS exploding again? ISIS-K is already picking up speed.


Leaving allies behind. Yup. South Vietnamese and northern Iraq kurds come to mind. I don't agree or support that but it's not like there isn't a pattern already so no one should be surprised.




Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on December 21, 2018, 09:04:03
I was thinking the same thing.

Isn't this what so many people wanted? American and other? 
The US to stop acting like the world police. Looks like they're getting what they asked for.

The US has Afghanistan fatigue, Iraq fatigue, let's say Middle East fatigue. It appears like the US is pulling back from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc.   Good?
Will this be another instance of hyprocracy and the same people calling for no US world peace will now lament about leaving our allies behind and ISIS exploding again? ISIS-K is already picking up speed.


Leaving allies behind. Yup. South Vietnamese and northern Iraq kurds come to mind. I don't agree or support that but it's not like there isn't a pattern already so no one should be surprised.

I think though, it is the way it was done.  No consultation, no warning no discussion.  It is no wonder Mattis resigned. 

All the adults in the room have left.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on December 21, 2018, 09:11:56
I was thinking the same thing.

Isn't this what so many people wanted? American and other? 
The US to stop acting like the world police. Looks like they're getting what they asked for.

The US has Afghanistan fatigue, Iraq fatigue, let's say Middle East fatigue. It appears like the US is pulling back from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc.   Good?
Will this be another instance of hyprocracy and the same people calling for no US world peace will now lament about leaving our allies behind and ISIS exploding again? ISIS-K is already picking up speed.


Leaving allies behind. Yup. South Vietnamese and northern Iraq kurds come to mind. I don't agree or support that but it's not like there isn't a pattern already so no one should be surprised.

As long as the Americans are ready for the associated loss of prestige and influence that comes with it.

None of the US actions of the past 70 years were fully out of the goods of their hearts. Calculations on the effect on their prestige and subsequent influence were always key. As Mattis himself said, if you're going to defund the state department you better buy more bullets.

Abandoning the Kurds and US allies there will be a huge hit on US prestige in the region.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Colin P on December 21, 2018, 13:32:29
What PPCLI Guy said.  From Reddit and other social media, the comments are hilarious - does 2A apply to parts of arms as well?   :whistle:
There is already a legal action against the move. The thing is that if you allow them narrow the regs, then it's sets a precedent for new regs. It's a bit like taking a loaf of bread one slice at a time. The gun control crowd intends to take the whole loaf at some point. The 2A's believe what the gun control types say so fight the taking of even a crumb, because each victory for the other side makes them hungry for more.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: boot12 on December 21, 2018, 14:28:52
Multiple sources familiar with the event claiming that Trump's decision re: Syria came out of an off-the-cuff agreement during a phone call with Erdogan, against the advice of all of his advisors:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-21/urgent-trump-call-with-turkish-leader-led-to-us-pullout-from-syria?utm_source=twitter&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_medium=social&cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-21/urgent-trump-call-with-turkish-leader-led-to-us-pullout-from-syria?utm_source=twitter&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_medium=social&cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business)

Quote
Trump Made Syria Decision Without National Security Team, Allies, Officials Say

Washington (AP) -- President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw American troops from Syria was made hastily, without consulting his national security team or allies, and over strong objections from virtually everyone involved in the fight against the Islamic State group, according to U.S. and Turkish officials.

Trump stunned his Cabinet, lawmakers and much of the world with the move by rejecting the advice of his top aides and agreeing to a withdrawal in a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan last week, two U.S. officials and a Turkish official briefed on the matter told The Associated Press.

The Dec. 14 call, described by officials who were not authorized to discuss the decision-making process publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity, provides insight into a consequential Trump decision that prompted the resignation of widely respected Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. It also set off a frantic, four-day scramble to convince the president either to reverse or delay the decision.

...

The Dec. 14 call came a day after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his Turkish counterpart Mevlut Cavusoglu agreed to have the two presidents discuss Erdogan's threats to launch a military operation against U.S.-backed Kurdish rebels in northeast Syria, where American forces are based. The NSC then set up the call.

Pompeo, Mattis and other members of the national security team prepared a list of talking points for Trump to tell Erdogan to back off, the officials said.

But the officials said Trump, who had previously accepted such advice and convinced the Turkish leader not to attack the Kurds and put U.S. troops at risk, ignored the script. Instead, the president sided with Erdogan.

In the following days, Trump remained unmoved by those scrambling to convince him to reverse or at least delay the decision to give the military and Kurdish forces time to prepare for an orderly withdrawal.

"The talking points were very firm," said one of the officials, explaining that Trump was advised to clearly oppose a Turkish incursion into northern Syria and suggest the U.S. and Turkey work together to address security concerns. "Everybody said push back and try to offer (Turkey) something that's a small win, possibly holding territory on the border, something like that."
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on December 21, 2018, 15:59:40



I think though, it is the way it was done.  No consultation, no warning no discussion.  It is no wonder Mattis resigned. 

All the adults in the room have left.

That could very well be it.  No matter what he chose he was going to get negative reactions.

Immediate pull out and he's abandoning allies.
Pull out in the next 2-5 years and he's dragging his feet and American soldiers will needlessly due for nothing.
Decide there's no timeline to withdraw, he doesn't have a plan and the US is wasting time there for no reason.

But ya not listening to advisors would definitely piss them off.  Just a thought though, how effective are those advisors?  Iraq and Afghanistan aren't exactly bastions of democracy, safe from terrorism.  Hasn't the US tried all kinds of different strategies there?

Maybe there is some kind of wisdom to taking a different approach-basically saying frig this were going home.
(for the record I think it's a bad decision and we're going to see violent radical extreamisim explode in the vaccum left by the US stepping back from their world police behavior)




As long as the Americans are ready for the associated loss of prestige and influence that comes with it.

Definitely. I think it's going to hurt the US economically too. They pump a lot of money into all the small crap that people don't consider. KBR has 20'000 employees and over 4 billion in yearly revenue.

Quote

None of the US actions of the past 70 years were fully out of the goods of their hearts.

Like us in Mali, but ya.



Edited again to remove fake news meme :)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Remius on December 22, 2018, 00:07:24
It took me a few minutes to dig some stuff up.  That meme photo is doctored.

Max Boot wrote this back in April: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/04/19/trump-thinks-we-can-replace-u-s-forces-in-syria-with-arab-troops-hes-wrong/?utm_term=.a4573b405f7c

I looked for the article that pic shows and can’t find it.  Closest one is from Dec 7th.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/07/trump-cant-do-anything-right-even-his-coverups-are-incompetent/?utm_term=.a269bd3b0108

I get your point but the meme is not real nor is it substantiated.  fake news as it were. likely one of many found on Facebook or reddit maybe.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on December 22, 2018, 07:23:07
It took me a few minutes to dig some stuff up.  That meme photo is doctored.



Good find dude thanks.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on December 22, 2018, 13:18:36
Interesting hypothesis.

Quote
Blackwater USA took out a full page ad in the January/February 2019 issue of "Recoil" magazine with the company's logo and a message: "We are coming."

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/12/21/mattis-is-out-and-blackwater-is-back-we-are-coming/


Maybe Trump will further privatize war.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on December 22, 2018, 19:21:21
Interesting hypothesis.


Maybe Trump will further privatize war.

Or because Eric Prince has leverage on Trump?

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/377318-mueller-evidence-shows-blackwater-founder-held-meeting-to-create
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on January 01, 2019, 12:52:57
Happy New Year!!!!  :subbies: